Recently, with the proliferation of Black Lives Matter extremists and the frequent exposure of the misfortuned Western welfare system, the multicultural and political correctness, which was once regarded as “absolute perfected utopia”, has gradually become a re-discussed controversial topic by both sides of the political spectrum.
The Origin of Leftism: Individual Selfishness and Aversion to Responsibility
Although there are many branches of left-wing thoughts in today’s world, the most important forming point of their thoughts lies in two interesting philosophers: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), the main enlightener of the French Revolution, the earliest leftists political group in the history of the world, Society of Jacobin, was heavily influenced by Rousseau and implemented the earliest ethnic equality measures in modern political history; Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), modern leftists’ thoughts grew from “May 68" and a series of political movements that Sartre deeply supported, and gradually transitioned from the “decadent” person to occupying the center of the political stage, moreover Sartre was portrayed as “the conscience to the world” by his media admirers.
However, in the eyes of a person with some common sense and morality, the “humanity’s conscience” such as Rousseau and Sartre, if they pull apart the shining tablecloths that are constantly modified by their followers, they are just completely two scumbags.
French philosopher Rousseau is not only a player, but also a “good father” who discarded five of his own flesh and blood in a row. To some extent, this “France’s conscience”, under the pen of left-wing writers of later generations, is more like a gambler who sold his children to pay off his debts. The only difference is that “France’s conscience” will use its magical pen to describe his act of “throwing the child” as a “righteous act” of “protecting the reputation of the lover” and “striving for human liberation”, while a gambler with a relatively simple mind can only convert the affection of father-son into new chips on the gambling table.
To be fair, a father who abandoned his own child is quite rare, but Rousseau has abandoned five in a row, which really makes him the most thorough “selfish and cold” person, and such a person can be regarded as “France’s conscience” by left-wing authors, which actually caused me to fear leftists for a long time. However, as for what happened to the beings abandoned by Rousseau, Nothing is more appropriate than the historian Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals:
None of them (Rousseau children) have a name. They probably didn’t live long.[…] Rousseau told his lover: Abandoning the child is the only way to “defend her honor”. Howver, in fact, the only thing protected in the end was the comfort and freedom of the writer’s own life and his own disdain for his father’s responsibility.
Although Sartre did not have the astounding “feat” of Rousseau, but he and his girlfriend leftist activist Simone de Beauvoir were not inferior. This moral model regarded by many left-wing medias as the “benchmark for humanity” is so badly ruined in the most basic family ethics that it is unbearable even for the most open communities.
If you have to look at the facts closely, the “human benchmark”, written by the left-wing reporter, is probably just a hopeless hooligan. As early as the 1930s before the war, the couple Sartre and Simone began to try to play real monsters as teachers: the “human benchmark” likes to trick different female virgin students into bed, and then quickly lose interest in them. The great female partner is keen to seduce his male student and tell her lover the details of sex. At the same time, Sartre was also a fan of psychedelics and amphetamines, and was once mentally devastated by ecstasy.
Of course, like the great Rousseau, the outstanding left-wing thought leader Sartre also portrayed his sexual addiction disorder and life of drug addiction as a grand and brave feat, and described shamelessly as a exploration of “existence and nihility”.
According to decent people, the life of Sartre and Simone is actually just a combination of two drug addicts. In 1943, an angry mother filed a complaint with the court, accusing Simona and Sartre of perverting minors, being a “pimp” caused Sartre to seduce her daughter, but the case later ended up with nothing definite for various reasons.
So, what motivated leftism predecessors, such as Rousseau and Sartre, to rebel against traditional moral values?
In the first chapter of the first volume of The Social Contract, Rousseau, the originator of leftism’s thought, analyzed the most instinctive motives of his thoughts. He claimed that “Man is born free and everywhere, he is in chains”. Rousseau’s abandonment of his five children is essentially abandonment of the chains that restrain his indulgence, and this chain is the responsibility of Rousseau as a father. Rousseau thinks that he is “born free”, but “everywhere, he is in chain” is the “father’s responsibility”, “family responsibility” and “social responsibility” , as well as other traditional moral obligation, which limit his freedom.
