Thursday, April 17, 2014

The political spectrum

As viewed from the Left:

It was somewhat eye-opening to see the Mozilla defenders arguing that the hounding of Brandon Eich was justified by the fact that he was not only opposed to homogamy, but actually donated to the twin devils Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

Labels: ,


Blogger Tank April 17, 2014 9:07 AM  

Eich. I like him more and more.

Ever think about an interview with Buchanan?

How about a new group reading assignment/project? I can't believe how many times I've referred to Thucydides or recognized references to it.

Anonymous Viking April 17, 2014 9:20 AM  

The more I hear about Brandon Eich the more I like him.

Blogger Nate April 17, 2014 9:32 AM  

there should be trigger warnings placed at the center of the graph line.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 9:35 AM  

If Eich is evil for donating to Ron Paul, are all those folks at Google, Microsoft, and Apple who donated to Ron Paul also evil?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 9:40 AM  

The perception of a left-right political spectrum has survived for seven centuries and spread across two planets. There are sound reasons for this, despite the fact that it is not perfectly descriptive. One reason is that the core of political differences is the varying perception of the nature of man, at those perceptions’ extremes: Perfectible by breeding (right), perfectible by training and education (left), neither perfectible nor even all that changeable by either (center). A second reason is that the existence of one extreme tends to organize people along the other. Perhaps better said, the two extremes tend to organize each other. Moreover, they tend to drag people away from the center, or to make those who remain in the center very quiet…

Take the typical X-Y graph that purports to describe the true nature of the political spectrum, one that, perhaps, posits an X axis that describes the attitude to planned social progress or attitude to human reason, while the Y axis describes the attitude to government or attitude to power. If one plots out a given sample of people one will find that two corners of the graph are uninhabited. There is no one who is both sane and not a moron who has a very positive attitude towards government (except insofar as such a person may be personally dependent upon a government meal ticket) and a very negative attitude to planned social progress, or vice versa. Instead, in plotting a sample, one gets a fairly narrow oval, running from lower left to upper right. Turn that graph clockwise forty-five degrees and look at it again. Yes, it now describes left-right again, with minor up and down differences, which differences are irrelevant when compared to the major right-left differences and which are, again, overcome by the mutual and hostile organization driven by the extremes…

-- Jorge y Marqueli Mendoza, Historia y Filosofia Moral, Legionary Press, Balboa, Terra Nova, Copyright AC 468

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 17, 2014 9:45 AM  

Just remember that pretty much everyone in shitload central are going to be executed should these people gain absolute power. On top of that, pretty much everyone else in that section as nobody agrees 100% with another person.

Blogger Salt April 17, 2014 9:47 AM  

Most of the arms are in Shitlord Central.

Anonymous Brother Thomas April 17, 2014 9:50 AM  

The Left has a very unsophisticated worldview.

Blogger Tank April 17, 2014 9:52 AM  

Just re-read the Derb interview where he says that Steyn is safe at NR as long as he wants to be there. Hmmm. Wonder if that's still true?

Blogger James Dixon April 17, 2014 10:02 AM  

The Eich thread on LXer generated a comment which contained the line " the mainly conservative right-wing news outlets which constitute the majority of the news availability in the US."

My response was " If you consider CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times conservative, you're slightly to the left of Mao Zedong."

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 10:08 AM  

"Perfectible by breeding (right) ..."

Could you expand on this? At first reaction it strikes me as wrong.

Blogger CarpeOro April 17, 2014 10:11 AM  

Please Josh. Goggle employees have "Don't be Evil" tattoo'd on them. Right next to the 666 and Mom.

Anonymous Daniel April 17, 2014 10:15 AM  

To them, Bloomberg is a little far right, because he once pretended to be a Republican and - worse - pretends to believe in heaven.

Blogger CarpeOro April 17, 2014 10:16 AM  

"Take the typical X-Y graph that purports to describe the true nature of the political spectrum, one that, perhaps, posits an X axis that describes the attitude to planned social progress or attitude to human reason, while the Y axis describes the attitude to government or attitude to power. "

I saw Jerry Pournelle do this a couple decades back in on of his scifi anthologies about Republics if I recall. He rated his boss (he was a science adviser to Bush 42) as less big government than Reagan. At that time I thought he was a bit biased, looking back I'd say the end effect of both was pernicious.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 17, 2014 10:17 AM  

Still, there are things the Repubs could learn from.

Blogger CarpeOro April 17, 2014 10:19 AM  

Correction, Pournelle proposed something similar, but not the same. X-Y axis wise.

Anonymous Rolf April 17, 2014 10:24 AM  

James: My response was " If you consider CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times conservative, you're slightly to the left of Mao Zedong."

JamieinTx- he's quoting someone, which I think is referring to the old "nature vs nurture" argument.

I would disagree. If you think they are conservative, you are a bloody ignorant idiot, and your political affiliation is not just far left, but nucking futs.

Anonymous Rolf April 17, 2014 10:25 AM  

wow - major editing fail. The middle line should be after the first and third. Blarg. No coffee yet.

Anonymous Brother Thomas April 17, 2014 10:27 AM  

The real political divide among our class is between the skeptical and the naive.

The "Left" - and the "Right" to some extent - is very naive. They're been conned with promises of candy and flying unicorns. Despite thousands of years of historical evidence to the contrary and the observable evidence of human nature all around us, the "Left" believes in the benevolence of The State and the promises of the wealthy and powerful people that run it.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 17, 2014 10:43 AM  

Is it a surprise that the scum stick together?

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 10:51 AM  

The more I hear about Brandon Eich the more I like him.

Same here. I read some stuff he wrote about Javascript, and he comes off as sensible, obviously very smart, and with a dry sense of humor (smart conservatives: dry, cutting; smart leftists: snarky, sarcastic).

My first guess when this blew up, knowing nothing about the man except that he works in a field dominated by liberals, was that he probably wasn't any sort of rightist, but just opposed the extreme of homogamy, especially having it imposed by judicial fiat (which was the point of a constitutional amendment instead of an ordinary law -- to tell the judges to stuff it). After all, in 2008 all the good and decent people weren't yet marching in lockstep for homogamy the way they are now; you were still allowed to counsel restraint then. But now, with these revelations, it seems he may actually be (gasp) a conservative!

Anonymous bw April 17, 2014 10:54 AM  

It is neither linear nor circular. It is hierarchical - and all about power over another.

The hierarchy of power is not the same as the hierarchy of value. A good human is higher than the animals on both scales; an evil human is high on the scale of power, but at the very bottom of the scale of values.

Anonymous FP April 17, 2014 10:56 AM  

"Just re-read the Derb interview where he says that Steyn is safe at NR as long as he wants to be there. Hmmm. Wonder if that's still true?"

It appears he's been partially excommunicated or stopped writing for them due to their non support of his lawsuit. He hasn't written anything there for a couple of months from what I see.

Anonymous dh April 17, 2014 11:01 AM  

Mark Steyn has a serious problem and he is probably going to lose his lawsuit. NR is putting distance.

Anonymous YIH April 17, 2014 11:10 AM  

Steyn was unhappy with how the lawsuit was going, so he dismissed the lawyers that were representing him and National Review and is now pro se.
NR's nervous. For the sake of argument, if Steyn loses his suit that could make NR vulnerable. My guess is they've quietly ''suspended'' him. If things get too hot, under the bus he goes (see Derbishire, John).

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 11:14 AM  

Tom - I love your work I just don't see how the right believes that 'breeding' can perfect man. I am reactionary and I believe only one force can perfect man and then only spiritually. Man is flawed always will be until the last trumpet. We can live in a society that recognizes that and tries to help men down the straight and narrow or we can live in a society that revels in filth.

The left half of the bell curve and the right need the same laws. The left because they genuinely go to shit when they are given libertine mores and free money. The right half because they act like parasites if they lack morals and you give them the chance.

We have come on the perfect shitstorm of libertine social values brought on by the 'Great Society' and 'rent takers' owning our financial system. You were a lawyer. You know who the system keeps down. There's no 'Plan' needed to do so either. The only criminals prosecuted are those dumb enough to get caught or who have been set up by their competition or who have someone out to get them. The IRS doesn't even bother going after the big boys. Neither does the Justice Department (unless it's politically motivated).

Our system can only work with a moral Christian population. We're no longer that and it no longer works. And this is way too much to type just to say 'sorry, I don't see the exact scale you're using'. Too little coffee.

Anonymous jack April 17, 2014 11:30 AM  

My opinion; I do not speak for Kratman. I suspect he, thru his book character, was not referring to eugenics per se, but to the idea of conservative, law abiding, and patriotic folk that would seek each other out, raise a family to their values [most here call these 'good' values] and, thus, improve the country, world, and gene pool.
Maybe Tom will address this.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 11:31 AM  

Mark Steyn's only problem is that he still believes the system is remotely fair. Anyone with less money and exposure would have been 'making license plates' by now and a pauper. He's right in everything he said about the wonderful 'Dr' Mann. Mann's a fraud and a liar and probably committed crimes in applying for his grants he certainly committed crimes trying to hide his activities from the freedom of information act.

For the damage these nitwits have done to science, the environment, and society they should be forcibly relocated to the Kerguelen Islands as a living exhibit with re-created megafauna. They can play the part of stone age hunters. Big game hunters from all over the world can hunt mammoths, sabertooth cats, dire wolves, giant camel, sloths, glyptodonts, and short-faced bear.

