The religion of unhappiness and outrage

I have long maintained that Leftism is prior to Marxism. Hence when the rubbish that is Marxism visibly failed, the Left barely broke stride on its way to embrace feminism, ecology, and Islam as vehicles through which they could continue the attack on civilization and the people who uphold it.

The Left is permanently outraged, and the outrage is prior to any political or religious view. It starts in outrage, and has no permanent goal. No reform will make it happy because unhappiness is its nature, and to be happy is to “sell out” to the “System”.

Hence all rational improvers and all reformers are not Leftists. The true conservative cuts the rotten branch, said Tennyson. I may disagree with some person’s mistaken view of  global warming, for instance, without thinking them Leftist.

Leftism is a soul sickness, as I define the term. “Pneumopathological” to speak Greek.

I was reminded of these truths this morning by perusal of an excellent discussion of the same topic in Front Page Magazine. “The Left’s Religion of Unhappiness”, by Daniel Greenfield. A snippet or two to entice you:

The left does not redistribute wealth. It redistributes want. It does not want everyone to share in the happiness of others, but to be burdened with a larger burden of their miseries.

The left’s greatest vulnerability is its meanness of spirit. It has suffered its worst defeats at the hands of the happy warriors of the right. Its defeat comes when its malaise is contrasted with happiness, when its deep suspicion of humanity is met with patriotic optimism and when its alarmism is met with laughter.

The reason why the Left accuses conservatives of “mean-spiritedness” is that they live that condition every day. They know it intimately, they dwell in it.  I knew these Marxist pukes in university and I have never been deceived; they are servants of evil itself, and they inwardly suspect they may be so. Badly  brought up, they need conversion to a religion of peace and love, which they fight with every breath in their bodies. Hence conversion to Islam merely justifies the hatred and does not change the animus. Their situation is hopeless, and quite serious.

Bookmark and Share

An excellent post. First you caused me to reflect about Leftism predating Marxism and it does make sense. I had never thought of it in that way. Also the description given by Daniel Greenfield is such an accurate description of the rot that is an even bigger danger to our freedom than fundamental Muslims. The latter you can see and identify if you choose while the leftists are like termites beneath the surface eating away the very foundation of the nation.

Dollops - Eric Doll

Thanks for pulling my scattered thoughts together so completely. Brings to mind the ancient explanation for such consistent bad behaviour. Proverbs 6:16-18 (Seven Deadly Sins)


I actually find its people on both extremes be if the left or right who are the nastiest while people closest to the centre less so. In Canada its only more on the left due to the fact are hard left has far more supporters than hard right. In the US I find it’s the opposite. I think a lot of the left’s nastiness is Canada has pretty much through most of its history been governed by left wing or centrist leaders and thus many are afraid of change. Also Canadians tend to have a highly communitarian view in that were all in this together which may sound nice on the surface but when you have a country of 35 million spread out over a 5,000 miles it’s pretty much impossible to do so without coercion and thus those who refuse to support what is seen as the common good are attacked without recognizing what one person sees as the common good may be different than another.

Mr Ed

Unfortunately in Both Canada and the USA because we so strongly believe in freedom of speech and equality on the right, the Left is able to play their game with impunity where the right end ups looking like thugs. As someone from the right I may choose to believe that any leader is full of bunk or be willing to debate on points or question the people on the right or left of center… the down side of this is the Left seems much more united in stupidity and blind faith in their leadership… Shiny Pony and Obama perfect examples… Romney lost partly because he said we may need to invade or deal militarily with middle eastern country’s…so why is it now okay Obama’s doing exactly that and the left is okay??? Basically, as nations, until we growup and think about what we all actually want from a gov’t we will continue to get what we deserve.

Maxwell Wolf

re: The reason why the Left accuses conservatives of “mean-spiritedness” is that they live that condition every day.

An extraordinary item from Peter Baker in the New York Times:

[WASHINGTON — President Obama must be touched by all the concern Republicans are showing him these days. As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.]

“Even”? Can it really be too difficult to recognize that citizens who strongly disagree with the president of the republic don’t want him to be murdered? Is the moral imagination of the center-left truly so barren as to presume as a matter of course that vehement and caustic political opposition must, eventually, lead to execution? What, one wonders, does Peter Baker consider are the options for the politically active in a free republic: a) you support a president unconditionally or b) you want him dead?

Baker reports that:

[“The American people want to know: Is the president safe?” Representative Darrell Issa of California, the Republican committee chairman who has made it his mission to investigate all sorts of Obama administration missteps, solemnly intoned as he opened a hearing into the lapses on Tuesday.]

Later, he suggests that “it would not be all that surprising if Mr. Obama were a little wary of all the professed sympathy.”

Frankly, it hadn’t crossed my mind that Issa — or anyone in a similar position — would feel any other way. Of course we want the president to be safe. Those who are surprised by this perhaps need to spend some more time with their ideological opponents, or — and this will be harder, I grant — spend a little more time examining what it is about their ideology that led them to conflate political opposition and violence in the first instance.


Canada’s secret war in Iraq

On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel… will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly… than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:

Read on

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *