Ideological Strand Extraction

I am well aware of the possibility, that not everynone may have the intellectual capacity to understand these things - and that certain political entities may exist that try to capitalize on that.
This probably applies to all things here, but ... perhaps that's a story for another day. For now let it suffice to say, that immediate understanding or comprehension isn't required. That's also, by the way, not how these things work. It is however up to those of higher comprehension - to enable others to catch up. What and how and all that, that's beside the point.


There is a kind of foul corruption at the heart of "leftism" - it is however not itself a foul corruption. One of the more troublesome aspects of this corruption is a kind of blindness it imposes - and that is in consequence to the very nature of "leftism" itself. That nature may not be its /clerical/*(I just made it up, that this is the right word here) nature, but certainly is one of its "compound forms" - and one could very well speak of how it happens to be part of the central problem - that is: THE central problem, a.k.a. the reason why Christ came and all what pertains to it, such as "the Sword of Progress".
The corruption of it may very well be consequence to creation like a shadow is consequence of a light illuminating an object. However one might think of removing it ... well, that's maybe too far beside the point here.

So, "compound form" (or nature) meaning as much as 'being an aspect of' - as, in particular, the appearance of a thing when beheld from a certain angle or illuminated in a certain way; Eventually as a superficial measure. In that regard there are useful lights and angles ... such as what we might call 'factual realities'. We might say that holograms for instance are just corruptions on a flat plane - as some can be made by scratching a surface. That's a fact, undeniably so, but leaves out ... "the magic" of it all while leaving it to sound rather unpleasant. Such as the fact that Light exists - and behaves in certain ways. That is a 'factual reality'. One that is constant. And from that angle, these "corruptions" are means to use the way how light behaves to create art. (And just around the corner from there we get to the clerical nature of it, which certainly involves both aspects somehow. Like, not by stuffing the holes with woo).

Now, the issue to speak of is, that "leftism" - and it may very well be regarded a hot take - has always been counter culture. And that is not to speak of politics like socialism or marxism or communism or any of that; But more so the human condition itself. Think for instance of the term 'hypocrisy' and how it is rather an expectation than an anomaly. And that is no expectation isolated to any political idea or religion or what have you - where at any rate we would think that either has their zealots and "the sorry rest".

And therein also lies the secret of fascism. Fascism is like an undoing of hypocricy by throwing away the standard by which the expectation stands; In a sense; Molded around the matters that make it difficukt to be 'morally good'. Intrinsic weaknesses we might call them. To basically turn moral decay into virtue.

Fascism is thereby what we nowadays call 'the extreme' of "natural culture" in opposition to calls for justice or righteusness or whatever single word might describe "it". "Leftism" for instance.

The concept of 'political correctness' may thereby be read in two ways - depending on which standard is applied. On the one hand there's 'reasoning of righteus justice' and on the other is 'decorum in exaltation of a status quo'.


So, I disagree with "leftism" on basis of it being 'counter culture' - as its struggle with "the heart of intrinsic weakness" (or which detestable shape it took) leads to a lot of unwanted ... stuff. Expectations, implications, such and such. Things, that may very well be viewed as "a cancer to undo culture" or otherwisely explored in a number of faulty ways. Yet the justification arises as these demands only truly work if everyone plays along. That is no different for "the other side"; But those who hold claim to our intrinsic weaknesses "naturally" have an advantage in this game.
I do not, however, disagree with "leftism" as a 'state' (status) - or 'the dominant culture' - which naturally requires us to stay vigilant against the bad of our very nature. Imperfection as comprehended in "the Mangle".
"The Gambit of the Light" - we might call it - has been to help us understand that. To inocculate us against the chaos or injustice of our intrinsic weaknesses; As to grow fond of the peace that is consequential to existing with a bit of foresight - we might say.

We might blame the entropic nature of this world for a lot of the troubles we face - being perhaps the proverbial light that spawns them in the first place. Yet is it this very same entropy that gives this world substance. Because there are different particles with different properties - stuff gets caught up with one another; But that's another story.
More to the point is this entropy not limited to physics. It is also something that comes with ego. Megalomania versus Ambivalence per chance. And this world is a bit like a buffer - for us to not downright consume one another.

For rules are one thing. Where we can agree on them, we can have fun. Which means that cheating is actually kind of THE primordial sin. 'Lieing' beingt jus one of its forms. Which is slightly different to dishonesty, but that is yet again a different story.
Yet so is the archetypical villain someone who puts their own entitlement above the rules, someone who sees justice in self service - being a kind of wankster, an example of the kind of masturbation I think is actually bad. So, wanting to be a God isn't the problem. It is that it is often just that kind of megalomania that is utterly self serving. Not that self service is bad, but taking someone elses hand to do it ... tends to be on the bad side of things.

So, that means - "leftism" is like a desease ... that is: A set of symptoms that emerge as the immune system tries to fix the body. In that sense. They're unwanted, but ... inevitable.

---

So, I finished Baldur's Gate 3 recently; And I'm reminded of Shadowheart's Story. My favorite Character has been Lae'Zel, btw.. Rising against Vlaakith and freeing Orpheus. Which isn't too dissimilar from Sadowheart's or Wyll's - which may not be too surprising considering that the game is built to allow for various outcomes within a moralistic setting of sorts. But the specific context is vastly different from Character to Character - and that of Shadowheart is ultimately the battle between Light and Darkness, while being herself quite literally on the path of darkness. I mean, she's like perfectly normal and nice~ish for the most part; But then on and off the game drops these WTF bombs as you learn more about Shar - and gain deeper and deeper insight into her Zaelotry. And I was ... like really surprised - or positively enthralled - by how well the game is written and performed. If that's a way of saying it. The acting and the story behind it. In Shar's Temple I was really starting to get concerned of her ... quasi 'hoping against the odds' that things would turn out alright. Then I started a new game as a Drow and I was a little bit put off by how easily everone would glance past that; But it's like ... I mean, I understand why Act 3 is the mess that it is. It's not just a lack of polish here and there. But still - I didn't mean to kill Nettie - I even turned on non-lethal damage - because I'm not trying to play an Evil Drow; I just want to be a bit more rude and detached.

Anyhow. Shar - and fictional Deities/Religions alike - and that's why I brought it up ... tend to overshoot things somehow. And it usually applies to all religions and ideologies; Fictional and non-fictional. And it may be why Paladins have a bit of a ... bad reputation we might say. There's like an oath ... and it effectively becomes their identity lest they want to become an Oathbreaker. So they either turn blind to the real world, have an oath that "works" or need to be creative (if possible) - or, well, become an Oathbreaker. Warlocks are on the other side of that. They are more real, more self - though might their Patrons require things of them that gives them pause.
Anyhow ... so, on the one side there is certain comfort in Darkness. Grief, Melancholy, Loss ... - and ... other Dark things. But in case of Shar that doesn't merely become the whole point of it - as the Lore between Shar and Selune is quite literally Shar being Upset about Selune creating Light. If that source is to be trusted. I sure was willing to ... like ... give her the benefit of the doubt; And ... that doubt still stands. The Sharite Mother Superior for instance confessed that she did not solely act on behalf of Shar - which is like ... a thing with religious authorities. That there is like a scale of how well they channel or obscure the thing they (claim to) stand in service of.
Then ... also ... the Chosen of a Deity ought to represent their ideals the purest - which, in this kind of Pantheonic setting, often doesn't leave much space for half-measures.

Well, there is always a price to pay. Either way one goes ... there is an opposite direction. But we have to be mindful of not tearing each other apart in the wake of it.