The cave men can act as guides and entertainment in the evening as they dance, sing, and tell tall tales about how the earth spirits are angry at man for pollution and are causing the world to heat up.

Blogger Drew April 17, 2014 11:33 AM  

I like Eich.

Blogger blitzy April 17, 2014 11:37 AM  

I have always viewed the spectrum as a line between pessimism and optimism. Conservatives tend to be optimistic about people and their ability to take care of themselves. Libs seem to fall on the opposite end, believing that without a rule for every single thing, nobody can do anything.

Blogger CM April 17, 2014 11:41 AM  

I love your work I just don't see how the right believes that 'breeding' can perfect man.

I'm having issues with this idea, too - though for different reasons.

I get that Tom was referring to the extremes. But I see both those extremes dominated by the left - perfectible by breeding is Eugenics, stem-cell research, sperm-washing, amniocentesis, and abortion... isn't it? And those already born are then perfectible by the right amount of education and training - public education, no child left behind, prisoner programs, and court-mandated therapy.

I guess I thought the position of the Right was more reasonable in its expectations of "perfection."

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 11:46 AM  

Don, when an armed mugger has the drop on you, does it really matter that his belief is false that the contents of your wallet rightfully should go to him?

It's not a case of what you believe, nor of what I believe, nor even of what is objectively true. It's a case of what _they_believe, how much they believe it, and what they're willing to do to achieve it. In that class of (misguided IMNSHO) faith, extreme right and extreme left are not all that different. Both look to something between the improvement and perfection of man (whatever that may mean to them), but by radically different methods. Both tend to use the same methods, too, because their faith in their own chosen path to Earthly perfection is so deeply held.

That's the major reason why I really don't buy Jonah Goldberg's assertion of liberal fascism, or the frequently stated belief that Nazism was a movement of the left. No, that they used the name "National _Socialist_" isn't a lot more than a case of false advertising. It is, of course, hard to believe that Germans would ever either go in for false advertising, or fall for it, but there it is. Why, did you know, they didn't even get the Thousand Year Reich they were promised. Talk about politicians breaking their word....harrumph.

Do many of the methods looks trhe same? Sure, but both pneumonia and malaria can give you a wicked case of extreme chills alternating with sweat-pouring bouts of fever. (BTDT) They're still different, though. The methods are often about the same because of their millenialist faith in perfectability (or at least improvement, or - worst case - avoiding decay), and the belief that any improvement, being - of COURSE - eternal, justifies any wicked or evil conduct in the short term.

Now conservatism, on the other hand - in an American, not a British Tory, sense - is not a right wing movement or outlook especially. Only the illusion Vox illustrated above shows what makes it seem so. Instead, conservatives tend to see both nature and nurture as having some effect, but neither being all that certain or predictable, and perfection as being the bugaboo of loons. I, for example, am conservative. I'm a little more toward the right end of conservative, which is fundamentally moderate and middle of the road, but still broadly within that (I think) realistic outlook we can and ought call "conservative."

There is, by the way - I sugested this, above - another way to look at perfectability. You'll see it more clearly from the left, when they'll claim, as they will to a man, "Oh, no., we're not about perfecting man, who is already perfectly good, or would be but for the gross iniquities and inequities of our rotten society..." Guess what? It's the same basic deal: Man is completely malleable by environment. It's almost like they all went to the same goddamned school to learn to parrot that.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 11:49 AM  

Blitzy: Nah. Libleprs are more optimistic about the ability of people in government to take care of other people, while conservatives are very skeptical of that. So it really isn't a question of optimism or of skepticism.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 11:50 AM  

@Jack - You're probably right or close at least. I know he's discussed his views here and elsewhere and if he were a drinking man I'd buy him a scotch of his choice just to listen to whatever he was saying.

It truly is too early and I am pining for the world I lived in as a boy. The past is a foreign country. However, my country is now a foreign country. I live as far from the border of Mexico as you can get in the lower 48 and a third of our population are uncounted illegal aliens. Half of them don't even speak Spanish but 'Mam' as a first language. The only reason they live here is to produce, ship, and distribute drugs (usually elsewhere) there are no legitimate jobs for them here. They do not mow lawns, babysit, or work in illegal factories like most other big illegal populations. They collect benefits, work in the drug trade, and occasionally steal things from the national park and national forest. Oh, and murder each other and others. We went from 0 murders in twenty years to five murders and two maybe murders in five years. We've had a dry spell of a couple years but the last Guatemalan murder was simply released because, "We do not have a translator" which is bullshit because the Mam translator comes to the DSHS offices Mondays and Fridays.

The former mayor worked with real estate companies and trailer park owners to keep their properties filled with renters (they cannot legally buy) with illegal aliens. They also enjoy the EBT benefits, TANF, WIC and other social service money (rent assistance, PUD assistance, etc.).

I can't seem to stop ranting this morning. I as bad as Ann (and no that is not an invitation to respond Ann).

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 11:53 AM  


I wouldn't expect absolute consistency from either right or left. Nazis will control A-Z in the society, in order to either improve the breed or avoid it's decay, Soviets may try breeding superior soldiers (with Gorillas and people, so it's said) the better to defend the socialist workers' paradise while Lenin's New Soviet Man is educated and trained into existence, but whatever tactical accomodations they may make, the more strategic outlook is different.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:00 PM  

There are other ways to look at it, though the results are not very different. This suggests to me, as I've suggested here before, that there are a couple of more or less grand strategical outlooks underneath the nature-nurture split. I very strongly suspect there is, but I don't know what it is, yet. The left, for example, tries to hold itself up as rational and logical. It isn't, it's emotion-driven wishful thinking; that, and mere rationalization. The extreme right, conversely, tends to tap into emotion for greater unity, greater effort, and greater order, and is probably more rational in that than the left is in their pretense to reason, since at least in that they're dealing with people as people are. (The left does this too, sometimes, but, see above, don't expect perfect consistency.)

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 12:01 PM  

Tom - Thank you for your response. I see where you are coming from now. I've always thought that the Nazis' quest for human breeding was related to Margaret Sanger's desire to see fewer babies from the lower classes.

To deliberately change the subject since I am very depressed thinking about my home town (although it is still on topic). The Germans find the worst way to name things, "Holy Roman Empire" comes to mind in line with 'Third Reich'.

I have a hard time seeing the Nazis as right wing. So many were atheists or half assed wannabe pagans (which the real pagans would have laughed at). But I can see where you are coming from.

Anonymous VD April 17, 2014 12:04 PM  

I very much disagree, Tom. The fundamental ideological split is not Nature/Nurture, but X=X/X=NotX.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:12 PM  

"It truly is too early and I am pining for the world I lived in as a boy."

Oh, God, yes. I live in Virginia, but I am so homesick for Boston I sometimes can barely stand it. But it's not the Boston that is, which depresses the hell out of me, that I want to return to, but the Boston that was, the Boston where, from my part of it, kids volunteered en masse for Vietnam and died there at about four times the national rate. I want the Boston back where nuns told us that, were we to be killed in battle, it would count as baptism by fire and we'd be translated straight to Heaven. I want back my Boston, the fundamentally conservative, religious, Jacksonian place of my youth.

But the left stole it.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 12:15 PM  

Tom - Yeah the right is more rational than the left because they don't buy into the whole 'nurture is everything' horseshit. I was born into a dying republic now I live in a socialist nation with voter fraud so great we cannot even hold honest elections in many districts. Washington State hasn't had an honestly elected governor since the Soros backed secretary of state project. It doesn't matter who votes in a fraudulent system only who counts the votes.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:15 PM  

It's your blog, you can surely disagree. Hell, you could disagree if it were my blog. And I am certainly willing to listen. But I still think I'm right.

Anonymous Salt April 17, 2014 12:18 PM  

The left will say that 2+2=5 if it needs to be 5. Sorry, Tom, but Boston agreed.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:21 PM  

Yes, but that's tactical, Salt. The (I keep saying "extreme" because we've fallen into the usage and it's worthwhile to distinguish conservatism from the far right) extreme right would as readily say 2+2=3, if it served their interests. Both are extreme. Both are millenialist. And both are unencumbered by normal human morality, since both see themselves as serving higher ends.

Blogger John Wright April 17, 2014 12:26 PM  

The Left-Right spectrum is pure hogwash: it is an excuse for the Lefties to call Republicans and Monarchists and Imperialists as Nazis. In real life, Nazis are Siamese Twin brothers of Communists, and both take their inspiration from the Terror of the French Revolution.

The real spectrum goes from American Revolutionaries on the Right, Christians who believe in small government, private property, objective truth and individual liberty, to French Revolutionaries, Atheists who believe in totalitarianism, socialism, political correctness, and collective slavery, all to be achieved by mass lies followed by mass executions.

While there are honest and honorable agnostics and atheists who believe for purely secular reasons in small government, private property, objective truth and individual liberty, sad experience shows that a wide population of varying levels of education can only maintain the virtues needed for small government to operate must be motivated by Christian virtues and moral norms.