This aversion to family and social responsibilities also appears in the life outlook of Sartre and his partner Simone. Simone described her and Sartre’s ideas in the second volume of her autobiography Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter:
“(We all think) marriage will subject people to more family responsibilities and social labor. On the contrary, the troubles in pursuit of one’s independence are far less serious than this; for me (us)… freedom exists only in the free mind and soul.”
From the core thoughts of leftism pionners, Rousseau and Sartre, the real basis of leftism’s morality lies in the absolute selfishness of the individual and the absolute aversion to family social responsibility. Rousseau ruthlessly discarded his children, regardless of their life and death; Sartre arbitrarily tricked his female students, but did not care about their destiny at all. Behind the unrestrained lives of the two “human consciences” is the absolute selfishness and absolute coldness of their human nature.
In fact, the American “Anti-Vietnam War” movement that began in 1964 and the “May 68" in Paris, marked the movement of modern left ideology toward the center of the political arena, precisely reflecting the core values of left-wing ideology . The anti-war movement in the United States is a political movement triggered by young Americans evading military service; the direct cause of the “May 68” erupted was a French university students’ resistance to the ban on the entry of male students in female dormitories by the Ministry of Education. What these two movements themselves resist is the restraint of social responsibility and family responsibility on individuals, that is, a new generation of Western young people who are more selfish than their fathers. Their only appeal under the beautiful packaging is to break free of the constraints imposed on them by morality, obligations and responsibilities.
The most famous slogan in the French May 68and the American anti-Vietnam War movement, “Make love, not war” actually reflects the abandonment of social responsibility and the pursuit of personal desires. Among today’s left-wing politicians in Europe and the United States , many were influenced by the “May 68” and the American anti-war movement.
“Politically correct”: Ensuring the “Morality” of the Unethical
Whether it is Rousseau or Sartre, if viewed in accordance with traditional morals, they are unscrupulous rogues and villains; whether it is the rogue students in the May 68 (this movement was immediately opposed by the majority of conservative French people), or the cowardly young man who evaded military service in the anti-Vietnam War movement (according to the former US Secretary of State Kissinger, most Americans have always supported the United States to participate in the Vietnam War). Under traditional morality, compared with their fathers, they are, in fact, all selfish people who seriously lack family ethics and social responsibility.
Fortunately, the most indispensable of these betrayers of traditional morality is the ability of using beautiful words to cover up their mistakes.
Rousseau used his clever philosophical conception to describe his move to abandon his five children as a brave act of breaking the shackles of humanity, and in return accused the public opinion of trying to restrain him with family morals and “father’s responsibility”: a decaying and dirty cage. Sartre used his important philosophical work “Being and Nothingness” to promote his “existentialism” creed, and beautify his shameless lifestyle into the practice of “real freedom”. Those young hippie Americans, who tried to escape military service, and lazy Paris college students, interpreted their selfish motives subtly as a yearning for peace and a desire for freedom.
Addionnally, in order to advertise that they are more moral than the guardian of traditional morality, the pioneers of leftism— Rousseau who threw away five flesh, Sartre who seduced students, hippies who escaped military service, and Paris university students who wanted to mix men and women — proposed some new ethical codes that sound more hierarchical but essentially contrary to common sense.
After throwing away five flesh and blood, Rousseau claimed to be a defender of “risk”, saying that he always put the rights of citizens first at all times. Sartre continued to lure different female students and then thought that he would be fighting for the conscience of the whole world, in order to reflect his absolute tolerance and justice, he even abandoned his motherland and expressed his support for the Algerian Islamic Jihad fighters to attack the French army. The young deserters of the United States not only regarded the Viet Cong as warriors, who resistance to American hegemony, but also described themselves as the promoters of the “multicultural and ethnic equality” movement that helped black people resist racial oppression. The techniques of the May 68 youth in Paris were similar.
