It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.
liberalism's promise of equality by resolving the contradiction between liberalism's promise and capitalism's outcomes (constantly rising inequality).
Equality under the law is Liberalism's promise, not equality of the universe. That's just maddness. Now, you can blame some of the Enlightenment for that because of Rouseau, but I don't think you can blame Liberalism for that.
The "will to power" stuff you are talking about has more to do with the JQ than it does leftism as analyzed independently as an ideology.
No, the JQ is just Marx being a resentful worthless shit.
The thing that you're calling Will to Power is what has to happen to any individual if he wishes to succeed in the world. Nietzsche formalized it, but I don't think anyone in the universe could have misunderstood Nietzsche more completely than the National Socialists.
Of course, leftism can never truly be decoupled from the JQ since Jews are the reason it exists at all
Leftism is effectively not something that has a real root, but it is linked primarily in modern Europe through whites, not Jews.
It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.
Equality under the law is Liberalism's promise, not equality of the universe. That's just maddness. Now, you can blame some of the Enlightenment for that because of Rouseau, but I don't think you can blame Liberalism for that.
No, the JQ is just Marx being a resentful worthless shit.
The thing that you're calling Will to Power is what has to happen to any individual if he wishes to succeed in the world. Nietzsche formalized it, but I don't think anyone in the universe could have misunderstood Nietzsche more completely than the National Socialists.
Leftism is effectively not something that has a real root, but it is linked primarily in modern Europe through whites, not Jews.