A Robert Heinlein style libertarian commonwealth, where all men serve faithfully in the military but unfaithfully service their several wives and concubines and lovers, living selfish lives addicted to pleasure, is an adolescent daydream: adult powers without adult responsibilities. Las Vegas can exist as Sin City only for so long as the surrounding flyover country is occupied by godfearing, sober, and hardworking men raising families. One cannot recruit men of the hard and self sacrificing character needed for a platoon of Marines (or Mobile Infantry) out of the gutters of Sin City.

All that happens when you try to defend a nation with a soft and godless generation of Me-First boys is that you have to lower the Boot Camp standard to fill up your recruitment numbers (which we have), make pain and harshness in training optional (which we have), send the greenhorns into harm's way unprepared (which we do), and watch helplessly as record numbers of them play Russian roulette with an automatic rather than a revolver (which they do).

Men who believe in no heaven have nothing to sustain them during and after the hell of combat.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:29 PM  

This might be a useful occasion to list some social-philosophical-poltical illusions people tend (it's nearly universal, I think) to fall into. This is only mine, so feel free to disagree.

1. "I am in the reasonable middle." (See Vox's illustration, above.) Answer: No, probably not. You're in the middle of the group you associate with; that's why you associate with them and they with you. But the odds of it being in the true middle are dismal, at best. That;s how Nixon got elected even though you didn't know anyone who supported him.
2. The tendency to see people much further from you into indistinguishable lumps. Hence, Conservatives become Nazis, while fiscal converative JFK (whom I despise anyway) becomes a Red.
3. The tendency to add vociferousness as a height, above the spectrum, then add that height as a distance away from where you stand. Thus, the most moderate man in the world, if immoderate in his detestation of the extremes, could, and likely would, be seen as a liblepr by the right, or a nazi by the left. (No, I am not that man, but I do reap some of the same effect.)

There are a couple more, but I'd have to dig.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 12:30 PM  

@ blitzy: The right is pessimistic about human nature in the aggregate, our ability to "work together" to bring about transformative change through government programs or social re-conditioning. Yet regarding individuals and their abilities to overcome challenges in their own lives, their much more optimistic. Horatio Alger stories, etc.

The left is the opposite. There's nothing we can't all do together if only we elect the right politicians, nix all crimethought, and leave behind the awful selfish instincts society has instilled into us. Likewise, as individuals we're helpless, entirely dependant on whether or not enough Democrats get voted into power.

The right thinks eliminating poverty is a fool's errand, but it's entirely possible to get individuals to get their asses in gear to break "the cycle of poverty". The left thinks it's entirely plausible that through social engineering we could completely eliminate all social ills, but the idea that you could ever convinceTamika to not have that fourth child out of wedlock is downright absurd.


Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 12:33 PM  

I think part of the problem today is that "the extreme right" doesn't exist; it's just a handy epithet for those on the left to throw at their enemies. (I mean, I'm sure they exist, and all five of them probably have web sites, but they aren't part of the discussion.) But as Tom says, a "conservative" in the sense of someone who thinks the 1950s were more good than bad and we should stick to the original interpretation of the Constitution as revealed in works like the Federalist Papers, is really in the middle of the left/right spectrum, not at one end. The Founders certainly weren't on the "right"; no one who believes in "rugged individualism" and individual civil rights in today's terms is a "rightist."

Vox's split is better: people who accept and deal with reality, and people who deny it. Nature/nurture is just one symptom of that, with the deniers denying the facts of nature.

To put it in religious terms, the split is between sinners who recognize the reality of sin and (with varying degrees of success) try to deal with it, versus those who deny the reality of sin and (knowingly or not) embrace it.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 12:33 PM  

Tom, let me summarize to see if I understood you. The right (uSA) is of breeding because of their view on the nature of humans?

Blogger Marissa April 17, 2014 12:33 PM  

The fundamental ideological split is not Nature/Nurture, but X=X/X=NotX.

To me, this sounds similar to what Zippy Catholic talks about on his blog: the difference between essentialism and nominalism. But I could be wrong. I'm not well-versed in philosophy and I don't fully understand these concepts.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:34 PM  

Really, John? So Lenin didn't believe in New Soviet Man, the SDS's initial draft to their POort Huron Statement didn't say, "We believe that Man is infinitely perfectable"? Rousseau and Plato didn't exist?

I've seen the argument before. The problem is that this has been going on for a lot longer than the (so called) revolution, which was not a revolution but a conservative - which is to say middle of the road - counter revolution against a Parliament grown grasping, which was attempting to unilaterally change the pre-existing deal.

Additionally, though, the spectrum provides a good tool for seeing how people actually organize for the usually bloodless war that is politics, and for predicting what they will do. A spectrum that posits either an ideology or an ideal doesn't really do that.

Anonymous Salt April 17, 2014 12:39 PM  

The political spectrum is today contained with the realm of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. Then again, there is Colorado.

Blogger Thordaddy April 17, 2014 12:45 PM  

The only real divide is between those that believe they can "love, f&$k, screw" whomever they please and those that don't. In this case, we a super duper majority of liberationists.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:45 PM  


Yes, as someone said, all five of them.

The US was usually a moderate country, sometimes given to tactical extremes. I am still puzzling ("and he puzzled and puzzled, til his puzzler was sore") about all the forms and nuances of the extreme right. For example, where does some obscenely rich parasite stand, who mouths all the left wing platitudes, but spends all his time worrying about his little 2.4 designer children, and loots the future on their behalf? Were does Kos stand, who places - and admits he places - his gene pool above all?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 12:51 PM  


Those strike me as symptoms. Why do they have those symptoms?

I once, by the way, thought I had the answer, in nature-nurture. I am no longer convinced that those are anything but the ultimate _articulable_ core values and articles of faith. I am still looking for what underlies those. John Wright, I think, touched on in a week or two ago, but it didn't strike me as quite the core of the thing. With the left, I surmise that _maybe_ they not only want to be Gods, they resent the one God who is. This may be the core, but I still don't feel the urge to jump out of my chair and shout, "I see it! I see it!" (Lawyers inside joke.) With the extreme right I don't even have that much confidence in any conclusion of what drives them.

By the way, nothing in having one spectrum for one or more purposes precludes having others, to serve different purposes. But once you have more than one, you automatically raise the questions of what underlies and unifies those, which means you need to start searching again for the right one.

Anonymous Servant April 17, 2014 12:51 PM  

I (IMHO) believe that John Wright is right. Our original government depended on a "moral and righteous" majority. There no longer is such. Hope for return to what was is delusional. Only our "Blessed Assurance" can see those remaining in the moral and righteous (however poorly) group though to the end, the end of the age which is approaching.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 12:51 PM  

If your paradigm places the nazis on the right wing, I think it's a broken paradigm.

Totalitarianism of any type is left wing.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 17, 2014 12:58 PM  

It's startling that Eich was hounded in part for views expressed in...1991 and 1992.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 1:03 PM  

political liberty
+-------> economic liberty

Nazis/fascists are close to origin (0,0)
Communists are close to the origin too, but, due to human nature, cannot really get beyond socialism into the era of the modern man. Not that they will admit to it.

The further away from the origin, the more liberty.

Anonymous jack April 17, 2014 1:05 PM  

General Observation: This post/comment thread is developing into one of the best of the best. Hmmm..Vox, Tom, John, whats not to like and ponder? And, a subject that the Last Fortress folk will debate unto the End. [I'm about to start the Last of All Suns so this here today is a good sparkplug]

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:06 PM  

He's certainly at least partly right, Servant, but the political universe didn't begin with the [so called] Revolution, and it will not end with the destruction or dismemberment of the United States. A proper analytical spectrum has to account for a pretty broad range of human politics, and further account for changes where some aspects of that history can be ignored. There could even be one or more than one for every civilization, but that very multiplicity would suggest an overarching tool still to be sought.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 1:06 PM  

Leftism does refuse to acknowledge Truth, and Truth has various components. First, they deny the Aristotelian Law of Identity that A is A (Vox's claim that they deny reality). Second, they deny the existence of an objective moral standard as defined by God.

The two are interrelated, and there's a third truth that I won't get into (I'm not sure if I'd have time to defend it here today), but that's basically it.


Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:08 PM  


It looks like you're trying for a XY, but a truncated XY, and also trying to fit a graph around an ideal, rather than around people as they are and can be. I don't think it gets you anywhere.


Why? Aren't you, as well, postulating an ideal and then trying to fit divergent movements into it? Look at where they differ. And then note that Ive already explained why they sometimes act the same.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 1:09 PM  

Me: Tom, let me summarize to see if I understood you. The right (uSA) is of breeding because of their view on the nature of humans?
Tom: Yes, as someone said, all five of them.

Then, one more question but I think I am beginning to understand.

In your understanding, then, is that Conservatives think that human nature can be improved?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:12 PM  

Nothing, by the way, precludes conservatism and a moderate libertarianism or minarchism from being in the middle. I am not sure there's any gain or magic to lumping reds and nazis together, when one can simply label them, rightfully, as exrtremists.

Anonymous jack April 17, 2014 1:12 PM  

@Servant. I (IMHO) believe that John Wright is right. Our original government depended on a "moral and righteous" majority.

Yes, as the Founders hope and prayed for. From the start we were lucky in that there was a majority of God Fearing folk. The charlatans, crooked politicians, opportunists using lobbying sycophants were there from the start. Whats changed is the percentages of the different archetypes. Sure, it would be great, great to have no criminals in the halls of congress much less at the high court and that oval office. What chance now? Peaceably, that is.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:16 PM  

No, conservatives doubt that human nature can be much improved, if at all, and while they recognize that nature and nurture are both of some effect, neither is really controllable or predictable or certain in its effects, and will most liekly just be misused by whoever tries to use them.

