Beating the Left at Their Own Game Part 2: Inversions Conventionally the left is considered progressive and the right is considered reactionary. But is this actually true? The more the left has held power, the more that society has declined. The right has a lot of infighting because there is healthy internal debate on what is best for society, in other words, a plethora of ways to move forward. If you have an empty plot of land, there are many possibilities of what you can build there. Entropy is being decreased. The leftist Borg, on the other hand, is more of a monolith and there is only a difference in degree on how left they are. Destruction or the increasing of entropy whether fast or slow leads to the same thing which is the eventual non-existence of a formerly perfectly good house on a piece of land. So it can be said that the right is actually progressive but progress is hard and fraught with disagreements while the left is actually reactionary in that they want to return things back to primordial chaos, maximum entropy. Tolstoy said that all happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Perhaps the opposite be said of politics. Each happy political movement is happy in its own way; all unhappy political movements are alike. Next, consider the term “virtue signaling”. This nomenclature implies two things. That virtue is good and real and that the signaling of it is often disingenuous. But even this misses the full meaning. Virtue signaling is effectively envy counter-signaling. If we replaced the word leftism with covetism or envyism, no meaning would be lost. In other words, the left adopts the frame of Christian virtue and uses it as a shield to block visibility into their true motives. This is interesting for many reasons. First, it shows that Christian morality is so foundational to western society that even the left cannot escape it and is forced to play this game, at least on the surface. Second, historically the left has, until recently, been pretty good at playing the right’s own game here. Third, when the right engages with the left in the game of who is more virtuous, it is almost an acknowledgement that such a contest is worthwhile. In other words, it already gives the left too much credit and the left is all too happy to play along these parameters. When Vance says “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” he is effectively saying that he sees through what game the they are playing here and will not play this game with them. There is no point playing the victim Olympics and saviorism game with the left because there is always someone who is poorer, uglier, fatter, less fortunate, less well-endowed, than others. It’s like real Christians debating with fake hyper-Christians on who is more Christian, on who can save the most unfortunate people. Better to hold a mirror up to the left and show them who they truly are. Lastly, not only is the right seeing through this game that leftists play, even the leftists are seeing through their own game. The leftist upperclass historically made a bargain with the leftist underclass: give us power and we will give you status (Spandrell). But status does not put food on the table especially after so much inflation. AOC and the tankies are gaining power because the old deal is no longer enough for the leftist underclass. Every passing year they care less and less about playing identitarian status games while seeming virtuous and they care more and more about material conditions even if it means seeming unvirtuous. In other words, even the left is getting fed up with virtue signaling games. Since this will take some time still, for now we can offer the left status and later we can offer them material conditions. In other words, between the poles of bioleninism and Leninism, what we offer them should be a function of where they are along this spectrum.(Galois Kevin)