Across history, the few strong have always ruled the many weak. Human nature dictates that we will choose to follow people more powerful than us.

Starting with some of the ideas from intellectuals like Plato and Thomas More, Karl Marx emphasized the idea that people would live in coexistence with each other if everyone were to abolish private property.

Rightism isn’t an ideal, but leftism is. Most of it comes through how all right-wing thinking fits easily into existing religions and conservative social structures.

Public Goods

Unfortunately, Marx’s assertion doesn’t address the tragedy of the commons. If everything is publicly used, everyone can use it but nobody wants to maintain it.

The typical solution would be to then create rules that mandate the upkeep of something. However, like any other rules, people can cheat at them. Plus, the enforcer of the rules will have an unequal power over the person using the thing.

Making rules never gets anywhere with human desire. When something becomes illegal, it becomes a black market. If private property is illegal, people will simply hide what they feel is “theirs”.

The entire conflict of private property comes from where leftists believe evil comes from. The claim, generally is that evil people in power are trying to control everything (“means of capital”), so they make structures like religion and corporations to keep people compliant with conventional concepts of morality.

Leftists are completely correct that most social movements have been power games, and most of our culture is defined by it. However, they don’t often realize they’re merely adhering to another religion that subordinates to a vision of the State running everything.


The concept of a State that runs society requires believing that people can’t run themselves. Thus, specialized experts can run their lives more productively and people will be happier and find meaning from their needs being met.

This also applies to geopolitical events. The general pattern is that large groups can be run by administrators in other large groups instead of permitting human nature to wrestle it out in a free market.

This presumption, however, implies all things can be known. Empirically, the more we know, the more we’re aware of what we don’t know. Thus, to have overseers directing people to performing specific tasks (which they may not want to do) is far less reliable than each person working their own task while competing against their peers for personal gain.


People don’t care about inequality, but care tremendously about being cheated, especially when the cheaters got away with it. Most leftist leaders blame their opponents in power for every social issue. Unlike religion, though, they don’t tend to treat it as a general human moral issue, but more an issue with bad leadership where they’re the solution.

They do this with many well-placed choices of language that separate people into a variety of classes:

  • Systemic racism
  • Social justice
  • Inequality/equity
  • Intersectionality

The promises from leftist leaders create an image of complete equality of outcome. This contrasts very strongly with the natural law view of humanity’s inherent equality of essence because it requires constant redistribution of power.


People must operate on a few presumptions to believe the promises of leftist thought leaders:

  1. Humanity is inherently good. All evil is a product of victimhood. Evil decisions started with people oppressing other people innocently, and humanity can save itself without inner transformation.
  2. There is no absolute morality or truth. The State defines justice, not God.
  3. Everyone is either a victim in need of rescuing or an oppressor who must be stopped. Attacking the oppressor will morally balance it.
  4. Even with central control, free-market economies don’t work because people don’t want the right things. They must be told or steered toward desiring the right things.
  5. Once the new leftist leadership is in power, goodness will prevail. This sharply contrasts with anything the current leadership are deciding or doing.

The practical effect of leftism is that the government should receive power to give the better results of the stronger to the weaker. Thus, everyone will have the same things. Their reasoning is that ordered justice is more important than the chaotic nature of many opportunities, which is a product of disbelieving in natural law.

Since power is pretty much how we accomplish any purpose, government should have some involvement with everything a person can choose to do.

Naturally, many people in the lower and lower-middle classes will find this attractive, but many various demographics will have reason to imagine they could profit from a leftist revolution:


The breakdown in this system involves the transactions. Every Marx-like revolution has resulted in the upper class having their things taken away, but the system has always been corrupt enough that the poorest people never seem to get those things.

Further, once the new government is in place, nobody creates with the same passion they had compared to before. Once self-interested purpose is completely removed, people would only work harder out of love for others, but that goes against human nature to not have personal gain mixed into it somewhere. Thus, the government must force people to work harder, which over time creates a cycle of society that forces everyone into a form of slavery.

