Hoyt Defies the Empire of Lies

On the feast day of St. Catherine de Ricci, an Incorruptable, Feb 13, Sarah A Hoyt has penned a fascinating piece on the decision to speak the truth while dwelling in the Empire of Lies: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/02/13/and-shame-the-devil/

To speak or not to speak?

Imagine that you are in a situation where everything you hear around you, all the points of accepted truth are carefully manufactured from above.  From your own experience, from the things you’ve seen yourself, you know that they’re not true.

Can you say anything?

Of course you can’t.  People will think you’re crazy.  In fact, you might start thinking you’re crazy yourself.

For years I seesawed on this point.  I knew that there were things I’d seen, things I’d lived through that no one in the US would believe if told (I imagine it’s much like someone who is for a democratic government in the Arab world now trying to tell the truth in the US about the Arab Spring.  Even with blogs, unless he’s very lucky, people will think he’s crazy or a supporter of a repressive regime.  Because everyone they hear about the Arab Spring tells them how chocolatesprinklesawesome it was.  And how it was populist and pro-democracy.) Heck, most people in Portugal, save the few who’d been there with me would believe it. And even SOME of those had gone into believing in the official version.  Because it’s easier.  Because then you don’t feel crazy.  And even if you can’t bring yourself to believe in it, you talk as if you do, in public, because you don’t want anyone to think you’re crazy.

This subtle disconnect followed me to the US, where I found that to get ahead in life you needed to be as far left as you could be, or at least make noises like you were, and yet where every single TV show and TV report and book and magazine shouted that the left was downtrodden and the right firmly in control of government and everything else.  Oh, and the rich were all right wing.  (Guys, for those people who are my age, this was never the truth.  Not even in Europe.  The rich are more likely to be extreme left.  And it’s not guilt.  It’s that they know what is the end result of communism:  a sort of techno feudalism. They want that.  In its end stage, communism is a complete reversal of the anti-nobility revolutions of the eighteenth century.  And that’s why the upper classes support it.  By their fruits, etc, as a wise man once said.)

By all means read the whole thing.

Let us first say Bravo to the courageous heart of Hoyt, but also shed of tear of farewell for the days now long past.

In my youth, which perhaps is not so far past, her kind of talk was everywhere. Everyone said one should defy the odds and defy the world to speak truthfully and think sanely. The whole idea of doublethink, political correctness, and self-imposed bafflegab was a matter of mockery: something done by lunatic Soviets in the East, or deliciously skewered by George Orwell in a brief novel of nightmarish gallows humor. Doublethink was not something Americans did. Hating the Truth was not something a Christian nation did.

Those days are gone.

Ironically, she is braver than I am. I was never faced with a choice nor suffered the temptation not to speak the truth. It does not require any courage on my part to defy them: there is nothing to defy. There is no argument to counter.  There is no ‘there’ there. They are hollow men. I stand on the battlefield with my sword unsheathed, and I see their tattered banners but no one beneath them. There is no one to fight. I am alone.

You might wonder if I have lost sales due to my intransigent and uncompromising outspokenness. Well, I might wonder if I have any intransigent and uncompromising outspokenness, when compared, let us say, to Socrates. The answer is that I do not.

What I say is merely normal, merely common sense, merely traditional wisdom, and it would be true whether I said it or not, so I might was well say it.

Lost sales? I do not want the money of people I cannot entertain with my humble space operas, because that would not be fair. I may not be one of the metal-faced steel-eyed adulterers so admired by Ayn Rand, but, like them, I do try to give value for value.

And it is not the case that I could entertain the sad and demented gargoyles we call Leftists and choose not to: I could not entertain them even if I would. It is merely the case that to the normal, the abnormal is abnormal, whereas to the abnormal, the normal is abnormal.

My jokes don’t strike them as funny; my heroes don’t inspire their admiration; my villains do not make them shiver and hiss; my visions of the future do not expand their imagination. Leftists do not approve of things like jokes and heroes and villains and visions.

Gollum cannot eat the bread of elves because his tongue is as corrupted as the rest of him: all good things and fine are naught but dust and ashes.

*   *   *

Now you might object that not all Leftists are so far gone. They are human, like us, and love and laugh and have the same ideals and therefore can sing the same songs, and those shared things all men have, falling in love, seeing a sunrise, rejoicing in a new birth, we share with them.

To that I answer that the Shadow has spread wide, and some are merely on its edges, some nearer its empty heart, and some are falling toward the core from one direction or another, and some are inching away, and most are only in the twilight at the edges. There is no one at the heart of the Shadow: nothing could live there.

Nothing lives there because Leftism is not a political philosophy or a way of thinking; it is a social mechanism for enforcing uniformity of opinion, and a psychological mechanism for accusing others of one’s own flaws in order to award oneself unearned moral superiority.

In order to be logically self consistent, a Leftist would have to reject all values, all thought, all life, and accuse all things. No one can do this. Hence, there is no such thing as a pure Leftist, a complete Leftist or a logically-consistent Leftist for the same reason that there is no such thing as a disease without an underlying organism at one time healthy which contracted the disease. The Leftist embraces hypocrisy, and accuses some things and not others, some people and no others, even though logic sees no difference between what is pardoned and what is condemned.

They are all illogical, all arbitrary, all hypocrites, because no one can consistently serve an anti-human death cult and remain alive. A consistent Leftist, wild with overpopulation fears, would kill himself on the instant by withholding his breath, so as not to breathe out carbon dioxide and ruin the world. An inconsistent Leftist spend his life accusing others of the dangers of imaginary environmental disasters, and flies around in a jet, lives in an energy-absorbing mansion, and so on.

