Review of 'Leftist Brain' by Hermann Observer

Smug, satirical—and maybe too much so

I was intrigued when Hermann Observer, asked me to read ‘The Left Frame of Mind, an Inquiry into the Nature of the Leftist Brain’.

Book Cover

The book, speaking objectively, is an attempt to critique the 2010-2020 era, viewpoints that go left from center, aka woke. The book takes a strong stance. And its hypnotic tone is really mesmerizing.

The book takes a form of five chapters. First chapter is called Equality, the second one is called Regulation, third Collectivism, fourth Relativism and five Anarchy. I read the first two and skimmed the rest.

The book is an exposition of a hyperobject, in this case the hyperobject being a "leftist brain". You might wonder whether "leftist mind" would be a more correct word. Leftist brain would suggest that it's a more physiological and perhaps evolutionary, but possibly trying to reference hormone blood concentrations, etc.

It is not, it's more of an indulging read; if you have a boomer uncle who is strongly a conservative individualist, this would be a fun read for him. It really neatly puts together this archetype, this hyperobject of the leftist brain.

And if someone hasn't noticed it for themselves yet, it's very intriguing. This collection of all the observations is, one of the best things about the book.

Each chapter contains a list of aphorisms. Many of them start with the phrase "leftist brain" or has it at its centre in a different way. See the book as a source of entertainment; It is a mistake to try to read the book as an intellectual exposition of the right-wing-left-wing debate. Also, it contains some things I would say are errors or unfair characterizations. So if you'd like to get the book, remember it's more on the humorous side, not an argument that is very rigorous.

Feel free to stop reading this review after this introduction, but before, I will just give one great quote that I like, that is a very well phrased point.

Once Leftist Brain diversity advocates convince a person that she belongs to some imaginary identity group – often an identity group she had not even known existed before - she becomes so attached to this new artificial group identity that she stops growing as the actual individual she is. She becomes a mere caricature of what she is told she should be.

That from the chapter one, equality.

Excerpts with comments

Reading the book back cover, left-wing brain is portrayed with three characteristics. First collectivism over individualism, second coercion over voluntary cooperation, and the third one, sense of mission over common sense. And that's not the most favorable description. I don't think there's a steel man. It's not a rigorous one.

The book considers right-wing as individualism and left-wing as collectivism, both as necessities which is incorrect. There are collective rightists who take as their unit a nation or civilization. And there is a lot of individual-minded leftists.

There's more of such inaccuracies, so let's go through some of them to make sure we have the correct view here.

The Leftist Brain has no patience for gradual improvements or incremental change over time. Its social solutions are needed urgently. They must be immediate, absolute, and unconditional. Otherwise people might start asking themselves why leftist brains are needed at all.

As a matter of fact, there is a debate on the left regarding the reformism and the revolutionary approach that has been going for 150 years.

And like 2021 interview of the 2025-elected New York City mayor mentioned that, well, we need to both work on the immediate things, the things people are ready for, and their general goals that is seizingt the means of production.

That's very Gramscian - obviously leftists DO use the gradual improvement strategy. So don't go into danger of falling that leftists have no patience. They have. There's a danger of underestimating your opponent and indulging a bit too much in this kind of reading material or taking it too seriously might have this effect.

The Leftist Brain is highly receptive to the archetypal dream-myth of a Golden Age. It eagerly follows anyone who promises to deliver it. It is always ready to take that next shot at socialism, that blissful kindergarten state of abundance, justice, and equality for all,

This is way too harsh. That's not only leftist brain is receptive to that. Dream of a golden age is very much present in the memes of the right, such as the fifties or for some the forties or whatever hyperborea. That is very much archetypal dream of a golden age. That's actually the way the ancient Greeks spoke about the free ages. And while they weren't talking about hyperborea exactly, but just on their map.

The Leftist Brain cannot understand that its primitive compulsion to redistribute wealth leads nowhere. Even if it were possible to "share the wealth” equally, some would squander their share while others would increase it, making the next redistribution inevitable. Or could it be that this endless redistribution process is precisely what the Leftist Brain wants?

This is the Wilt Chamberlain argument from Robert Nozick's Anarchy State Utopia. That I know because I recognize this from political theory. However this attribution doesn't exist in this text, but it would be a very useful supplement.