Leftist government models also tend to give at least some of the overseers a centralized and unchecked authority. As long as people are human, we can’t trust any individual to not be evil, and the only way to cycle them out is through war or elections.

Historically, leftism hasn’t had a safe track record. In the last 150 years, more people have been killed for political reasons (including religious persecution) in leftist countries than almost all other written history combined. Leftist thought leaders tend to refer to an ideal instead of historical basis, but the model has consistently fails in practice, from the Mayflower Pact onward.

Most leftist apologists state that it’s a working system that simply needs more re-engineering. However, most efforts to adapt leftism distort its image more than changing its model. Thus, it stays the same even as it keeps renaming and re-branding.


The leftist narrative has expanded itself in recent history. Instead of merely calling low-income people the “oppressed”, it has classified society in other directions.

The most prominent form of classification comes through identity politics. Instead of grouping people by their financial “oppressor” status (i.e., poor proletariat vs. wealthy bourgeois), every person is demarcated by additional oppressive states of existence:

  • Race – Whites are the oppressor class of every other race, especially dark skin, with an occasional Asian demarcation included as part of the ruling class.
  • Gender – males dominate females.
  • Sexual orientation – Heterosexuals dominate homosexuals, transgender, etc.
  • Ethnicity – Western European/American culture dominates all other cultures.
  • Ability – fully able-bodied oppress the disabled.
  • Mental state – Neurotypicals oppress the neurodivergent.
  • Nationality – fully naturalized citizens oppress foreigners.
  • Housing – property owners oppress renters and the homeless.
  • Metabolism – slim people oppress average and fat people.

In practice, this means that the greatest authority on just about any subject is a Black, Native-American Muslim Palestinian transgender who was a refugee from Israel, of African colonial descent, whose ancestors were slaves, raised in the ghetto, formerly incarcerated, with ASD and recurring PTSD, anxiety issues, substance addiction, morbidly obese and vegan, with an alcoholic mother and no father, who never finished high school and has never had a job.

By stating someone is born into a lesser class, everyone is a personalized victim in need of rescuing that nobody can legitimately understand. However, they tend to dismiss how much we all have in common and are insanely prejudiced against an oppressor class (i.e., heterosexual white neurotypical males).

Under identity politics, the claim is that a specific person is more fit to lead only by virtue of their race, gender, ethnicity, or whatever. It doesn’t consider other elements like aptitude, experience, or wisdom. In effect, it’s bigoted favoritism.

Often, their claims of divisions are poorly placed. Racism and gender, for example, hasn’t ever had as much impact on demarcating groups and social trends as ethnic discrimination.

The concept of “diversity” mixes into the identity politics debate. But, they tend to mean diversity of background more than modes of thought.

Having both diversity of thought and culture is absurdly difficult because long-standing cultures tend to publicly assault thoughts that extend beyond a certain difference from them. Take the most ethnically diverse group of people, put them together, and within months they’ll form a culture that can easily eject ideas that “diverse” group doesn’t like.

The ideal domain is a diversity of thought, which requires constant organizational change, but it would mean an organization that also questions the shortcomings of leftist ideals as well.


Another topic the left has adopted is the story that humanity is destroying nature. The claim has moved around, but the general idea is that carbon emissions cause instability in the climate, which can cause extreme weather conditions.

There are a few realities (mostly scientifically proven) that conflict with the climate apocalypse story:

  • Nature has many self-correcting systems built into it that offset technological waste (e.g., radiation/oil-eating bacteria, increased plant populations in high-carbon areas).
  • Water and every aspect of it (e.g., river/lake depths, cloud formation, ocean salinity) has a much more direct connection to climate systems than carbon.
  • Many of the things regarded as “bad” (e.g., plastic) are naturally-occurring substances that don’t necessarily create adverse conditions for the environment, contrary to the image most environmentalists like to advance.
  • If God exists and this planet matters to him/her/it in the slightest, then this world is safely managed even if we can’t see it. If macro-evolution is true, anything we destroy or subdue is simply the survival of the fittest (with us being the fittest). If neither are true, then we have no cosmology and should therefore stop bothering with sweeping political concepts.
  • Humanity itself finds creative ways to adapt, even when established civilizations collapse from a climate change (e.g., a river that served as a major trade route for a capital city drying up).