So when I speak of ‘Leftism’ I speak of the idea, or, to be precise, the anti-idea. I do not speak of the people semi-loyal to that idea. And all Leftist people are only semi-loyal.

Because they are semi-loyal, they can still take a vacation from Leftism, and indulge in those things of which Leftism disapproves: escapism, adventure, romance, knights slaying dragons, super-scientists destroying vile invaders with super-weapons, spacefarmboys saving space-princesses, and so on.

Occasionally a fit of Leftism possesses them, and they accuse, and accuse, and accuse, and say that romance is sexist and dragon-slaying is ecologically unsound and super-weapons are fascist and portraying invaders as vile is racist and saving space princesses is classist and lookist and sexist AND racist, especially if the space princess and the farmboy are both Caucasian.

While the fit is on, they are lost to science fiction, and indeed lost to all literature, high and low, and all poetry and epic, vulgar or Latin.

But the fit can pass. To the degree that a reader is loyal to some Leftist talking points and nonsense-phrases but disloyal to others, to that degree honest story-telling can still reach him and entertain him: but it is entertaining him qua his common humanity not qua his Leftism, which is decidedly and deliberately anti-human.

And being on the Left does not protect a writer from accusation. They eat their own.

 

 

 

13 Comments

  1. Comment by sparrow:

    As a scientist, I feel the social oppression of the left at work on occasion. It’s modest where I am now but it has definitely influenced my career.

  2. Comment by sparrow:

    I’m in cancer research now which is generally honest serious work. It’s climate science that’s hopelessly political.

    • Comment by CPE Gaebler:

      I gather than the sciences with direct practical application, like materials science for instance, are much less likely to be taken over by political or philosophical nonsense. Even the Soviets and Red China had to deal with the fact that their junk scientific endeavors didn’t grow the crops and didn’t produce usable steel. The less pragmatic and more descriptive ones like climate science, evolutionary biology, and even to a degree cosmology and astronomy, are more pervertable – if someone tells you that seeds grow through class struggle with the surrounding seeds, you can say “No, look, we tried that theory and everyone starved.” But if someone tells you “The universe is a steady-state with no beginning and no end, because otherwise there might have to be a Creator” you can’t build a machine that would fall apart if the theory is wrong.

    • Comment by Zaklog the Great:

      I would suggest that cancer research is affected too. I’ve heard from various pro-life sources that abortions significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. From what I know of biology, this seems like a distinct possibility. I suspect, though, that a researcher wanting to investigate this might be fighting an uphill battle at most universities today.

  3. Comment by sator:

    A coherent leftists is like a healty tumor, that is a dead former cancer patient.

  4. Comment by CPE Gaebler:

    There’s some childrens’ tales by David and Karen Mains that I adore; sort of Christian allegory teaching virtue and such. One tale in the second collection, set in the Enchanted City, tells of three heralds in the Enchanter’s service; “Tripletongue” was afraid of saying the wrong thing so he belted out his announcements without taking care to make sure it’s correct, “Theysay” announced everything only as a rumor, “THEY say there are melons in the marketplace,” and “Doubletalk” learned to speak from both sides of his mouth at once, with the two sides contradicting each other.

    The City Taxi Service irritates them to no end by telling everyone whether each announcement was true or false by honking once or twice. However, they offer rescue to the three heralds, promising to take them to a place where they can speak the truth without fear. Two of them accept their rescue, but Doubletalk tries to turn them in and ends up becoming a chief herald of the Enchanter.

    I’m pretty sure it’s the sort of storybook that hardcore Leftists wouldn’t let their children read.

  5. Comment by Jane M:

    Related both to this and to the posts on despair, is the story of The Silver Chair by C. S. Lewis. Remember the scene at the end where the witch tells the children that her world is the only one? It took the courage of Puddleglum to set everyone straight.

  6. Comment by SteveMoxon:

    Re Leftism, that’s a good characterisation that does get to the root of Leftist attitude re ‘projection’ (to use the one useful notion Freud ever contributed), and is as I’ve proffered myself — to attempt to deny that male status-seeking (elitist-separatism) is perennial and ubiquitous — but it fails to get at the reason for the origin of the contemporary manifestation of Leftism. This, as I have written about, is specifically ‘revenge’ against ‘the workers’ for never having ‘risen up’, contradicting Marxist prediction and prescription, fatally undermining the entire theory.
    The Left’s mission for many decades now has been to replace ‘the worker’ as the revolutionary agent, and to do this was simply to invert the stereotype of ‘the worker’; so instead of male / ‘white’ / heterosexual, we got female / ethnic-minority / homosexual as the new supposed agent of social change.
    This is such obvious insane complete baloney that an extreme authoritarian insistence on the analysis to the exclusion of even the start of any debate is the only feasible course.
    This merely postpones facing the colossal cognitive-dissonance of the mismatch between theory and reality, of course; and as the stakes get higher, the authoritarianism gets still nastier.
    Your characterisation, then, of ‘projecting’ faults on to others is insightful in that, clearly, Leftism is the radical denial of perennial and ubiquitous status-seeking by males — elitist-separatism. But the root of the extreme authoritarianism of the contemporary manifestation of Leftism in PC-fascism is in the futile exercise of trying to save Marxist theory from oblivion.

Leave a Reply