The Death Morality of the Left

Colin Liddell

One of the chief characteristics of modernity is a departure from traditional morality, but merely deviating from such morality does not mean the abnegation of that morality, which is founded on eternal truths. Rather it is a form of negative affirmation of that morality. Therefore we should not be surprised that such deviation creates a strong sense of moral inferiority among those who choose that path, and thus impels a desperate need to offset it and reset the moral balance.

This simple psychological equation can be used to explain much of what we see in Leftism and why the extreme Left tends to attract the viler kinds of human being.

Consider the case of Liam Ineson, a member of the so-called Unite Against Fascism (sic) organization who was jailed “indefinitely” in 2012 for raping a four-year-old girl.


Ineson until proven guilty?

In order to carry out such an act, Ineson would have had to have been an incredibly loathsome individual to start with. Why then was he also a member of an organization like the UAF, whose deluded members, for the most part, see themselves engaged in a deeply moral crusade to oppose the “unspeakable evil” of Fascism that is apparently stalking the land in the guise of Nigel Farage or old ladies who aren’t quite comfortable with the new metropolitan consensus on gay marriage?

I am quite willing to believe that Ineson was sincere in both aspects of his personality. On the one hand he had a sincerely depraved desire to rape a four-year-old girl, but I suspect he was also entirely sincere in his chosen delusion that he was opposing “evil fascism” by not washing, turning up at poorly-attended demos, and committing petty acts of hooliganism. Moreover the one aspect of his persona probably fuelled the other in a forlorn attempt to achieve some kind of moral balance, proving once again that two wrongs certainly don’t make a right.

It is no coincidence that the kind of left-wing student activism that we see in organizations like the UAF – and many other Leftist organizations in the past (CND, the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Apartheid movement, the anti-vivisectionist movement, etc.) emerged at the very moment that the old moral order was breaking down.

These movements were synchronous and symbiotic with that moral breakdown and helped facilitate it.

It is also no coincidence that this kind of moral activism happens in the Oedipal phase of people’s lives, i.e. that little “personal 1960s” when people in their teens or early twenties, and still dependent on their parents, seek increasing “moral” independence. Part of this process often involves adopting sexual and substance lifestyles that go both against their parents and traditional morality.


Leftists: self abnegating and selfish at the same time.

What we see, therefore, on the macro scale in the 20th-century and on the micro scale in a particular period of individuals’ lives, is not moral abnegation but negative affirmation of pre-existing morality and a resultant sense of moral deficit.

In the 1960s, as the boomer generation rejected conventional morality, they simultaneously felt a sense of moral inferiority and had to find compensatory mechanisms. This explains much of the appeal of Leftist causes to this generation and to subsequent generations of errant youth. To the Leftist causes already referred – the UAF, CND, Civil Rights, Anti-Apartheid, animal rights – others can be added: anti-War movements, environmentalism, Occupy Wall Street, feminism, gay rights, fair trade, gay marriage, gender deconstructionism, etc., etc.

Some of these have a degree of validity and some don’t, but the key characteristic that motivates people to support these causes is their ability to provide a strong moral pay-off.

At this point we come to an important crux, which is: Why are Leftist causes able to generate a stronger moral glow than Rightist ones?

The answer is actually quite simple. It is because the essence of morality is death, or to translate into less loaded language an absence of one’s self. Rightist views by contrast, for the most part, partake of Life, being based typically on freedom (individualism), merit (another form of individualism), family, and nation, all things through which we can live and realize ourselves.

As a nationalist, I get a certain moral buzz out of sacrificing my own personal good and even family interests to serve the good of my people. This is the nearest I get to the glowing sense of moral righteousness that the typical Leftie routinely feels. But my lack of self is still on behalf of my people’s interests. Thus there is still quite a considerable element of selfishness and self interest.

The fact that I believe the interests of the planet, humanity in general, and intelligent life in our corner of the universe are tied up with the fate of the European race, however, helps me to feel a greater moral buzz than if I were a mere Black nationalist or some Aborigine campaigning for more handouts and moral signalling from the Australian government.