However, leftists can still politicize the weather because people are afraid from uncertainties about what really runs the universe:

  • The risks of climate change shift with political fashions. Sometimes it’s global warming, and other times global cooling, and usually stays vague while implying it’s a political opponent’s fault.
  • They claim that our water supply is diminishing. In reality, we have technology to desalinate any water we need if our water supply became scarce enough.
  • They’ve claimed that man-made industrialization is causing the environment to permanently get cooler or hotter beyond normal cycles. However, a large volcano causes more emissions in a few hours than 100 years of industrialization, and stopping the industry (such as COVID-19) brings everything back within months.
  • One of the most common claims connected to climate change is that our population on this planet can grow to the point of taking all the planet’s resources. Their call is often to depopulate or curtail population, but technology has always solved problems as they’ve arisen and generational cultures have a natural disposition to slow down on reproducing (i.e., having only 1-3 children) when the population reaches a certain density.

The climate change story is ubiquitous for a simple, broader reason. We’re very good at predicting future problems, but terrible at predicting solutions to those problems. Plus, we feel more inclined to believe things we have control over can fix our problems more.

The cure is more abstract: give more education to more people for them to invent better technology. This requires more free information, not fewer people, and government grants oriented toward sustainability will quickly create a bureaucratic mess. Shrinking families, abortions, genocide, or any other form of population control almost always veers dangerously close to evil or, at the very least, making the lower classes angry at their suppressed freedoms.

While most leftists don’t realize it, the leadership of the far left heavily endorses climate change because it’s a creative method to gain more power. By closely tracking someone’s “carbon footprint”, they can see exactly where someone goes, what they do, who they interact with, and often deduce with somewhat reliable accuracy what they’re thinking.


Many leftist leaders adapt language to fit their purposes:

  • “Economic inequality” can refer to “reducing poverty” or “getting rid of rich people”.
  • “Climate change” can refer to either “man-made climate change”, “man-made, adverse climate change”, or “all climate change”, depending on the circumstances.

Most of the time, the Left uses shame to advance their choice of words. Often, if they lose an election in their favor, they protest and break things.

Now, with technology, the Left has the power to direct conversations with social media. While any large group with a dysfunctional desire can control conversations, leftism has been successfully doing it for decades.


Leftward thinking often leads to disasters. For the sake of the Party, people will use vulgarities and violence. Mentally unwell people will destroy beautiful things, technology, and priceless creations. It’s all justified in their mind for what they perceive as a greater good.

Attacking someone because they attacked you is two wrong actions, or at the very best one wrong action and a retaliation. Nothing good comes of it, but the scope of the actions can destroy quite a lot. However, the Left frequently uses evil-for-evil to justify a political revolution.

A leftist requires more faith in the government than their own perceptions, strength, or common sense. For that reason, successful people never sincerely believe in leftism (even if they say they do) because it requires confronting and overcoming personal challenges.

A perfect society has the claimed actions of leftism, but is driven by love. Without that love, any leftward government is a totalitarian dictatorship under another name.

Leftism is an inherently political religion, and absolutely everything connected to the human experience can be affected by it.

Since it challenges viewpoints, diversity of thought requires frequent discomfort from everyone involved. It’s necessary for the good life and would be ubiquitous in a perfect society, but leftism shuns it.

The Left constantly redefines itself. The only time it ever succeeds is when people aren’t educated about its history or methods.

By principle of leftism’s ideal, left-leaning people tend to hate a few things:

Many people may feel guilt from past sins, but the Left tries to shame people against decisions on that premise. Morality aside, it’s unreliable to lead anyone that way, since they’ll defy orders if they ever have convictions that aren’t directed to the Party.

At its farthest, leftism is a cult, even though it does a great job marketing itself as a moral movement.

DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and ESG (environmental, sustainability, and governance) are managerial-class implementations of leftist ideologies.