Aha, sudden realization; I need to mention that reason is mostly nonsense, that man is a rationalizing, not a reasoning creature, at core, and thatm further, he is driven by instincts and emotions, not his reasoning powers. He can and sometimes does reason, tactically, but underlying that are innate assumptions, emotions, and instincts. Generally. So when I describe censervatives as I am, it doesn't mean they think about this, but that they tend to react and rationalize in certain ways, based on a deep and unquestioned skepticism about the ability of anyone to use either nature or nurture, wisely or well, in pursuit of any goal.

And I'm no better.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 1:17 PM  

"For example, where does some obscenely rich parasite stand, who mouths all the left wing platitudes, but spends all his time worrying about his little 2.4 designer children, and loots the future on their behalf? Were does Kos stand, who places - and admits he places - his gene pool above all?"

I would say that, they fall under Folsom's ("The Myth of the Robber Barons) definition of political entrepreneurs. They tend to move closer to the origin, both politically and economically, while giving lip service to being away from the economic origin.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 1:18 PM  

Mr Wright - I generally agree with your statement except I believe the lowering of standards is due to admitting women into professions they simply cannot physically do. Police, firefighters, soldiers.

The left thinks that it is simply social oppression that keeps women from lifting the ladder or being able to subdue a subject absent weapons. Further they believe even if the physical gap cannot be trained away having women in these professions is worth the cost in lives lost to allow them to pretend to be firemen, police officers, and soldiers.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:20 PM  

Hmmm..the origin...are you, perchance, subscribing to some past golden age, Jaime?

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 1:22 PM  

@ Tom: You're entirely correct about man being a rationalizing animal, but that in no way de-legitimizes reason.

Pure reason is a great way to discern Truth. We may not be likely to use it, we may think we're using it when we're not, but that doesn't mean it's "nonsense".


Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 1:22 PM  

Tom - All men feel first from the gut then rationalize what their gut is telling them. All of us are the same in that.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 17, 2014 1:23 PM  

I agree with Vox on what the real split it.

X = X
let X = 7
7 = 7
2 + 5 = 3 + 4
2 = 3 + 4 - 5
2 = 3 + ( 4 - 5)

(4 - 5) = someone else's fault/problem/responsibility, so I can ignore it


I don't understand 4 or 5 very well, so they must not be very important, and my political opponents just throw them out there as a smokescreen.

either way

2 = 3

X = not X

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:24 PM  

"The left thinks that it is simply social oppression"

It's this that made me, for quite a long time, think that the left's ultimate value was a kind of childish faith in magic, and it was that that's led me to wonder about whether it isn't a desire to be God, and a resentment of the one God, that drives them.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:25 PM  

That, too, Jack, might be faith in a kind of magic, in which case I will agree with Vox, but not necessarily agree that we've reached past the merely tactical to the core of the thing.

Blogger Marissa April 17, 2014 1:27 PM  

Totalitarianism of any type is left wing.

Where do you put monarchy and why?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:30 PM  

It a case, Alpha, of "wouldn't it be nice?" But that it would be nice (maybe) doesn't mean it can be at all. Pure reason is an impractical ideal, and nowhere more impractical than among the (pseudo) intellectuals who claim to practice it. way of example, both Lao Tze and Sun Tzu applauded the commander who can win without battle or bloodshed. And so? Interesting that neither could name one. It's an impractical ideal, hence useles or even quite misleading. You want pure reason? Rousseau pretended to it, and couldn't have been more wrong. Plato did, as well, and produced nothing of use. Today Nussbaum counsels it, and her emotion-driven pseudo reason would be nothing short of suicide for whichever society was silly enough to take her advice.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 17, 2014 1:31 PM  

Conservatives think that human nature can be improved?

Conservatives think that thousands of years of experience with human nature resulted in a set of rules that, if followed, will improve human behavior.

Liberals - or what we should really call Progressives as it is more descriptive here - believe human nature can be improved and the rules ignored. Or, more accurately, Progressives don't like the rules so they convince themselves that the rules are what corrupt human nature and if we just got rid of the rules people would become angelic (in a non-denominational, spiritual, not-to-be-confused-with-Christianity sort of way of course).

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 1:32 PM  

"Hmmm..the origin...are you, perchance, subscribing to some past golden age, Jaime?"

No, not in the context of this discussion. I could have put absolute liberty, political and economics (economical?), as the origin.

I am a Christian, therefore, I do believe in an origin, golden and then tarnished. In my view, human nature cannot be changed. Only an external gift of grace that will open our eyes, that we may no longer be blind and that the war within may begin to a promised victory, one day.

I used to consider myself a Conservative. I still am but what in passes for conservatism these days, I eschew the term ... a little. I am not a libertarian but I I could be called a libertarian minarchist correctly.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 1:32 PM  

Tom - The left has plenty of magical thinking. That is why dissent isn't tolerated. There are so many false and harmful ideas and ideals they hold that examination of them would bring the house of cards down hard.

We were told that 'toleration' of different view points was something a 'democracy' and 'enlightened society' did. Now that the left is firmly in control they make no bones that the call for toleration was a pure lie. That's why I became reactionary. You want Boston back. I want my small town back. I want my state back. And honestly if I ever get it, I will never fall for the 'tolerance' and accommodation with the left ever again. I will never compromise with them again. I won't 'agree to disagree' with someone who favors abortion, special rights for homosexuals, and oppression of Christian speech or removing God from our society.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:32 PM  

Usually in the conservative middle, Marissa, because as a practical matter monarchy is no such thing, but is an alliance between the monarch and the lower classes to stymie the aristocracy. It is usually a mixed government, in its effects, much as we have.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 1:37 PM  

Rousseau had more bad ideas than a whole village of idiots and abandon his children to orphanages and death. Yeah a great thinker there.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:42 PM  

And yet he and Kant - or their shades - still sit at the core of most modern problems, cackling gleefully.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 1:42 PM  

Nothing, by the way, precludes conservatism and a moderate libertarianism or minarchism from being in the middle.

Or together on the right, if that's where they end up in relation to the left's current position. That's what I was saying about the right being a reaction to the left: today a Catholic monarchist and a Randian atheist may find themselves on the same side, despite having almost nothing in common except a belief that objective truth exists and can be known (if imperfectly). It really makes no sense to lump them together as belonging to a single political movement or party, but we do because we're stuck on that XY axis (or two axes, which doesn't help that much).

As for getting down to the core of the thing: I think John C. Wright gets very close with his Autumn People description. Take it any deeper than that, and you get to simple rebellion against God's justice, essentially the equivalent of Lucifer's "Non serviam," which seems like an awfully harsh accusation to make against a large swath of the population, so the mind (or at least the pen) balks.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 1:43 PM  

OT: militia in Ukraine are ordering Jews to register with the government.

Tom, I'll respond to your question shortly.

Blogger Marissa April 17, 2014 1:44 PM  

Thank you, Tom. Do you think a middle or merchant class can exist in such a situation?

Conservatives think that thousands of years of experience with human nature resulted in a set of rules that, if followed, will improve human behavior.

This is a good way of describing it. It isn't the nature that changes. Instead, individuals and groups encourage certain types of behaviors and discourage others to create ways of life that make bearing this fallen world a little easier and possibly make coming to know God easier too.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 1:45 PM  

@ Tom: "Pure reason is an impractical ideal, and nowhere more impractical than among the (pseudo) intellectuals who claim to practice it."

Could we then not also describe Justice, Truth, or Righteousness as "impractical ideals"?

A is A. All attempts at reaching the Idea WILL be flawed. Nevertheless, sometimes we're supposed to try. I freely grant that Perfect Justice will never be achieved by man, but we should nevertheless make every attempt to carry out Justice to the best of our abilities in our courts of law.

Christianity also prescribes countless ideals we'll never achieve. Christ says, "be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". I'll never be perfect. Does that mean I shouldn't even try? That Christ's command is misleading? That even though I might never achieve perfection, that I might be a little less constrained by sin tomorrow than I am today?

I'll also grant that folks claiming to be using Reason aren't and that such smokescreens can cause havoc, but that applies to every ideal. There have been some downright awful things done in the name of Christ, but whatever some weird cult might have done in no way de-legitimizes the Christian Ideal.

Balance is required. Idealism that ignores reality leads to bloodshed, but realism that discounts Ideals because we'll never bring them to perfect fruition leads to stagnation and impotence.


Anonymous VD April 17, 2014 1:51 PM  

OT: militia in Ukraine are ordering Jews to register with the government.

And we're supposed to care about that why? After all, most Jews in the USA are huge fans of various forms of registration, from guns to health care.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:53 PM  

They have, Marissa, so could again.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:54 PM  

They're impractical ideals if you expect the ideal to happen, Alpha, and ignore to good possible for the theoreticallt better impossible.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 1:55 PM  

"And we're supposed to care about that why? "

Because it might get us into a freaking war that's none of our business.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 1:57 PM  

"OT: militia in Ukraine are ordering Jews to register with the government."

Pro-Russian separatists from Donetsk in eastern Ukraine denied any involvement in the circulation of flyers calling on Jews to register with separatists and pay special taxes.

