Defining Leftism

By Rich Kozlovich

On June 9, 2025 J.A. Frascino posted this article at American Thinker, Might you identify as a leftist?, asking a series of questions, which I've paraphrased below. 

Do you prefer to rely on government versus you're own abilities, and are willing to accept any insanity as long as it destroys traditional values and obliterates the history of how and why those values came into being.  Willingly stand with group consensus versus doing any critical thinking that would make you stand out from the group enjoying and needing the comfort of the herd.  Willing to fight for things you can't explain and don't understand, hate capitalism, and the need to perform and compete in order to make a living.  Self righteously claiming equity and equality are synonymous, and since you personally identify with the deviant and marginalized, tolerance of the objectionable is acceptable.  

Any leftist failures need to be forgotten in order to move forward with more leftist failures.  Accuse anyone who tries to reduce movement of being fascists, tyrants, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and who must be attacked, even violently.

No need to present arguments that defend your positions to any who disagree with you because you're moral superiority makes you feel great, but if forced to defend you're irrational positions you react with anger, all of which is foundational to the moral, philosophical, and intellectual foundations of a Marxist disciple.

The author goes on to say leftists: 

.......possess a fragile infrastructure — a victimization based, emotionally grounded belief system — which they protect from a threatening environment by constructing and projecting a rigid shell of self-righteous moral superiority, virtuousness, and altruism.  Such a façade defines them simply as enlightened, socially oriented, better people who have no need to resort to reason, logic, or reality to defend their vulnerable belief system.  Upon perceiving a threat to the shell, armed only in self-righteousness, their only recourse is to resort to angry, defensive posturing, profanity, histrionics, vengeance, and violence to prevent breaching of the shell and spillage of its contents for all to see.

you shut up, I just hope this is all that they take away”.

It would appear that whenever issues become complex or challenging you get the same result with adults as you get with children. Why?  Being accepted by their peers is extremely important to children, as it is among leftists.

On December 16, 2022 Allan J. Feifer posted this piece on American Thinker, The Rapidly Dissipating Art of Thinking, outlining things that should be obvious to the most casual observer.  Unfortunately that requires rational thought processes, something that's becoming more and more rare, especially in the leftists in the media, and celebrities who  spew out nonsensical, irrational comments and logical fallacies.  

What Does It Mean To Be a Leftist?

By Rich Kozlovich

Many years ago I was watching a television show dealing with how seriously peer pressure impacts children.  In this case teenage children. They demonstrated a study using a classroom as the lab for this experiment in human nature. Two sentences appeared on the blackboard, sentence “A” and sentence “B”. The class was asked, “Which sentence was the longest?” I don’t actually remember which sentence was the longest, but for this commentary let’s say that sentence “B” was actually the longest. This test was structured in such a way that only a small number of the kids in each group was "unaware" as to what was going on and could vote which- ever way they saw fit. All the rest were in on it and their job was to vote for sentence “A” as being the longest when in reality it was the shortest. 

Now the question! How many of the control students voted along with the crowd for sentence “A” as being the longest, ignoring the obvious truth that sentence “B” was in reality longer? It appears that 93% of the test students chose to go along with the crowd rather that have the courage and integrity to stand up for the evidence of their own eyes. Going along to get along!

Although a recent study actually put the number at 95%, studies have a way of proving what the creator of the study wants proven. Therefore there is no way of knowing if 93% is a truly reliable number. Does it matter? Would it matter if the numbers were 90% or 80% or even less? Probably not, because science should be proving things that we can easily see going on around us and our own experiences in life show that the pressure on youngsters to go along is tremendous and most youngsters succumb to that pressure in greater or lesser degrees.

What is the point of all of this? The desire of young people to fit in is well known, but this isn’t really the issue. The real issue is this. How serious is this problem as we age? Quite frankly, I don’t think it changes all that much except on little issues. Adults have the courage to stand up for issues that don’t amount to much. I used to work with someone who was always the first to stand up and be counted. Always the first to criticize over any tiny issue that really didn’t matter much and would have had little impact on anything, especially his job. How did he respond when a serious issue arose between the company and the employees? Such as a change in how we were to be compensated? This was one of those issues where standing up and being counted could possibly cost you your job. The silence was deafening.

Adults, like children, also have convenient memories. Some years later at a social gathering this came up in discussion and his recollection was, “if you remember, I was the only one to speak out on this issue”.   Since he was generally regarded as being outspoken no one questioned it, at least until someone actually pointed out what was actually said and happened at that meeting, and all of a sudden memories became clear again because it was pointed out that after the boss temporarily walked out of the room his comment to the only one speaking up was “why don’t you shut up, I just hope this is all that they take away”.

It would appear that whenever issues become complex or challenging you get the same result with adults as you get with children. Why? Just because issues that appear to be a small matter to adults doesn't mean that these issues aren’t “big” to children. They don’t have the same concerns as adults. Being accepted by their peers is extremely important to children, especially teenage children. To their perspective, it has the same level of importance as major issues do to adults.

It is a matter of perception and once we realize this it is easy to realize why so many adults make so many decisions to go along with programs and issues that are clearly detrimental to their own interests. We use the term “peer pressure”, but in reality it isn’t a peer pressure problem. It is a herding problem. The innate desire to go along to get along. The need to be part of the herd.  I find it to more like the Stockholm Syndrome. 

The size of the issue is a matter of perspective and fear of rejection, fear of being ridiculed, fear of job loss and fear of isolation cause people to go along to get along. Coupling these fears with a lack of knowledge and proper understanding of important issues absolutely assures the 93% rule. Is 93% the actual percentage for adult decision-making? Once again, I have no idea, but the rule certainly applies as a principle because the actual percentage is immaterial when that percentage is still very large.

Global Warming is one of those issues, and here are six questions that everyone needs to ask.

1. Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of promoting this insanity?   
2. Is it possible that no one sees that the fruitage of the environmental movement has been the unnecessary death of millions along with wretched living conditions and sickness for millions more?  
3. Is it possible that no one sees the devastation that has ensued in the third world as a result of promulgating environmentalist programs?  
4. Is it possible that no one sees that most of what the environmental movement has promoted has been based on fear mongering and lies?  At the very least lies of omission?  
5. Is it possible that no one sees that the Administrative State is not a neutral, willingly making decisions that have been disastrous to mankind without any scientific basis whatsoever? One could even say fraudulent science!  
6. Does no one see that these policies are detrimental to humanity?

Either we are making uninformed decisions or we are guilty of the 93% rule. Going along to get along! The appeasement mentality of Neville Chamberlain was in reality the 93% rule. 

For entirely too long we've been required to stand up for things which are unproven or unprovable. To support things that are not true, while refuting or rejecting those things which are true, those things that work, those things that allow for the continuation of advanced societies.   We've been forced to believe in the fairy tales of people like the Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson and her acolytes, and call it science.” The only thing left is to hallow that which is unholy!

That's what it means to be a leftist.