However, how can the selfish Rousseau, who can’t even practice the most basic responsibility of a father for his children, have a real sense of responsibility for society? How can the lascivious Sartre, who is unwilling to assume responsibility for his lover, have a sincere affection for all mankind? How can a cowardly young American, who refuses the basic obligations of citizens by deception, have the faith to build a peaceful world? How can a youth in Paris May 68, who even ignores the most basic social ethics,can about the morality of mankind?
In fact, these rebellions are not surprising. This is because the multi-cultural, affirmative movement, anti-authority and other left-wing moral vocabulary that became popular in the 1960s, is essentially a cover-up for selfish individuals to evade basic moral responsibility.
The Essence of Leftism Virtue: False Morality Without Commitment
The essence of virtue lies in responsibility, and responsibility is a boring and unpleasant obligation that requires long-term commitment.
The virtues of traditional values are based on specific responsibilities. The virtue of “good son” can only be rooted in the behavior of treating parents well and fulfilling the responsibilities of the son of man over the years; the virtue of “good father” can only be derived from a father who has fulfilled the responsibility of raising children over the years. The same is true for “good husband”, “good wive” and “good citizen”, all based on specific responsibilities.
But leftist morality is different, if such morality can be considered moral.
On the one hand, compared with traditional morality, leftist morality is characterized by abandonment of social responsibility and pursuit of personal reputation.
As we have seen, Rousseau, Sartre, the American Vietnam deserters who set off the anti-war movement, and the survivors of the May 68, their ideological connotations represent the rebellion of the family and social responsibilities they must shoulder. These people enjoy the nurturing of the family and society, but do not want to be bound by the corresponding obligation contract. At the same time, they also want to get a higher reputation, so they propose a new moral, a way to get a better reputation without the responsibility of the individual.
In the Middle East refugee crisis in 2015, the different opinions and corresponding experiences of the people with different moral values actually reflected the no-cost advantage of leftist morality compared with traditional morality: Left-wing people, who advocate unlimited acceptance of Muslim refugees, do not assume the corresponding long-term responsibilities for security, economy, and society, but can logically derive the elegant moral reputation. Behind this kind charity is irresponsibility to the country, communities and families. However, for the families, the communities and the countries, who hold a strong sense of responsibility for the traditional values, have to worry about the threats that come with them, and they are also criticized for being notorious as “Nazis” or “Fascists”.
In fact, compared to the poor people of its own country, the leftists are more keen on paying attention to Middle Eastern refugees, not because of their nobility, but because caring about the former is just a boring obligation that needs to be fulfilled for a long time in traditional values — even if, long-term efforts can hardly be regarded as noble, and caring for Middle Eastern refugees, who have nothing to do with them can easily be packaged as noble virtues, which is a moral shortcut to earn reputation through extremely low cost. Therefore, certain phenomena that go against common sense become logical: the farther the irrelevant people (things) are, the more they can get the attention of the leftists, and the closer people are, the harder they are to get the attention of the leftists.
On the other hand, compared with traditional morality which emphasizes obscurity and long-term contribution, leftist morality emphasizes on the whim of handy actions and carefully planned decorations.
From the perspective of traditional values, without long-term specific and trivial contributions and commitment to family social responsibilities, it is almost impossible for an individual to become a moral model under traditional values.
Talking isn’t doing. It is a kind of good deed to say well; and yet words are not deeds. — William Shakespeare
However, leftist morality is completely different. In all aspects, Rousseau’s true life has nothing to do with morality, but this great rhetoric writer can portray himself as a loyal and unswerving person through the touching romance novel “The New Heloise”; to be fair, Sartre’s sense of responsibility is extremely short-lived. He can write a love letter to another woman immediately after walking off the incense bed of a lover, but this great thinker can describe this animal-like sexual behavior as the “existentialist view of love”, which even used it to modify his and Simone’s fornication into an admirable model of love; similarly, American youths who evaded military service in the Vietnam War constructed their cowardice as a yearning for peace; the young people of the May 68 in France did the same thing.
