The Regressive Left: A Secular Slave Morality

The regressive left is the inevitable conclusion of relativism intermixed with Christian remnants gone secular. It is the leftovers of Christianity, echoes of it, gone secular. It is the theology minus the quality and potency. It is highly religious and puritanical, though in such a way that it lacks either a historical or transcendent founding. It is purely discursive, but still has influence and power because ideology permeates throughout society.

The regressive left is a complete divorce from original liberalism. It is an insult to it, a sickly bastardized ideology that has spread like a plague. It is best understood as a sickness that erodes and makes a society feeble and self-deprecating. It turns a nation against itself, against national identity, against strength, desiring its own eventual dissolution or cultural suicide.

The regressive left is the inevitable conclusion of relativism intermixed with Christian remnants gone secular. It is the leftovers of Christianity, echoes of it, gone secular. It is the theology minus the quality and potency. It is highly religious and puritanical, though in such a way that it lacks either a historical or transcendent founding. It is purely discursive, but still has influence and power because ideology permeates throughout society.

There are five characteristics that constitute this sickly weakening of the spirit; 1)reduction of the individual to categorized political identity; 2) overall dissolution due to excessive relativism and passivity; 3) enforcement of slave morality that demonizes the strong and venerates victimhood and weakness; 4) enforcement of guilt and shame, as punishment for ‘secular sins’ to coerce toward mass conformity. 5) in opposition to singular strength, the adoration of collective self-destruction in the name of secular martyrdom.

1) In line with horizontal quantification, what is called ‘identity politics’ is secular tribalism combined with social justice and victimization. Rather than the individual reduced to a number, the individual is reduced to their basic physical attributes. An individual of an ethnic minority is reduced to their skin color, a woman is reduced to her gender and sex, a homosexual is reduces to sexual orientation, a religious person is reduced to their religion. The individual is politicized, easily categorized into this or that political camp based solely on their physical attributes. The left lays claim to those who are homosexual, or women, or a person of color, and those of these listed minority characteristics which do not fall into line according to their physical identity are scolded, as if they are ‘going against their own interest’. Neither a woman or homosexual individual is looked at as a whole, rather they are reduced to the physical detail which defines that identity.

The detail of being a woman or being gay may indeed have a strong impact on their existence, it is still only a footnote to the person as a whole. The regressive left reduces these individuals to their identity footnotes, primarily as a form of politicization and control. If you are homosexual, it is only in your best interest to support that which panders to that detail, as if there is nothing greater than that small detail. If you are homosexual, or belonging to a minority of any kind, and go against this tribalism, you are immediately labeled a political ‘traitor’ and ridiculed for practicing freedom of thought rather than slavish party devotion. Indeed, identity politics has ensured that the whole must never be greater than the sum of its parts.

2) Universalism, cosmopolitanism, global humanitarianism…these are the ‘virtues’ which the regressive left laud. It is a matter of dissolution in the name of a secular slave morality. That which is weak and passive is venerated, is deemed ‘good’. The dissolution of national boundaries, of national or cultural identity, this is deemed ‘righteous’, as we are all one undifferentiated mass that is called ‘humanity’. Mass immigration is permitted, nationalist identity is denounced; this is the national individual identity dissolved into the general mass. Much like the individual dissolved into the masses, so does national identity dissolve into mere mass humanity. Excessive permissiveness is a virtue. It is the intentional destruction of definition. That which defines identity is dissolved. The vertical is leveled, flattened into the quantified horizontal. Whether it be through the permissiveness to Islam, the permissiveness to universal “one world, one human race” humanism, or simply the flattening of cultural convention and identity. This is all deemed righteous and good. The destruction of identity is seen as a saint-like act.

National identity, cultural identity, pride in history and accomplishments; these are denounced for the sake of guilt and self-flagellation. In its place, a corporate monoculture of consumerism and elementary universal morality, typically utilitarian and materialist in premise.

3) The regressive left is purely secular slave morality. The downtrodden, the victims, the oppressed are venerated. The strong, the powerful, the successful, these are made villains. Outright power, through merit or not, is deemed villainous and ‘bad’. The individual which owns his or herself, his or her own accomplishments, his or her own merits, which admires excellence and individuation; this is the truest villain to the regressive left. The regressive left defines its morality in opposition to hegemonic strength. The soft attributes of compassion, empathy, fairness, compromise which constitute their morality are in reaction to that power which rules or ‘lords over’ them. Horizontal and quantified utilitarianism is what defines the slave morality as it seeks only to endure and relieve in opposing response to that harsher morality that rules over them. Its hierarchy is inverted in that the weakest and most victimized are the most revered, and the accomplished strong are the most reviled. The masses must villainize the singular man of individuation.