The moral sense in its purest form has a death instinct about it. Think of Horatio at the bridge, Mucius Scaevola, the Christian martyrs, or the Japanese kamikaze pilots.


Gaius Mucius Scaevola and Lars Porsena.

But even the petty sexual morality of the past had a little of this quality.

This self abnegation, which is the essence of the moral instinct, is something that runs deep in the White and some other races, and seems in a certain sense to be an evolutionary adaptation that once served us well. But in the hands of the Left it has been perverted into a severe dysfunction.

The key characteristic of Left-wing causes, especially since the New Left of the 1960s, is their relative absence of — and indeed negation of — direct self-interest. I would even go so far as to say that something like trade unionism, which was designed to help the poor and used to better their lot, was actually a right wing movement that accidentally got mixed up with leftism. In its modern form Leftism is essentially a nihilistic credo in a way that Buddhism can only dream about.

This is why Leftists will fret about cetaceans on the other side of the world, put the interests of Third World immigrants well above their own, and froth at the mouth for gay marriage when hardly any gays even want to get “married.” It may be a good thing to save large aquatic animals you may never see, but how many save-the-whalers remain indifferent to abuses closer at hand? The fact is that the typical Leftist cause today has almost nothing to do with the interests of the typical leftist, except to provide a strong hit of misplaced, disembodied moralism.

Farage egger

What egged this man on to attack Nigel Farage?

But what kind of person most needs such a junkie rush of righteousness? Ironically it is the type that is most abandoned to his selfish and hedonistic impulses wherever these have lead him – teenage wankers, college kids into drugs, moral cowards in awe of their parents, confused homosexuals, or depraved perverts, like Ineson.

This is a type that has been mass produced by modernity, a type that craves the pure rarefied moralism that flows out of pointless Left wing causes like open borders, ethnomasochism, and antifa. That is why the Left gives off that peculiar stench of self-abnegation mixed with utter selfishness.

Originally published at Alternative Right 2.0 on the 23rd May, 2014


  • I’m glad this one was re-posted; I somehow missed it the first time around.

    “Why are Leftist causes able to generate a stronger moral glow than Rightist ones?
    The answer is actually quite simple. It is because the essence of morality is death, or to translate into less loaded language an absence of one’s self. Rightist views by contrast, for the most part, partake of Life, being based typically on freedom (individualism), merit (another form of individualism), family, and nation, all things through which we can live and realize ourselves.”

    I’m sure that to some normie off the street this must sound outlandish, but it’s true. The more you think through leftist morality, the less compelling it is. One of the best ways to look at it is as a perverse survival strategy.

    Universalism is the essence of the Left. Diversity, pluralism, individuality, or whatever buzzwords they use are all smokescreens (to they themselves as well as to us). The basic leftist bargain, in the end, is the sacrifice of individual identity for the sake of security. To be an individual is to be separate and different from others. Which is is to have separate and different interests from others, which is to risk conflict, a conflict in which you might lose and be destroyed.

    The Leftist sees this danger and decides the answer is that we should all be the same, or at least see ourselves as the same. We should all join into one group. If we are all part of the same group, there can be no second group to come along and attack us (or oppress us or whatever). To the Rightist, by contrast, the vulnerability that comes with being a separate and different group is worth the risk because being separate and different is the whole point of the group.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Pingback: The Death Morality of the Left |

  • I think there’s a dawning realization that all the “gaps” aren’t closing. Feminists, blacks, gays and Muslims are invested in closing various achievement gaps compared to white men. After embarking on this project over 60 years ago and driving countries into debt and/or oblivion and entire careers and basing one’s very identity on the belief that white men aren’t really superior and that white women aren’t intrinsically better looking and desirable than other race’s women there is a growing horror that it could all be wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  • Pingback: De Nachtwakers raden aan – Week 38 – De Nachtwakers