Then, there is this:
Aleksandr Muzychko is a notorious nationalist leader. Back in 2007 he pledged to fight against "communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in his veins," openly saying that leading the fight against all of the above mentioned groups is his "credo."

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 2:01 PM  

@ Tom: "They're impractical ideals if you expect the ideal to happen, Alpha, and ignore to good possible for the theoreticallt better impossible."

Your first clause is correct, but expecting perfection to actually happen does not equate the nonsensical nature of the Ideal itself.

But folks simultaneously recognizing their limitations yet strive to transcend them, progress is made.

A is A, but the Ideals set forth by God are just as real.


Blogger Salt April 17, 2014 2:02 PM  

"And we're supposed to care about that why? "

Because it might get us into a freaking war that's none of our business.

So how should we care other than get involved, which we already are.

Blogger Marissa April 17, 2014 2:04 PM  

Re: Jews in Ukraine:

Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website.

Donetsk is the site of an "anti-terrorist" operation by the Ukraine government, which has moved military columns into the region to force out militants who are demanding a referendum be held on joining Russia. The news was carried first by the Ukraine's Donbass news agency.

The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of "Donetsk's temporary government," and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the reports.

Pushilin acknowledged that fliers were distributed under his organization's name in Donetsk but denied any connection to them, Ynet reported in Hebrew.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:08 PM  

Again, Alpha, I try - and usually succeed - to live in the real world, where ideals, as a practical matter, make things worse. Don't reall concern myself that they could make things better, and won't as long as I observe that they do make things worse...and on a grand scale. The grander the ideal, the worse, and the greater the scale.

Now there are personal ideals one can follow, and encourage others to follow, but they're a rather different matter.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:16 PM  

"So how should we care other than get involved, which we already are."

I have, from a credible source, the view that the company's hands are all over this. And, of course, nothing is so bad that John Kerry can't report for duty for and make worse. I am by no means certain that Putin wouldn' be in the moral right in taking everything up to the Dnepr, to include Kiev (which is just past it but where most people speak Russian at home).

We should try to extricate ourselves, and show our [lack of] concern that way. I just see no benefit for us there. I do care about American Jews, generally, even if there are some fair number I'd like to exile, but see no reason to care about foreign Jews that I don't know personally.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 17, 2014 2:18 PM  

It is impossible to live by following principles perfectly. If anyone lives by his ideals perfectly, he is promptly renamed martyr.

Crucifixion comes to mind, of the only one to have done so. Tomorrow, a day of remembrance of such an event. Of course, he is a one of a kind ontologically.

Romans 3
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

Blogger tz April 17, 2014 2:18 PM  

I thought a rainbow was a spectrum, but the left seems monochromatic while waving the rainbow flags.

Henfy Ford said "any color as long as it is black"

Anonymous Rolf April 17, 2014 2:18 PM  

Vox - I don't think it's quite as simple as "x=x vs x=!x".
I think it's trying to see and properly evaluate what X is, and dealing with it as such, vs those that happily see x=x when it agrees with what the feel is good, and x=[whatever the hell sounds convenient] when x doesn't easily line up with their desires.

Hence, they (the statists, whatever their official party declaration might be) manage to simultaneously believe (a) that humans are too stupid to know what best for themselves, so they need lots and lots of rules to tell them what to do and how to do it about everything, and (b) humans running the government, promoted primarily based on time in service, can brilliantly, dispassionately, and perfectly apply a mass of rules so huge nobody can possibly know them all (let alone apply them because many are contradictory), because people working for the state are somehow magically different from the masses they control. They really see government and private individuals as wonderfully, magically, somehow, different.

Conservatives tend to try to see reality as it is, and deal with it accordingly, and tend to prefer fewer rules and natural consequences to correct mistakes made by imperfect people, rather than formal written rules for everything, backed by government enforcement. They tend to try (even if imperfectly) to work from axiom and principle outward, or at the very least try to know what their principles are. (great debate technique tip - try to get a liberal to state more than one assumption or principle, then point out the logical inconsistency)

Nature sets the general initial parameters of your body and mind, and your environment molds it, to some degree. Your experience, diet, climate, parasite load, friends, family and the rest all have an influence, but they have to work with what you are to start with, and the genome (and epigenetics) are an amazingly flexible foundation to build from and with.

Most statists believe humans are perfectible, if you can just give them enough support, guidance (rules/laws), funding, etc., and so the solution to problems are ALWAYS more rules, more control, more standardization, with no recognition of the systemic costs of their actions.

Most conservatives recognize that while humans are generally alike in many ways, individuals are different, unique, and imperfect, and guiding principles and natural consequences usually work better to get the most good out of any given person, because every choice is a tradeoff, and everything has a cost somewhere, somehow, sometime.

Related - A lot of times, when trying to explain things to my children, the question comes up about something being "good or bad." A lot of times (say, for example, when discussing the difference between male and female strength) I have to say "it's not necessarily a good thing OR a bad thing, it's just a thing, and you have to see it for what it is and deal with it accordingly."

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 2:19 PM  

@ Tom: I also live in the real world, and I also recognize how misguided idealism can lead to disaster.

Idealism causes problems when it disregards reality. It need not do so. Misguided ideals include the perfectibility of human nature, the ability to wipe out poverty, the notion that we can build some city on a hill in which there is no sin, etc.

However, if you know that A is A (and actually really know it), within the constraints of reality we can (and have) made important strides towards improving things.

But if you forget that A is A, you're correct, it will lead us straight to hell. That's what usually happens, but it's not foreordained that it will.


Anonymous rho April 17, 2014 2:28 PM  

"Shitlord Central" is fast becoming the hottest new ZIP code on the Internet. 9021-heroes.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:30 PM  

"Most statists believe humans are perfectible, if you can just give them enough support, guidance (rules/laws), funding, etc.,"

And this is another illustration of the difference between Nazis and libleprs.

I don't know that it was generally understood here, ever, just what the Fuehrerprinzip was. We tend to think of it as something as simplistic as "der Fuehrer hat immer recht." Or, failing that, as some kind of bureaucratic ideal.. (Pulled from wiki: "The ideology of the Fuhrerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Fuhrer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors.")

That's not quite right, even though Germany displayed both. Instead, the Fuehrerprinzip, as practiced by it's chief proponent, Hitler, himself, was more on the order of, "Find the superior man, put him in charge of fixing the problem, leave him largely unconstrained by rules or regulations, but trust in his superiority to fix what you set him to fix."

This is rather different, in practice, from binding people by rules or directives or laws.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 2:30 PM  

I don't think it's true that liberals/leftists don't believe in reality or that X=X. Or even that there are no moral absolutes.

I think they only *say* or *act* as if they don't believe these things when it serves their current rhetorical purposes.

I.e., it's just another of the lies they tell.

Those of us on the right spend a lot of time trying to understand the left, and our most common mistake is thinking that they mean what they say. (We do this because honesty and forthrightness are among *our* key values.) But with liberals/leftists -- as with any other liars -- the thing is not to watch what they say, but what they do.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:31 PM  

It doesn't matter if it need not, Alpha, when one can still confidently predict that it will.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 2:35 PM  


As far as why, well, I look at the left-right spectrum as a statist-libertarian, tyranny-freedom, or collectivist-individualist spectrum.

As far as the soviets vs nazis, the difference you're identifying is one of motive or intent. Which can be a slippery slope to "actions don't matter if you do them for the right reasons". That kind of thinking has always struck me as leftist.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 2:36 PM  

@ Corky: They believe in morality and reality, in a sense. The problem is that they don't believe in either an OBJECTIVE reality or morality. What's real depends on their perspective, what's moral is a function of what's beneficial.

They're what I call subjectivists, a concept described in greater detail here.


Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 2:38 PM  


The reason I mentioned it was you've been predicting an increase in antisemitism in Europe.

Also it could set the stage for Putin to annex portions of eastern Ukraine to protect the Jews. Which would be absolutely hilarious.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:42 PM  

Why, Josh? WHat's your underlying analysis of non-tactical factors that leads you there? Why are you sorting by a set of ideals and philosophies, rather than looking at how people actually sort themselves and why they do? And why do you think only the left believes the end justifies the means, or that anyone who believes the end justifies the means must be on the left? Doesn't that strike you as---oh, I dunno -- maybe a bit _circular_?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 2:43 PM  

And, no, the difference isn't so much motive or intent, but approach, the underlying - or at least ultimate articulable - value that drives what they do.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 2:50 PM  



Well, Locke vs Rousseau and the American vs the French revolutions.

I think any time you veer from first principles you're ultimately going to end up on the left.

So you have a group that has a set of first principles that stem from christendom (unalienable rights etc) and you have a group that's abandoned those principles.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 2:52 PM  


Oh, I think they do believe in an objective reality and also in an objective moral law.

But they resent it and go to elaborate lengths to pretend it doesn't exist.

The reason they resent it is obvious: it thwarts or condemns their desire.

They are indeed subjectivists, in the sense that they are withdrawn into their own consciousness, where they can pretend to rule their own universe. But it's only a pretense, and I think they know it at some level or another.

(Leftists who think like this must be distinguished from the manipulative elites who view them as useful idiots. Their addiction to their desires is what makes them so easily manipulable.)

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 2:56 PM  


A monarchy is not necessarily totalitarian.

