Kerry Bolton - The Psychotic Left

The Psychotic Left

Copyright 2013 Black House Publishing Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval without permission in writing from the publisher.

Black House Publishing Ltd

Kemp House

152 City Road

London

UNITED KINGDOM

EC1V 2NX

www.blackhousepublishing.co.uk

Email: info@blackhousepublishing.co.uk

Foreword

Once upon a time, everyone understood politics. Conservatives conserved; Liberals liberated; the left disliked the elite; the right disliked underdogs; Socialists provided the shock troops and cash to achieve the more material liberal objectives more quickly, at least for the industrial worker; and businessmen funded select liberal-conservative efforts such as churches.

The Second World War provided a terminal shock to this happy system. For the left had largely backed pacifism through the 1930s; and then backed the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939-41. So it had some adapting to do as Russia and America were dragged into the War and eventually won it. The lefts immediate past of accepting National Socialism needed to be forgotten.

As was so often to be true for the modern left, help was at hand. The 1945 opening of the Nazi gas chambers (unmatched by any comparable revelation of the freezing death camps of Siberia) meant it could be said that the War had been fought for Jewish underdogs against anti-Semitism (it being conveniently neglected that Stalin was just as murderously anti-Semitic as Hitler). Jewish intellectuals who had escaped the Holocaust to America and Britain were delighted to oblige. Understandably determined to prevent any recurrence of the Jews latest persecution, they (in particular the Frankfurt School, relocated to California) set about analysing (psychoanalysing) what they represented as the right for the national-socialist Hitler had to be demonized, and conservatives (most of whom had also not been keen for another war with Germany) along with him.

The analysis would work like a dream. It was that conservatives were a fundamentally neurotic lot who required heavy authority to contain their disorganized repressed urges. Hitler was to be turned into a role model of conservatism even though it was only people like the liberal-conservative Churchill and Eysenck who had sacrificed themselves for a decade to oppose Hitler. That Hitler had had the works of Freud (and many other modernists) burned in the streets of Berlin, or otherwise banned, was supposedly a graphic testimony to the rights essential authoritarianism. The unwillingness of conservatives to accept 20th centurys demand for sexual realism had stimulated the major popular support for Communism against the Russian church-and-state autocracy of 1917. Now it was to provide the main intellectual ammunition against the post-45 Western right.

The analysis of sex-suppressing father-venerating conservatives struggling to contain themselves and thus inflicting their neuroses on the world had a resonance which was quite unmatched by any ability of conservatives to explain themselves, let alone make counterpropaganda. American conservatives mounted the McCarthy Era; but this had little intellectual influence, especially once Russia got the Bomb. And British conservatives were understandably unwilling to attempt explanations for how they had allowed the UK to be sucked into warfare which finally bankrupted Britain and lost its Empire.

Yet help for the right too was at hand. The Hitler-hating Berlin born-and-bred Jewish psychologist, Hans Eysenck, relocated to London, was no slouch at understanding that the left of his youth had been fully a match in psychopathology for the supposed right. By 1954, to the immense aggravation of the British liberal-left elite (annoyance eventually costing him a knighthood), Eysenck began to maintain that the left and at least the Hitlerian right had much in common. In particular, in their materialism and readiness for violence, they were tough-minded and lacking in the gentler ways of idealism and empathy. Although the left was shocked by this comparison, Eysenck went on to develop his understanding becoming the first to demonstrate a genetic basis for the trait. Finally, Eysenck concluded that there was (as he had suspected back in 1947) a trait of Psychoticism which subsumed tough-mindedness and needed adding to his famous personality theory (long known for its main dimensions of Neuroticism and Extraversion about which his students jokingly gave the sign of the Cross). By the 1990s, Eysenck wrote at length about Psychoticism (P) linking it especially to criminality and paranoia, though also to creativity in the arts.

What Kerry Boltons book does is to provide full and hilarious detail as to the correctness of Eysencks hard-worked psychometric-psychological understanding. Boltons highly entertaining survey uses the latest biographical information about such figures of the left as Marx, Marcuse, Manson, Maslow and Baader-Meinhof. Convincingly, it documents the horrors of the father - and family - hating horrors of leading leftists who agitated a whole generation while themselves suffering psychosis (most often bipolar, i.e. manic-depressive) or at least narcissistic psychopathy, and not uncommonly ending in suicide.

Engagingly, Bolton also spells out the next twist in the saga of high-P leftism. Yes, not content with being psychotic themselves, far-leftists of the 1970s even turned to venerating madness regarding the lunatic as shock troops in their battle against the oppressive bourgeois authority of Western doctors and the drug companies which backed them. Amusingly, one crackpot author, of The Death of the Family , collapsed into schizophrenia soon after he had written his anti-psychiatry rant and had to be looked after by, yes, his own family.

Of course, since those days the left (always more ingenious than the right) has moved on to select new underdogs who might help champion its revolutionary family-hating cause. It has taken trouble to keep the feminists (feminazies) of Western female minority roughly onside; and in particular as embourgeoisification stripped it of any hope of skilled working class support it has backed ethnic minorities (notably Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and even Palestinians) and demonized opponents as racists and paedophiles.

One day, new biographies will hopefully provide a new Bolton with fresh happy detail of the personality disorders of anti-racists and allied champions of the handicapped and homosexual. But meantime the lefts shock troops are succeeding well. With the help of business interests which need multiculturalism to replace the workforce which the lefts domination of the schools has ruined, the left dominates the purposeless West.

Reading The Psychotic Left will be an eye-opener for many. The supposed repressive neuroses of the right pale in comparison with the selfish, vicious paranoia of the left (sometimes assisted by drug use and demonstrable brain damage). That the right has not been able to stand up to left-wing rubbish turning in a generation from backing the Jews (by now too successful) to backing their arch-enemy Muslims should attract the attention of all serious people and politicians. How can the right have failed to prevent the growth of socialist states all over the West with policies of filling themselves up with third-world immigrants to make up for their own failure to breed eugenically and educate their young to the maximum (according to ability)?

Of course, the right has failed to adopt the truly noble popular modern cause of backing love, sex, traditional marriage and the family. Like the Church before it, it has been resistant to encouraging people in their own favoured form of society. Instead, it has backed economic liberalism, which fell prey to socialist schemes of subprime mortgaging and essentially blew itself up in 2008 and is now dependent on borrowing from future generations. Probably the family-venerating Chinese will sweep all before them as the West collapses under the ridiculous burdens which the psychotics of the left have helped impose. But this book will allow a most enjoyable moment of re-thinking a new chance to accept what Eysenck first began to explain academically in 1954.