Leftist Moral: The Appearance of The Cancer of Civilization
Traditional ethics require practitioners to take responsibility for the family and the community and make contributions on this basis. Only on the basis of the contributions made by each member based on traditional morality can the family be happy, can the community develop, and can the civilization progress. This is also the key to traditional morality that is boring but enduring.
However, leftist morality plays the opposite role. As a low-cost morality, leftist morality provides an excellent ladder to glory for smart people who don’t want to make many years of hard work, but are greedy for fame. This kind of morality is essentially a deception that overdrafts social moral resources, that is, the opportunist preaching the highest moral slogan allows other people in the community to bear the burden caused by it, and then earn the best moral reputation from it.
Like lazy people who preach extreme welfare politics and reap without sowing, leftist morality is essentially a kind of fraud that selfish people preach for not working. If extreme welfare politics is the exploitation of hardworking people, then leftist morality is a deception to honest people. Therefore, a country that has implemented welfare politics consumes other people’s contributions to the country, and there will be fewer and fewer industrious people; a community that practices leftist morality will overdraw others’ feelings for the community, which will result in more and more hypocritical people.
In Western European society today, the most important reason why ordinary people dare not stand up against the refugee policy is that they are afraid of embarrassement. This essentially shows that they lack a sense of responsibility for their relatives, families, communities, and countries.
Therefore, whether it is an extreme welfare society or Baizuo morality, it is a product that only appears when a civilization is declining, that is, social individuals become: they only care about their own wealth and reputation, not the future of their families and communities; I only consider my own income, but I am not willing to pay accordingly. In this atmosphere, the wealth and power of civilization will gradually dry up and eventually die out.
1917 Petrograd Soviet Order №1
During the February Revolution, in order to win the moral supremacy and defeat the Constitutional Liberal Party, with the support of the left-wing leader Kerensky, the executive chairman of the Russian Soviet Conference, issued “Order №1”. The order allowed, “Russian soldiers can to reject the command of the officer, “The soldier’s weapons are in the control of the soldier committee, and the officer has no right to intervene.”
Under the impetus of this order, the Russian army was soon paralyzed. The soldiers helped with the red rope from the chest at the beginning, to the opening of the military uniform, and then to the looting bandits. The Russian order and the army were paralyzed, and eventually caused the collapse of the provisional government.
The Natural Enemy of Civilization
There are many evil deeds in the world that betray morals, but none of them is more harmful than the evil deeds that destroy morals. This is the case with leftist’s destructive effect on society.
Rape, murder, robbery, and fraud only violated social morality, but leftism destroyed social morality itself. Through ingenious rhetoric and exaggeration of selfishness, leftist can often package their cheap performances without paying any price as the embodiment of the highest morals; through wanton attacks on family and community values, leftist often treat these most basic moral and ethics as oppression and cages of personality. This satisfies smart people who are opportunistic and selfishly loves names, as well as benevolent, naive and superficial fools, and ultimately destroy the moral foundation on which a civilization depends.
In fact, the progress and prosperity of a civilization depends not only on its material strength, but also on normal morality and ethics. A society that encourages parasites is impossible to progress; a civilization yearning for cheap morals cannot be maintained. The selfish leftism morality is essentially the AIDS of civilization. It will destroy the instinct of civilization to distinguish right from wrong, and make minor illnesses develop into incurable diseases. Therefore, criticizing leftism is not only an attack on leftisms, but also the salvation of civilization itself. After all, leftism’s victory is the defeat of civilization, and leftim’s defeat is the victory of civilization.