Unless you're equating democracy/voting with freedom and liberty.

Anonymous rycamor April 17, 2014 2:58 PM  

Drew April 17, 2014 11:33 AM
I like Eich.


Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 3:03 PM  

Corky, you're right, but in the end it amounts to the same thing. Yes, if a leftist truly refused to believe in reality, we'd never have to deal with him because he wouldn't be able to leave his house -- he'd just keep banging his face against the door he insists isn't real. So he does believe in reality when it's not keeping him from pursuing his desires or making him feel bad.

But the instant that an objective truth contradicts his beliefs or threatens to prevent his whims, he feels free to deny it. That's when, "What's true, really?" comes out. It might be more accurate to say he considers reality to be optional. When an objective truth is useful to him -- shoelaces help shoes stay on, for instance -- he'll use it happily enough. Not because it's true, but because it's useful. It's optional. He doesn't tie his shoes because A=A, but because going along with the idea that A=A in that case seems to help him trip less often.

Believers in New Age -- which is more influential than people realize today -- will state this explicitly, by the way. They'll tell you that you can alter reality with your mind -- not just your perception of it, but reality itself -- so you can choose not just what to believe, but what IS true. Since they consider all of reality to be malleable (or in some varieties, an illusion), they do believe that you can literally change reality by thinking better thoughts. So you really can get rid of racial inequality by getting rid of badthink -- if racists just stopped thinking that blacks were inferior, they wouldn't be inferior! Isn't that handy?

Now, I do agree with you that on some level, deep down, they know (or fear) that there is an objective reality with rules and expectations. But they bury that very deep, so in their conscious thinking and their actions, at least, it's as if A may be A or may not be, depending on how they feel about it.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 3:22 PM  


Yes, I agree. At its core, leftism is magical thinking. You can gain a lot of insight into it by reading up on the New Age. To that end, I recommend Charles Upton's book on the System of the Antichrist.

Magic, the illicit desire to reshape reality according to our own will, is of course one form of the original sin.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza April 17, 2014 3:25 PM  

Ha! Love it. Team Lord Central!!

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 3:59 PM  

@ Cail: Brilliant analysis.

@ Corky: "Leftists who think like this must be distinguished from the manipulative elites who view them as useful idiots. Their addiction to their desires is what makes them so easily manipulable."

I'd argue that divisions among leftists depend less on their philosophical premises and more on their notion of what should be their role in the Lefty Paradise they hope to construct.

The Anointed over-estimate their worth in that they see themselves as ordained to re-construct society and determine how the rest of us should live our lives. The Benighted ("I'm the beneficiary of the horrendous White Patriarchy so degrade me!") believe that they should be putty in the hands of their Anointed superiors. The Entitled simultaneously over-estimate their worth (I deserve the money you make) and under-estimate it (I'm incapable of earning my own living).

Yet they all reject objective reality and morality. More detail here.

Also, I believe that the three central flaws of Leftism are each reflected in the desert temptations presented by Satan, but that would take forever to explain.


Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 4:14 PM  

So the American and French revolutions are the only possible models of government? No. They're not even models of government.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 4:17 PM  

And Josh? I don't think you really answered those questions, except by continuing the circle.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 4:27 PM  

"Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." -- Philip K. Dick

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 4:29 PM  

By the way, Josh, what makes you write Locke _vs_ Rousseau? They were both clearly on the left with regard to belief of man as a tabula rasa, malleable clay, something between improvable, as a minimum, and highly perfectable.

Anonymous Goshawk April 17, 2014 4:32 PM  

I've given up on viewing the world through the left/right paradigm. In the scriptures, God divides people into two distinct camps, those who believe Jesus and those who don't. In other words, Christ vs. Antichrist or the Spirit filled vs. the spiritually dead. I realize that this is a hard mindset for people to embrace given our indoctrination via schools, media, etc...

Remember, Jesus didn't start a political party to solve the problems of the world. No, Jesus gave his followers (Spirit filled believers) two commands, which were to love one another and to go out into all the world and spread the good news of salvation—available to all through faith in Jesus Christ. This was the Lord's strategy to overcome the fallen angels, demons and humans who refuse to believe in Jesus—collectively called "antichrist."

Some may think this was a stupid strategy but this was the strategy that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided upon before the creation of all things. So, maybe they knew something we don't?

Anyway, the reason that political parties—left and right—fail to solve problems is because within both the left and right there are Christians and antichristians. The Christians are lead by the Spirit of Christ and the antichrists are lead by the spirit of antichrist. The Christians want to follow the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ while the antichrist want to do whatever seems right in their own eyes. For this reason they are always in conflict and will be until the Great White Throne Judgment—God's "final solution" for antichrist.

Yes, there will be a 1,000 year period of time when Jesus will rule with a rod of iron, but at the end of it the Devil will be released from the pit and once again will stir up trouble. I'm guessing that the first thing the Devil will probably do is reintroduce the concept of political parties to the minds of people and encourage them fight for "freedom," and "social justice," and "an end to the tyranny." And in so doing they will be fooled into rebelling against the One from whom all human rights originate. Yeah, it's so very ironic.

Anonymous Hoppes #9 April 17, 2014 4:36 PM  

"Conservatives think that thousands of years of experience with human nature resulted in a set of rules that, if followed, will improve human behavior. "

Would it be better stated "...will constrain human misbehavior." As soon as we see rules as a means of improving behavior we get pharasaical in making more rules to keep improving all behavior. Tyranny is the result.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 4:37 PM  

When did I say they were models of government?

They are the foundations of pretty much every point on the political spectrum today.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 4:40 PM  

@ Tom: I'm not as familiar with Locke, but I do know that Rousseau placed far more emphasis on the tabula rasa aspect of human nature and even admitted that he was willing to deny reality in order to more effectively refute Hobbes.

America's founders had their moments of idealism (The Declaration is as idealist as it gets), but they also understood human nature. The Federalist Papers are loaded with analysis of what makes people tick, what's worked and what hasn't, the nature of man's lust for power, etc.

The French (influenced by Rousseau) just boldly declared that this is how it SHOULD BE, therefore this is how we'll make it. They paid no heed whatsoever to how people operate, how economics works, or much of anything other than their bold ideals and how to force them into being.

The Americans understood mankind's darkness and pulled it off relatively well, the French thought mankind naturally wonderful and caused a bloodbath.


Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 4:43 PM  


Because Locke and Rousseau are two of the giants of political theory. And they had significance differences.

I don't think Locke looked at man as perfectible. While limited government might improve the condition of man, that's not the primary purpose.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 4:48 PM  


One problem I see with your formulation of the fuehrerprinzip is that it is still the lesser men who are selecting the problems the fuehrer is expected to fix. Surely the superior man's judgment about what problems need to be fixed takes precedence?

As I understand it, the Fuehrer emerges from amidst the Volk who acknowledge him as their rightful leader. He does not get his authority from their consent, as the liberal theory would have it, but instead from his essence as a natural leader. He would have this authority whether the Volk recognizes it or not (just as the true king has the God-given right to rule even before he is enthroned or when he is in exile.)

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 4:53 PM  


The Declaration was an honest conditional declaration of war, "go away or we fight," and a cynical exercise in war propaganda.

I don't know that Rousseau was any more emphatic about tabula rasa, but I'd be willing to look at an analysis of the two.

And we did no such thing. Ours was a rebellion, but no revolution at all. Revolution changes things within a society, or tries to. We had a pre-existing system that had grown up naturally through a combination of Tudor seed and benign neglect. We fought to keep that against a parliament grown grasping and tyranical, one that was trying to change the deal unilaterally. But "revolution"? No.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist April 17, 2014 4:54 PM  

"OT: militia in Ukraine are ordering Jews to register with the government."

This is almost certainly a hoax, just like it was a few years ago, when a suspiciously similar story appeared regarding another country on the State Department's enemies list:

Remember when Iraq had rape rooms? Then when Libya was giving its soldiers Viagra so they could go on rape sprees against civilian women? Then when some Syrian Mufti allegedly gave that country's soldiers permission to rape civilians?

Remember Iraq's WMDs? And Iran's? And Libya's? And Syria's?

Are we seeing a pattern here? Gosh, it's almost like the State Department has a playbook that they trot out against every single country on the enemies list, saying the same things over and over against each one of them. And that for some reason, huge numbers of rubes keep believing these known liars.

But wait - the registration memo has been "authenticated" by the US Ambassador to Ukraine! What could be more credible?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 4:57 PM  

Corky, I'm talking about a the highest level, Hitler. He didn't use that approach all the time, but when he chose to get directly involved in something, he tended to. Think here, Speer, Model, the guy chosen to command the invasion of Norway. And he, as you point out, rules by right and by superior nature, but also, since man's scope is limited, is superbly qualified to select other, lesser but still great, commanders to solve great problems.

I probably didn't explain it as well as I might have, but in opposition to John Rolf's analysis of the left, rule under the Fuehrerprinzip is fundamentally human, tyranical, and lawless.