Sometimes the behaviors pointed out here aren't only characteristic of leftist brain. This is sweeping generalization there. Sometimes those are not things that self-described leftists do in the socialist sense, but just liberals or even boomercons or like we had here in the example of the Golden Age. It's pretty general. All humans are liable to that. Just like Confucius idealized the state of Zhou, how good it was. Nostalgia is evergreen.

And now some quotes from chapter two on regulation.

Leftist Brain politicians willfully ignore any reassuring statistics informing their subjects how they are the healthiest, wealthiest and longest living people in history. They insist on disturbing numbers to keep them alarmed and afraid. The alarmed and afraid are more likely to fall for their latest Leftist Brain non-solution.

The journalist class - of all political leanings have incentives to keep people alarmed and afraid. The second and third sentences are true. But the first part, health statistics. I'm not sure. I consider microplastics as bad. And many people eat junk food, which is more available now and good food is more expensive. I think Brian Johnson highlighted the issues with the food supply chain, heavy metals pollution, T levels dropping, etc. So I have mixed views on the object level here.

In his heart of leftist brain hearts, the leftist brain deep feels deeply insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. This is why it longs to be adapted by the parental state.

I've seen evidence online of many anarchist leftists who don't want to trust the state and want to build communes, support networks, trade unions, etc. To say that the only object of the leftist will is just the state - that's oversimplification. Also leftists infiltrate the corporate world, there are activists using the corporates and they don't rely on the state. They aim to increase influence there in the corporation. Adaptive player of the game will use any means, will not be set on just always using this one strategy ( capturing the state apparatus). Good player will use whatever opportunity is adaptive, be like water.

In its heart of Leftist Brain hearts, the Leftist Brain feels deeply insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. This is why it longs to be adopted by the Parental State

This part about being insecure, neglected, vulnerable and inferior. Well, that's the bioleninism, a neo-reactionary concept. And it could be referenced there, making the entertainment more informative. Maybe it's in the sources, but the sources are listed at the end of the book, but they are not linked through the text.

And now some snippets from chapter 3 on collectivism.

What do real fascists (the ones that got taken out in the 1940s) and today's Leftist Brain anti-fascists have in common? More than you think: Both want government control of wages, higher taxes on the rich, less religious and family influence in society, childhood indoctrination, a "new" human nature...

Peter Thiel - an avowed rightist also wants to do new human nature. That is very contentious. And collectivism can also exist on the right, so I'm not convinced on that. And the claim that the fascists in Italy were wanting to be less religious. I'm not sure what are the facts on this. Original sources from 1932 Italy seem to want a coexistence between the Catholic Church and the State.

And now just the last quote.

Among other things, leftist brains reject 1) open discussion whenever conflicting opinions offend them, 2) democratic institutions whenever they produce results that disappoint them, 3) capitalism whenever it fails to enrich everyone equally and 4) science whenever it won’t confirm the mere assumptions they have made.

This is very untoratable. Regarding the first point - there are people who are good at open discussion on the left. Maybe they don't have leftist brain, but they describe themselves as leftist. So by end of inclusion, it would imply that their brains are leftists. And I think ContraPoints is a very good voice that can do good exposition of the leftist ideas. And then the second complaint. Democratic institutions whenever they produce results that disappoint them. Well, yes, but I would say this is a perennial elite feeling of superiority and not necessarily leftism.

Many leftists like Noam Chomsky take issue with capitalism not for equality of enrichment, but for relations of power in the workplace. So it's a strawman to say that leftists would like capitalism to enrich everyone equally. Leftists look at the power relations and alienation and say: ‘wealth is one thing, but the feeling of working somewhere where own the process and not just an abstract corporation’.

The fourth one is just very human.

Conclusion

Maybe not my cup of tea really. If I had to imagine an ideal book on this title, it would be a more historical read, tracing the psychology of leftist thoughts throughout the centuries and how the material conditions influenced them. Then arriving to the 2020s, showing how it works now.

There are risks from reading this current real version; I mentioned some before, I will collate them. There's an oversimplification of the political struggle, like denial of collectivism on the right, individualism on the left. Secondly, the book it's too smug sometimes and it might lead you to underappreciate the opponent, which isn't good. But if this is a gift to your boomercon uncle, who has done only some of those observations, he would see some more, get a more complete picture. This would play well in this role.