Friday, September 30, 2016

An Alt Left should be Pro-Western Civilisation

As stated in this Alt Left video here:

This principle, then, is important:
Alternative Left
Politics, so far confined to the internet and social media, centred around advocacy of a program of protecting Western civilization from decline due to an erosion of humanist values caused by regressive leftism.
The “regressive left” is a perversion of everything an intelligent, rational and moral left should stand for.

The “regressive left” is an outgrow of all the rotten ideas of Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism (though the influence of this is a bit exaggerated), French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology.

Fundamentally, there is an irrational and pathological hatred of Western civilisation on the regressive left, which manifests itself in the following:
(1) rejection of the very idea of objective empirical truth, and often of the idea of a rationally objective morality;

(2) hatred of the best principles of the Enlightenment;

(3) hatred of the best principles of Classical liberalism (such as free speech and free expression);

(4) in the Postmodernist tradition, a profoundly irrational hatred of modern science;

(5) the objectively false belief in extreme social constructivism, and the unhinged unwillingness to understand the biological influence on human nature and even behaviour;

(6) an extreme and vicious hatred of straight white men (derived to a great extent from Third Wave Feminism) and, quite frankly, a kind of bizarre anti-white racism and devaluation of Western civilisation, which is incapable of any balanced or fair analysis of the history of Western civilisation;

(7) the belief in open borders (partly because Western civilisation is seen as a horrible unmitigated evil and all white people seen as racist and evil);

(8) a cultural relativism that apologises for, and even excuses, the illiberal and regressive beliefs of non-Western people or cultures from the Third World (e.g., Islamism), and encourages blatant double standards in the treatment of people with different, minority cultures;

(9) following from (8), a hostility to the secular principles on which our civilisation is built, such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and even universal rule of secular legal systems.

(10) a regressive left multiculturalism that even seeks to smash up the social cohesion of Western nations, by demanding a de facto world of ethnic and religious segregation, parallel legal systems and increasing tensions between communities, and the very destruction of the national identities and even common languages that are absolutely necessary for any successful modern society to function properly.
So what does it mean to be pro-Western Civilisation?

Simple: it means to be opposed to all or most of these insane regressive left ideas.

It means the following:
(1) commitment to the concept of objective empirical truth, and hard thinking about how to have a rationally-grounded objective morality;

(2) defence of the best principles of the Enlightenment, such as a secular state and universal secular legal systems;

(3) defence of the best principles of Classical liberalism (such as free speech and free expression);

(4) defence of modern science and its empiricist method as the only rational way to obtain true knowledge, even if individual scientists can be fallible and some scientific disciplines can sometimes be corrupted by bad ideas;

(5) rejection of extreme social constructivism, and accepting the biological influence on human nature (such as, for example, the plain fact that men, generally speaking, are physically stronger than women);

(6) rejection of the bizarre regressive left anti-white racism and devaluation of Western civilisation. Instead, there should be honest and plain acknowledgement of crimes or immoral aspects of Western civilisation, but balanced with understanding of its many real positive aspects;

(7) rejection of cultural relativism and rejection of any excuses for illiberal and regressive beliefs of non-Western people or cultures from the Third World like Islamism. No double standards in the treatment of people with different, minority cultures;

(8) rejection of regressive left multiculturalism, and the recognition of the benefits of healthy civic nationalism, assimilation of immigrants to our values, and a society with a strong national identity, and a realistic and pragmatic understanding of the dangers of the ideological cult of “diversity” and mass immigration that can destroy social cohesion.
In short, these should be core principles of the social and cultural outlook of the Alt Left.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2


  1. Sorry, don't know if this reply went through. Which moral philosophy do you advocate both personally and as a foundation to the alt left? I'm loosely a consequentialist Negative Utilitarian, though not a "hard utilitarian" as I recognise other things of value in addition to the main goal of reducing unnecessary suffering as a rule of thumb.

    1. I support a secular ethics grounded in science and rationality, and a version of consequentialism which requires concern for a number of ends, including

      (1) promotion of human wellbeing

      (2) minimising suffering

      (3) promoting fairness, justice and justifiable human rights in the ends we aim at.

      Full discussion here:

  2. "such as a secular state"

    Huh, so Pat Buchanan and Peter Hitchens aren't pro-West?

    1. They would not be pro-Western civilisation if we are talking about

      (1) modern Western civilisation post-1700s as created by the best ideas of the Enlightenment and Classical liberalism, and

      (2) if they want an official Christian state interfering with people's religious freedom and imposing Christianity on people and on science, or restricting freedom of speech.

