Where did the new left originate from?

Tl:dr foundation money

Marxist and liberal theory cannot grasp this, as according to their understanding, human actions are a result of market interactions, providence, progress, technological determinism etc. So when Marxists and liberal look at history, they look for historical developments and economic drivers for actions in history and conclude that humanity is in the process of a mechanistic development. Many writers and thinkers have pointed out the geneology of this thinking from liberalism to Marxism, and backed it up with sources and details.

The upshot of this accepted authodoxy which is pervasive in western thinking is that even when engaging in acts of sabotage which are utterly avoidable, the liberals and Marxists will still perceive their actions as being the work of providence, progress, technological determinism etc. A wonderful example of this is provided in the excellent article I linked previously regarding the foundations, which does deserve repeating:

Incredibly, foundation officers believed that Ford’s radicalization merely responded to the popular will. As Francis X. Sutton, a longtime Ford staffer, reminisced in 1989: “It took the critical populist upsurge at the end of the sixties to weaken faith that the foundation’s prime vocation lay in helping government, great universities, and research centers . . . . As the sixties wore on, the values of the New Left spread through American society and an activistic spirit entered the foundation that pulled it away from its original vision of solving the world’s problems through scientific knowledge.” The notion that the 1960s represented a “populist upsurge,” or that New Left values bubbled up from the American grassroots rather than being actively disseminated by precisely such rich, elite institutions as the Ford Foundation, could only be a product of foundation thinking.”

The new left in Liberal theory and in Marxist theory can only be explained by historical materialistic economic forces. Period. As a result they explain nothing, yet their proponents retain the air of knowing. This is seen across the board, from the attempts to explain the Arab Spring, ISIS, Terrorism, the rise of Fascism. All of it is always explained away in the same manner – some economic forces, or some disembodied concept that requires the issue at hand to be explained suing passive grammar structures and reference to forces.

For example, let’s have a look at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom on the Arab spring:

“Although there were some differences in emphasis, all of the evidence we received agreed that protests were spurred by a potent combination of economic, social, and political grievances that created “fertile grounds for dissent” and united disparate groups in opposition to their autocratic systems.”

I underlined the subject of the sentence. So we see the cause was “a potent combination of economic, social, and political grievances” and obviously not foreign intervention by NGOs and security services. But, it gets better:

“The social and political causes of the Arab Spring included resentment of authoritarian rulers that had denied freedom of expression and limited opportunities for participation in civil and political life; long-standing ’emergency laws’; a malfunctioning or absent justice system; and a repressive security state apparatus that was responsible for myriad human rights abuses, including torture and killings.”

Sure thing.

“Bell Pottinger Public Advocacy and Dr Claire Spencer, Head of the MENA programme at Chatham House, both spoke of a feeling of a lack of dignity or an insult to one’s dignity that spurred individual participation in the protests.[9] The Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a media research organisation, saw this on a national scale, speaking of “a visceral sense of national humiliation and lack of self-esteem“, stating that “In Egypt, a popular slogan was written and chanted everywhere: ‘Raise your head, you’re an Egyptian.'””

Chatham house have been busy for sometime, and this whole idea of national self-esteem and dignity is straight out of the Milner group. Nothing changes with these guys.

The summary of this analysis is that A) it was a process bubbling up from below that was a result of emergent socio-economic factors which are largely deterministic and B) a cry of anguish from the people against tyrants, whose emotions led them to revolt. These grammar subjects are not very…satisfying. I have a better, reactionary one:

Although there were some differences in emphasis, all of the evidence we received agreed that protests were spurred by power actors in conflict with each other.

Unfortunately, the only areas where useful information is captured on events such as this, is in those corners of the internet and academia where anti-“americanism” and conspiracy theories are discussed. Remember, no one is in control, nor should be in control of events. The golden rule is to deny you rule.

So, back to the New Left, Nydwracu raised the question a little while back, and the response/ conclusion was a mix of socio/economic drivers and deep state manipulation. Which is understandable, that is the only legitimate way to look at events from a Liberal and Marxist (and Fascist actually) perspective.

The reactionary perspective however is this:

Power actors in conflict with each other funded the shit out of degeneracy to further their aims and screw their enemies. It was eminently avoidable, and it was instigated from those in power, who claimed to not be in power. Not a result of forces bubbling up. Not deterministic.

Which perspective does the recorded history back up? They don’t even hide it.

Advertisements