Blogger JDC April 17, 2014 5:02 PM  

Liberalism (my angle is liberal Christianity) has a happy alliance with culture, and the goal is to establish the kingdom via legislation and social programming. When social justice movements are trucking along (insert homosexuality and female rights here), this is signs of a holy fight – a moving forward if you will. When the liberal Christian fights for the rights of transvestites, this is the gospel moving forward. Christ walks along with culture like two young lovers – gazing into each other’s eyes and making all the conservatives ill. Of course, LC follows Descartes in changing the starting point from God to man. If you’re not on the social justice bandwagon, you are not Christian. In LC, it is man who has the ultimate responsibility for inserting the kingdom on earth. I would label this as "idiotic idealism," and the repeat of the great sin - pride.

In contrast, conservative minded Christians view culture as either evil (think Amish) or as paradox (conservative Christians – RCC, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) The paradox is that the church exists alongside culture – it is not of it. God's kingdom will come in His time, and we do the best we can with what we have - not thinking for a minute that we can convert a nation, or win a city over for Christ.

Anonymous Anonymous April 17, 2014 5:03 PM  

@ Tom: If by "revolution" you mean "let's create a brand new society from the ground up", you're correct. The French hoped to create a new "way of being", the Americans just wanted a different government.

Since then, most "revolutions" have followed the French pattern. They typically follow the Rousseauian fallacy of man's perfectability, they're not content to create new policies but instead insist on new ways of doing damn near everything, etc.

However, the idea that men could and should govern themselves (restrained by checks and balances, of courts) without the watchful governance of a king was pretty damn revolutionary.


Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 5:03 PM  

No, Josh, at the core of the thing they weren't very different at all. Tabula rasa is at least a core articulable value, and there they didn't disagree. You may get wrapped up in the property aspect, I can see the argument, at least, but that I think is no more than a) locke not having the courage of his tabula rasa convictions, coupled with b) what I consider his intellectually indefensible insistence on natural rights. But note that Rousseau, though he didn't use the term, impliedly also insisted on a natural right to property, he simply deemed that said right was collective, not individual.

Now you can try to form from that a scale of individual v. collective, but that only explains Rousseau v Locke, America v. France (and the latter imperfectly since, as mentioned, ours was not a revolution), but doesn't really explain Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, prior to Joseph, Tokugawa Japan, The Cossacks, or - I think - much else.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 5:05 PM  

No, that's the point. We didn't want a different government, we wanted to keep the ones we had and not have imposed on us some other government we'd long since left behind. We were already governing ourselves.

Where people tend to screw this up is by mixing up the constitution and the [so called] revolution. They were different and, while the former was impossible without the latter, the latter in no way depended on the former.

Blogger Marissa April 17, 2014 5:07 PM  

Ours was a rebellion, but no revolution at all.

One could say that Northern aggression was rebellion against the established federal law regarding slavery. But I digress.

What is the difference between rebellion and revolution? Both sound like "non serviam".

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 5:11 PM  

No, I could never say that.

Political Revolution attempts to create a significant or total change in the internal set up of a society. Any revolution, in any sphere, posits a radical change in that sphere. Rebellion doesn't.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 5:19 PM  

Revolution = "This time we're going to do communism the way it was meant to be done."

Rebellion = "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Anonymous Rolf April 17, 2014 5:20 PM  

Tom - Ah, good point of clarification. When I say the left wants more rules, they want more rules for all the little guys, and while the rules are still officially on the books for everyone, those higher up can apply them selectively, "as needed," because they are (cough) smart enough to know what's right and wrong. So the effect is lawlessness, the rule of the whims of the rulers, and it's done via massive rulebooks and bureaucracy that are "needed" for all the little guys.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 5:26 PM  

Ah. Another good point of distinction, Rolf. It is not impossible that, at the highest levels there IS no difference between extreme left and right, but that all at that level are cynical and differ only in their estimation of the best, easiest, most persuasive way to take the suckers, the great unwashed, those huddled sheep yearning to be fleeced. That doesn't change that there's a set of underlying core values to the extremes, only that those are held by their majorities, who are idiots.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 5:27 PM  


Not always. Rebellion can also mean, as it did in our case, "We get to keep the same boss and not have a new boss inflicted on us," where "same boss" was ourselves.

Anonymous Josh April 17, 2014 5:29 PM  

Removing a king isn't radical?

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 5:54 PM  

The American colonies acknowledged the authority of the King, but insisted on their rights as Englishmen. E.g., no taxation without representation (in Parliament).

When the King refused these demands, as detailed in the bill of particulars contained in the Declaration of Independence, they chose to secede.

But this secession only removed the uppermost levels of government: the local systems remained largely intact until a few years later with the adoption of the Constitution.

It was this local continuity I had in mind when I jokingly used the Who's refrain "same as the old boss" to describe the difference between rebellion and revolution. After the "Revolution" the landed aristocrats were still in charge, along with the wealthy bankers, merchants and lawyers.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 17, 2014 6:08 PM  

It might be more accurate to say he considers reality to be optional. When an objective truth is useful to him -- shoelaces help shoes stay on, for instance -- he'll use it happily enough. Not because it's true, but because it's useful.

Cail, I'd say it's not because it's useful, but rather because it's not overly burdensome. Tying shoelaces isn't much of an imposition. Earning the things you want is a bit too much of a hassle for many people, so they pretend they don't need to do that. .

Would it be better stated "...will constrain human misbehavior." As soon as we see rules as a means of improving behavior we get pharasaical in making more rules to keep improving all behavior. Tyranny is the result.

No, it's still "improve" human behavior.

One set of rules is all about how you enforce and amend the rules so as to avoid tyranny. We screw that part up pretty frequently.

Removing a king isn't radical?

The French removed a king (and a Queen, as well as a few Jacks, Jokers, and spot cards). The Americans just told him he wasn't welcome to stop by for tea any longer.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 6:12 PM  

They acknowledged the existence of a king, Corky, to whose authority they felt no particular obligation but to which they didn't object so long as it had no effect on them. it's not the same thing.

As for "who's the boss," as with moth things it's a case of optional control. Who cares who the boss is, so long as he can't boss _you_? Or me?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 6:20 PM  


I was musing on this yesterday. Imagine that LTC Smith, commanding the Brits at Lexington and Concord, had had a sudden rush of brains to the head - apparently like BLM recently - and, having seen the militia there, and understanding that there were potentially 20 THOUSAND more of them, decided, "it's not worth it. What are a couple of lousy cannon they barely know how to use, anyway?" And then turned around and marched back to Boston. No battle. No rebellion. No siege.

George, at the time, was a good king, and by no means mad. Further, he was, as Samuel Johnson said, "The finest gentleman in England." He was very reasonable, very down to earth, quite intelligent, actually, if no genius, and highly moral. Things could have been worked out, so long as war hadn't begun, emotions hadn't been engaged, and matters of perceived principle hadn't been violated.

Boy, would that have sucked or what?

Anonymous civilServant April 17, 2014 7:03 PM  

Vox's split is better: people who accept and deal with reality, and people who deny it.

The real split is between those who agree and those who disagree. Eventually this devolves down to the Patricians vs the Plebes. The Chosen vs the Goyim. The Superior Men vs the Untermenschen. The Lords vs the Serfs. The Righteous vs the Sinners. "Me" and "Not Me".

And the ruling class is an ever-shrinking club eventually shrinking down to a single individual. No matter how chosenly superior you are be prepared to lose at any moment.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 17, 2014 7:11 PM  

Boy, would that have sucked or what?

Given that the system of government in the colonies changed very little after the Revolution, and assuming that the settlement you're imagining would be acceptable to both sides, I don't see how your remark can be anything but ironic.

But even if your alternate history played out at Lexington and Concord, I think the hotheads in Boston would have found some other way to spark the rebellion. In other words, I don't think a settlement was in the cards.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 7:15 PM  

A little ironic, yes, but not entirely. While we appear to be falling fast, we've held onto conservatism longer than the other cousins have and longer than the mother country. And, with regards to both questions, maybe the horse will learn or would have learned to sing, after all.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 17, 2014 7:19 PM  

Things could have been worked out, so long as war hadn't begun, emotions hadn't been engaged, and matters of perceived principle hadn't been violated.


Perhaps you're giving KG3 a little too much credit, but certainly Parliament was the biggest problem. I do believe though that the King himself was a touch offended at his colonial subjects getting so far above themselves, and ultimately it wouldn't have worked out. I think the Brits have been much better at ruling other people than at ruling their own colonials. Take a look at Ireland - the biggest problem wasn't the Irish being unhappy, it was the planters. Curragh Mutiny and all that. And that was a case where they thought they'd learned from the debacle in 1776 by letting the Irish have seats in Parliament...

But, it's an interesting alternate history. Did you ever read The Two Georges by Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss (yes, that Dreyfuss).?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 7:51 PM  

_After_ the shooting started, Jack. Before that GR III was more than happy to repeal all of the various tax acts except one, and that only to maintain the (of course intolerable to us) principle that there was a right to levy tax.

I did read it and did know it was that Dreyfus, but ISTR that I never really believed the backstory, because it presumed rappoachment after the war had already begun, and short of defeat of the rebellion. Just wasn't going to happen.

Now, on the other hand, we certainly did have our hotheads, and the Brits certainly did have their assholes here...

Actually, I was attached to 29 CDO Regiment for a while, the Brit Royal Marine artillery battalion. They had a Major for battalion exec, a remarkable arrogant and stupid shithead, who detested Americans and didn't mind letting anyone, including us, know it. Yes, yes, we had our revenge, to be sure. But the important thing was that I never really fully understood the revolution until meeting this weasel. So of course we rebelled; association with people like this Major David McQueeg-Jones was simply intolerable.