    2. He means Western civilization as transformed by the enlightenment. Theocracy has no place in that. (I am not implying those guys actually are theocrats. I am explaining what LK means by western civ)

  3. Anonymous,
    you expressed my own views better than I could have.
    I guess it is simply because it is a summary of what most people with grossly speaking the same social background would have to say about morality.
    This is fortunate because ultimate moral grounds can only be vindicated through the very definition of what morality is. Hence the hard time to seriously convince anyone who is really alien to your views.
    On the contrary what those moral rules imply and esp. what policies they suggest is both open to rational and empirical argument.
    So may be, the genuine leftists main job is to provide those rational and empirical arguments in the following form :
    Fairness and decency amount to...
    (axioms ; not sure that you can proove them, after all demonstration can not start from nothing)
    So a fair and decent society must have following properties...
    (logical deduction... ; but already open to "ontological" discussion as to what a society is, in which way it is a legitimate object of moral concern etc.)
    (something grossly akin to say Rawls framework)
    To obtain those properties it is likely that policies... are in order.
    (here is an inductive step, the arguments here are the most open to fact-based discussion and can only yield probability.
    Assessing the net effect of any single policy is really hard since most of the time the data allow more than one causal framework. So I am afraid that general guidelines is the only thing rational discussion can provide us with. Anyway real life politics is far from being even that little rational.)

    1. Yes. I think I am a rationalist at heart (an ironic statement, I know) in that I search for watertight truths and reasoning, but empiricism is vital as well due to epistemic uncertainty. This is why I prefer deductive reasoning and Karl Popper's NU as it aims to reduce the bad rather than create a utopia on shakey foundations and fundamentalist dogma (either religious or not) I'm also not a complete orthodox utilitarian because one person's pleasure should not depend upon another's needless suffering (sadism if taken to an extreme,) though this goes towards more metaphysical territory. Obviously well-being is important as well, but it is harder to define, so focusing on reducing, broadly speaking "negative states of being or conciousness", (I don't only refer to physical pain, but mental as well.) Should be a main goal. Sometimes people need small level stresses as behavioural economists have discussed. I'll check out Rawls, I've heard of him but haven't read his stuff.

  4. I'm looking at this page and at the same time listening to Jill Stein address a group of Muslims and talk about how there's no support in the Middle East for a Weapons Embargo (the US recently supplied arms to the Saudis in the Billions) and freezing their bank accounts. I think the "but they will go to China" argument doesn't have legs because 1) China is moving towards Alternative Energy sources faster than the US and 2) if that were a viable resource then they would already be there and cut the US out of the loop.

    Also, with the involvement of the US in 134 wars worldwide, it's a little hard to justify the "Those people are the aggressors" argument. Someone who says that "You can't negotiate with them because they are too naturally violent and won't listen to reason" - that person himself is the aggressor.

    How do I know this? Because I grew up during the Cold War and had the same thing fed about "those Russians" with mother's milk. The CIA would admit later on that the so-called "Soviet Threat" was a shill they concocted to direct people's attention elsewhere.Probably so we wouldn't get suspicious about COINTELPRO?

    Jill also mentioned the un-Constitutionality of the Surveillance State. On that, we're in solid agreement with Ron Paul that we already have guidelines laid down in this country for those things, and we need to pay heed to them. Believing that relaxed Immigration laws lead to Surveillance is saying you support it in principle, n'est ce-pas?

    The "Alternative Left" has already been here - it's the Chomsky/Nader/Green Party/Counterpunch brand of politics and they have the ability to get people mobilized.

    Why should they come over to what you offer? I can get the same diet of Ethnocentrism from either of the existing Neo-Con driven major parties!

    You can disagree all you want, but I'm simply telling you what you already know. I don't think you have a message that will resonate with the crowd that Bernie got mobilized this year, and that's what will make the difference in the long run.

  5. Here's another example of the "Alternative Left" in the real existing world:

  6. So far you can count me in. There must be a catch.

    When I was younger I thought myself a Kennedy (John F) liberal. Still do really. All the above was part and parcel. So was a reasonable welfare state. So of course was support for a vibrant free economy. Ahhhh, there's the catch.


  8. Also, I think it is fair to ask if in believing in "Objective Empirical Truth" and "Science" and all of that, does the Alt-Left understand academic freedom and the silencing of diverse views that have happened on our college campuses for most of the 20th Century? Do you believe in dialogue, or are you going to use the concept of "Objectivity" to only allow a certain prescribed set of views:

    The degree to which the Israeli lobby has gone to silence dissent smacks of McCarthyism of the highest order. It says to me they have something to fear from the truth getting out.

  9. Now HERE'S an example of fairness and objectivity:

    Jill Stein is calling for BOTH a boycott of Israel AND Saudi Arabia! When pressed by a CNN audience member about her consistency on these issues, the Real Realist Left shines like a polished jewel.

    1. Will she also call for a boycott of Hamas, who sponsors terrorism against innocent Israeli citizens and wants to destroy religious freedom, the freedom of speech, equal rights for women, and other such oppressions all throughout Israel?

    2. She calls for a boycott of Saudi Arabia. Did you catch that?

      Hopefully that's correct enough for you?