In the grander scheme, they demand descendants feel shame or guilt regarding the accomplishments of their ancestors. The heroes of the past, the grand accomplishments of Western civilizations, the conquests and victories, and display of immense power and leadership, these are to be denounced and one is to feel shame and guilt for their occurrence. That which is heroic, which accomplishes through power, must be reviled and considered a sin. The history of Western civilizations, from ancient to present victories, within the context of this slave morality, was a show of cruelty and vileness. One must abdicate their own nation’s history, own ancestor’s accomplishments, and instead feel remorse. Rather than celebrate the heroic victories of the past, one must feel shame and guilt for it. Self-flagellation and the desire to become the defeated is at the heart this crusade.

4) In secular theological fashion, that which does not conform to the discourse of revering the oppressed is scolded and shamed, as if one has committed a ‘sin’. Something such as being white or male or Christian, with the history of ‘white men’ and so forth dominating throughout history and presently, with their supposed ‘privilege’, are expected to ‘be aware’ of this privilege. In other words, one must be aware of this ‘original sin’ that they carry and the supposed ‘evils’ which has been done. Shame and guilt are tools to be wielded against any whom do not conform to venerating the oppressed or show remorse for when the ‘privileged’ take advantage of such.

Language that does not confirm the narrative is considered ‘offensive’, it must be checked and policed.

Blacklisting, shaming, scolding, condemning, these are a few of the multiple ways in which discourse is coerced and the individual punished. The regressive left does not directly attack freedom of speech, rather it attempts to coerce and pressure those opposing into being silent. Much like the puritan evangelicals, they use the ‘scarlet letter’ approach to stigmatize and shame one into silence. Whether they be called racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic and so forth, it is all an attempt to shame another and coerce the general discourse. Freedom of discourse they claim to respect, yet then practice coercion of every possible manner to manipulate the discourse to their favor.

This is practiced against ‘those with privilege’ as well as any minority which does not toe the line of the regressive left, which does not conform or side with the expected tribe.

5) The culmination of the regressive left practices results in the inevitable and ultimately nihilistic dissolution. In dislike of overt power, the denouncement of identity, it is much like a plague which makes the body sicker and weaker, turned upon itself; it is erosion, plain and simple. The veneration of weakness, and demonization of strength, it only continues to eat itself from within. As a raindrop falls into the ocean, a nation and people must lose its individual identity and dissolves into the global mass. The vertical immediately flattens and dissolves into the horizontal. This is the ultimate conclusion of the regressive left. It is the complete loss of cultural and national identity. It is the dissolution of being into the nothingness. Much like a martyr, it willingly aims to sacrifice itself in the name of a ‘greater good’, unfortunately it is an atheistic and nihilistic death. The regressive left is a death drive gone unchecked, driven to self-annihilation, driven to a return to nothingness, an ultimate ‘No’ to existence, a negation of self.

In conclusion, it is a matter of the vertical versus and horizontal, the national versus the global, the individual versus the masses. This is a simple survey based on observation of this sickly ideology that permeates society and drives it forward to its own dissolution. It is an ideology that spurs suicidal impulse. Identity and individuation may resist this dissolving. The active rejection of the secular slave morality may dissipate it in time, though it will always return in some form or another.

Own oneself, aspire to individuation, take pride in strength, take pride in history and heritage, be whole, be separate, and to thine own self be true.

Published at The Revolutionary Conservative

NM Phoenix
the authorNM Phoenix
NM Phoenix is a rabble rousing Southern Belle


  • NM Phoenix provides a summary of what’s wrong with the (radically) regressive left, distinguished by an unusual if not unique quality of lucid succinctness loaded with much needed concepts and references that should be at the center of the much confused politicized name calling that passes for moral dialogue in the Western world, e.g.,

    “It is the leftovers of Christianity, echoes of it, gone secular. It is the theology minus the quality and potency. It is highly religious and puritanical, though in such a way that it lacks either a historical or transcendent founding. It is purely discursive, but still has influence and power because ideology permeates throughout society.”.

  • I totally agree with “Own oneself, aspire to individuation, take pride in strength, take pride
    in history and heritage, be whole, be separate, and to thine own self
    be true.” and have applied these values first hand. However the result is that I lost all friends and live in total exclusion and isolation. It would be so easy to reverse this situation with virtue signaling some white guilt, but I’d rather die then be a self hating communist traitor.

  • I’m sorry but regressive left is an oxymoron. It’s a way of trying to tie the progressive radical leftists with Conservatives and the extreme Right. But although, excellent article!

  • Slave Morality originates from maternal instinct.

    Among lower animals, the mother just lays tons of offsprings and most of them die. it’s like an insect mother will have 1000s of eggs, and most will die. Ruthless. No love.
    And fish are like that too.

    But birds and mammals have mothering instinct. They have relatively few offsprings and do everything to take care of them. This requires pity. Even the strongest human or beast was born helpless, defenseless, and pitiable. So, unless there was the mother(and father) to protect it, it was bound to die.
    Among lower offsprings, the newborns can live on their own. So, fish babies swim on their own the minute they are born.. And turtle babies are on their own too. This is why lower life forms have to have lots of offsprings. Mothers give birth but feel no attachment to their offsprings that must learn to survive the minute they are born. Most die, some survive and mate too.

    But among higher lifeforms, there is pity for the helpless. Mother feels pity, affection, and compassion for its young. And once this emotion developed more and more, it led to sympathy for other human beings.

    We may talk Nietzsche and stuff, but the fact is, for most of our childhood, we were dependent on doting mother who changed diapers and took care of us and protected us. A mother is a slave to her love for her children. This is why, when women don’t have kids, their suppressed maternal instincts attach to causes or other peoples.

    Anyway, both the mother and child are slave and master. Mother is a master because she has total power over her child that is helpless. But she is also a slave to the child because she feels love and affection and feels bound to it. Most mothers will sacrifice their own lives for their kids.
    A child is also like slave and master. He is a slave because he is helpless and utterly dependent on the mother’s love and caring. But because he is the center of attention of the mother(and father), he is also a master, a prince.

  • Which American State is ideally Most American?

    People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

    Today, globalists say All nations are ‘nations of immigrants’ since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.

    But even if we agree that all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, why are they different? Because different peoples ‘immigrated’ there. So, white Europeans ‘immigrated’ to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people ‘immigrated’ to Japan and made it East Asian.

    So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are ‘nations of immigrants’, they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people ‘immigrated’ there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

    And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let’s use the broad term of ‘immigration’ to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.

    So, one can say US has been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were ‘immigrants’ going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives ‘immigrated’ from North America.

    Still, a ‘nation of immigrants’ means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

    Consider an alternative American history. Let’s say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug — don’t ask me how — and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.

    Now, this US would have been a ‘nation of immigrants’ too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as ‘white trash’. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

    Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is ‘American’. So, every American state is equally ‘American’. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

    A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

    Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.

    But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.

    And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

    The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

    WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a ‘nation of immigrants’. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.


    Many non-whites and white Progs take umbrage at the notion that US has essentially been a white nation founded by Anglos and their systems and culture.

    They say NO PEOPLE are more quintessential to America(or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) than any other.

    Okay, but how come most immigration-preferences are so Anglo-White-supremacist?

    If indeed all peoples are equally capable with the availability of ideas and means, the whole world should be as successful as the US. After all, esp with the internet, the whole world has access to all the ideas, values, and sciences that make up the US and other such nations.

    Why didn’t Jews push for an Ellis Island mythology in Latin American nations?

    Why do Asians prefer Anglo-founded nations over Latin-founded ones or non-white ones?

    Indeed, they prefer Anglo-founded white nations to fellow Asian ones.

    Why do Africans prefer to move to Anglo-founded white nations than to fellow African nations or Arab nations? Even when Africans reach Europe, they move to northern areas despite cold climate because they find Northern Europeans to run things better.

    All these peoples want to feed on Anglo-white-ness and want to live under Anglo-white-rule, but they bitch about how they are just as good and it’d be no loss if US became minority-white and become flooded with peoples like themselves. (If so, why flee from people like themselves in their own nations?)

    If they’re just as good, why can’t they turn their nations into Anglo-white-like nations? Why do they dream of going to Anglo-white nations? Why can’t they realize any dream in their own nations?

    And the Jews. Jews bitch on and on about how the US must be diverse and give up its whiteness. But the main reason why Jews were so eager to move to the US was because of its Anglo-white foundings and systems that they found superior to any other in the world. Would such system have come into being without Anglo-whites? Jews call for the demise of the very people who did most to build a nation that appealed so much to Jews. Would Jews have wanted to come to US if it was founded by Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, or Portuguese?

    Now, some will say the Anglo-White system is an idea or proposition that can be adopted by any people. But how come the world sucks at doing this? Even in Asia that saw lots of growth and expansion, the majority of people say they wanna move to Anglo-white nations if given a chance.

    So, it seems only white folks, esp Anglo-whites and Northern Europeans, can run really good societies.

  • Sorry, but this is a really sloppy analysis. It seems that as puts up more content, the quality of the work goes down

    • That’s hardly a constructive criticism. You didn’t even argue any of the particular points raised within the article. If you are going to demonstrate a disagreement, make it constructive.

  • Secular Puritans. I recommend that anyone who debates them to call them this. They hit the roof. The very notion that they are closed minded bigots causes so much internal conflict they go into spasms. The idea being (besides entertainment) that it will get through to some of them and they will wake up.

    • Also, “Puritan” implies *Unhip* and *So Last Millennium* — kisses of death to the Cultural Leftist.

Leave a Reply