Blogger Thordaddy April 17, 2014 10:07 PM  

The real spectrum ONLY CONTAINS the infinite degrees of liberationist from the absolutely unconscious self-annihilator (think of the liberal who is "polar bared naked") all the way to the radical autonomist who "preaches" self-annihilation as "freedom" in order to seek a "default elite" status (think of our entire "elite..." A "default elite," really). Then there is an unbridgeable schism and the genuine white Supremacist (nearly none in existence). In between is what is known as the "dark enlightenment" with its "neoreactionaries." These are the BEST and SMARTEST "white" male liberals set about to obscure the "nature" of Liberalism, its origin, its main claim and help CREATE the FALSE "spiritual" and "intellectual" origin myth for this most primitive of self-annihilating acts.

Those that recruit in order to seat another at the Table of Descent do so with one desire and belief in mind:

I can "love, f&$k, screw" whomever I please (including myself).

This ^^^ is liberal. Homo-sexual male's declaration of War on Man.

But this is only half of it...

The neoreactionary, being so close to the radical autonomist, also sets about to impugn genuine white Supremacy. Meaning, one way to know the "dark enlightenment" IS TO KNOW that it is not for genuine white Supremacy although all the conscious liberationists outside of the "dark enlightenment" would have you believe otherwise. The "dark enlightenment" would have the white man believe that from a Supremacist assertion (assertion of the Perfect God and the Perfect Man) birthed the anti-Supremacist ideology of "liberal equality." A total non-sequitur that relies on a continuously debated definition of liberal. This is the new liberationist narrative that LEGITIMATES Liberalism... "It" was created by Christianity... Liberalism was created by the Perfect God and Perfect Man. Crazy, these neoreactionaries.

Anonymous Don April 17, 2014 10:14 PM  

Thordaddy - I did not understand any of that. Except there's a genuine white supremacy and a not genuine white supremacy. Not sure who is who or why we should care though.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 10:37 PM  

Not even remotely interested enough to try to parse that.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 17, 2014 10:39 PM  

Don, I suspect that's a foray into "baffle them with bullshit," but it's a little too dense to be sure.

Anonymous Rolf April 18, 2014 12:08 AM  

My guess is Thordaddy is working on refining his thesis for a PhD in Liberal Atheist Druidical Deconstructionism.

Filed under "yeah, sure, you bet'tch'a."

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 12:48 AM  


How's this for you?

I can "love, f&$k, screw" whomever I please!

If you affirm this belief, you are a Liberal.

If you reject this belief then you must get more specific before we dec

Anonymous Jack Amok April 18, 2014 1:08 AM  

The aspie is strong with this one.

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 1:19 AM  

...ide where you stand?

The desire of the sheeple is to pleasure itself to death, both literally and figuratively, while the desire of the "elite" is "default" status. Consequently, the symbiotic regression is rooted in the desire for radical sexual autonomy, This desire for radical sexual autonomy can be "observed" in the homosexual liberationist movement in its very essence, amongst jihadism and its reward of seventy two virgins for eternal usage, within the Jewish collective and its matrilineality, busting through "feminism" like Bull Dyke and seeing to a truly deracinated La Raza.

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 1:25 AM  

Jack Amok...

How much longer are the young white boys to be lead astray by the Liberal Creation Myths propagated most vociferously by those on the "new rite" and created by those of the old right?

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 1:48 AM  


That split isn't quite specific enough because it doesn't account for liberal "Christians" who, although they believe in Jesus Christ, they don't believe in Jesus Christ as Perfect Man AND empirical evidence for objective Supremacy. These liberal "Christians" are in fact on the side of the dispirited and for all practical purposes, anti-Supremacists in general and anti-white Supremacist in particular (largely deracinated).

So the real split is between genuine Supremacists (nearly all white, racially awoken) and anti-Supremacists (fully diversified), between those that believe X = X and those that believe X = not X (h/t Vox), between those that believe Supremacy = Supremacy and those that believe Supremacy = degeneracy.

There is little doubt that the anti-Supremacists, the X = not X crowd, the Supremacy = degeneracy cabal...

"They" are SUPER DOMINANT... And yet, not really. Largely "default" status now.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 18, 2014 12:59 PM  

Jack Amok...

How much longer are the young white boys to be lead astray by the Liberal Creation Myths propagated most vociferously by those on the "new rite" and created by those of the old right?

Probably until the Boomers are all dead.

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 1:47 PM  

Jack Amok...

Do you understand the claim of the "dark enlightenment?"

Christianity is the origin of Liberalism...

Christianity = Liberalism...

Supremacy = anti-Supremacy

white Supremacy = white degeneracy...

These are the relevant "equalities."

The neoreactionary is first and foremost an anti-white Supremacist (anti-white Christian... Especially anti-white liberal "Christian"). Second, the neoreactionary feigns a strong rejection of Liberal Creationism and the Blank-Slaters that reject HBD (this group contains the dreaded liberal "Christian" of deracinated stature).

So pull back far enough and we see that the neoreactionaries are anti-white Supremacists who despise liberal "Christians."

They really believe there is a place in between for them to maximize their autonomy... They delude themselves.

In this time of separation and resegregation, for the white man there is genuine white Supremacy and nothing else. Any less is just some degree of Liberalism that one submits to including the "dark enlightenment," i.e., a niche of the "best" and "brightest" of "white" male liberationists.

Blogger Marissa April 18, 2014 3:33 PM  

The desire of the sheeple is to pleasure itself to death

Don't go giving away the spoiler to Event Horizon.

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 3:40 PM  


We are past the event horizon... And the liberated niches of the new rite (the growing variations of "white" male liberationist movements) are all the proof we need to see this... Liberalism is being pulled apart starting with those closest to the black hole which only gives the impression that those farthest away are somewhat still intact. The "PoC" is actually a fallacious notion of merely socially constructed perception.

Blogger Thordaddy April 18, 2014 5:27 PM  

I get accused of bloviating...

I then provide a simple declaration to be affirmed or rejected so as to signal whether one was a true liberal or not and no takers?

The First Commandment tells you exactly what a liberal is...

One who believes they can "love, f&$k, screw" whomever they please...

^^^ This is a true liberal.

Anonymous GaryH April 19, 2014 7:40 PM  

"Removing a king isn't radical?"

It is radical, but remember in 1649 the English House of Commons abolished the House of Lords, beheaded Charles I, outlawed monarchy, and declared the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. And it's still not called the English Revolution, but the Great Rebellion.

Blogger John April 20, 2014 7:33 AM  

Here is a proper "Political Spectrum": Political Spectrum for Secular Politics.
Notice that it incorporates the individual as well as the collective.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 20, 2014 9:58 AM  


Seems to be just another X-Y, albeit inverted, specifically designed to enhance a particular political position, and to give a little shot in the arm to I'm-so-specialism. Maybe worse,it presupposes symptoms - tyranny v. freedom - as causes.

Blogger John April 20, 2014 12:10 PM  

"I'm-so-specialism" depends on whether you adhere to a particular type of foundationalism. I do have a foundation for my idea of morality, not least because without a basis there is no morality, just might.

It is inevitable that any meaningful political spectrum will be related to that which we hold dear. A political spectrum that arranged the supply of motorised transport against political groupings would be amusing but not directly related to something that, most of us, hold dear.

On the subject of symptoms vs causes, surely a political spectrum will focus on the result or intentions of political parties so should always be about symptoms. There are many ways to create a tyranny but tyranny is a bad end no matter how it comes about.

If we make a political spectrum that places parties on a left-right axis we do not seem to be saying anything other than "I like to be in a gang that calls itself left" or "I prefer the rightist gang". It is entirely about gangs. As such it is exceedingly dangerous - both Mussolini and Hitler co-opted left wing organisations to create right wing thuggery. This transformation would be expected and not regarded as much of a transformation at all along the freedom/tyranny axis of the spectrum I linked above.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 20, 2014 1:49 PM  

When you start with a moral foundation, John, however admirable it may be in guiding your own life, you're also suscribing to an ideal that is not terribly effective in the real world, throughout history, and doesn't describe people, as they are, but only as you with they would be.

It is not inevitable that a political spectrum be related to what we hold dear. Left-right for example, is driven by the extremes of view of man as malleable/perfectable/ (or minimally) sustainable by either nature or nurture, those being, respectively right and left, or the refutation which sits in the middle, conservatism, which calls "bullshit, both have an effect but neither is reliable, certain, easy, or anything you loons on the fringe think." That nature-nurture question has been the argument since Plato at the latest. It is, however, seemingly inevitable that when someone comes up with some new, gee whiz, X-Y graph that _it_ will be related to what he holds dear. This is not an argument in favor of an X-Y.

You resist them or play them off against in other in different ways, though.

No, in fact, _I_ like to be a little off to one side, observing. But also, in fact, the left-right spectrum describes very nicely how people are organized or self organize into opposing groups, where said organization is driven by the enemy perceived at the other extreme.

So, if someone wants a graph to make them feel special, or push for some ideal they think attainable, however preposterous that may be, meh. But if you want something to illustrate how people, in practice, actually act and how politics, in practice, actually works, left-right, though imperfect, does that better than those idealistic or ideology driven graphs.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts