ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Of Left and Right

At its core, the left-right divide all comes down to the most basic principles.

Left = Plato. Anti-Christian. Anti-family. Imperialist.
Right = Aristotle. Christian. Pro-family. Nationalist.

This heuristic will allow you to quickly and easily categorize any ideology correctly and cut your way through even the most determined fog of nebulous redefinitions attempting to ideologically mischaracterize a person, a party, or a movement.

Anyone who is against Christianity is necessarily against the West, also known as Christendom. Remember that the concept of ideology is, in itself, an intrinsically Western concept.

UPDATE: based on my personal observations, you could reasonably add a fifth element to the heuristic.

Left = Redefinitions, complications, explanations, interpretations, penumbras, emanations, and appeals to authority, credentials, and the sacred spirit of Science.
Right = Truth

Labels: , ,

247 Comments:

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Cubby8126 January 27, 2018 9:43 AM  

What books would you suggest of aristotle or plato vox? I haven't read any of either.

Blogger Cubby8126 January 27, 2018 9:44 AM  

I have read about 2 chapters of sjwal and have enjoyed it so far. Cuckservative is next in line.

Blogger Bodo Staron January 27, 2018 9:44 AM  

There are people that might only check two of those points. EG:

Anti-Christian, Pro-Family, Nationalist

Are they dishonest, intentionally or unintentionally?

If your scratch the surface and inquire, the inconsistency will come to light?

Blogger maniacprovost January 27, 2018 9:46 AM  

At the risk of being chided as a maniac,

That heuristic is pretty good practically.

But I prefer this one for it's elegance and accuracy:

The left believes that the ends justify the means. This axiom ultimately destroys any morality that a well meaning lefty may try to create. Such as utilitarianism.

The right believes that acts are good or bad in themselves. We are process oriented, which is why so many of us not pick processes instead of heading for the goal.

Historically, this is pretty accurate.

Also note that Islam has a poisonous piece of leftism baked in, by this definition.

Blogger James January 27, 2018 9:47 AM  

I've always been suspicious of those who deny the significance, importance, and/or necessity of "ideology." I tend to think that if someone denies they have an ideology, it must be a really bad one. It's a lot with those who hate "religion." How can someone hate "religion." If you don't like the religions extant, go out and make a better one of your own, but don't be a drooling doofus who thinks they can avoid and evade the "religious" questions of existence, for cryin' out loud.

Anonymous Philipp January 27, 2018 9:50 AM  

Thanks for posting this heuristic, Vox. It will certainly prove to be very helpful to many people.

Blogger Dire Badger January 27, 2018 9:51 AM  

Anyone that supports trans-anything is the enemy.
Transsexual, transnational, transhuman, transcultural, transgender, transitioning, transmigration, transmissable, transvestite, transgressors.

The only 'trans' you can reasonably support is transsubstantiation. And most 'trans people' don't even know what the word means.

Blogger GreenEyedJinn January 27, 2018 9:59 AM  

Aristotle on Government:

The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether to the one, or the few, or of the many, are perversions.

Tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.

“In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”
― George Washington

Blogger Francis The Pope January 27, 2018 10:01 AM  

In this current age it really is just white vs non white. Having a Europe that is non white but still Christian is nothing to hope for. Given the choice between a non white Christian society vs a non Christian white society, which do you pick, and please don't cop out of this by saying neither or some other way to avoid giving and answer.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 10:02 AM  

If your scratch the surface and inquire, the inconsistency will come to light?

Yes. It's not remarkable that people should hold internally inconsistent positions. Very, very few individuals are even capable of thinking through their own philosophies; most people simply imbibe them from their surroundings.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira January 27, 2018 10:03 AM  

I've spoken about this with a friend of mine who is more familiar with the ancient Greeks. Sounds about right.

The idea that being against Christianity puts you against the West, is something I've been thinking about for a long, long time. Certainly appears to hold up when I observe the actions/words of others.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 27, 2018 10:03 AM  

I prefer the Anonymous Conservative distinction between overdeveloped amygdala vs. overdeveloped anterior cingulate cortex.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 10:05 AM  

Having a Europe that is non white but still Christian is nothing to hope for. Given the choice between a non white Christian society vs a non Christian white society, which do you pick, and please don't cop out of this by saying neither or some other way to avoid giving and answer.

Your question is irrelevant. A Europe that is not white is not Europe. I would choose a non-white Christian society over a white non-Christian society every time, because white non-Christian societies are uncivilized murderfests.

White Christian societies are the pinnacle of Man's civilization. It's really irrelevant which suboptimal society one might prefer.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2018 10:07 AM  

I got my overview of Aristotle via Edward Feser. Aristotle is foundational to the Scholastic and Thomist branches of (Catholic) philosophy.
Here's a list of books from the guy: http://www.edwardfeser.com/books.html

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:07 AM  

Jordan Peterson describes the difference as being between those who want clear impermeable boundaries (between categories,nations, individuals) and those who want no or fuzzy boundaries. There's definitely some overlap with your description. I don't know what you'd be inclined to disagree with.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 27, 2018 10:09 AM  

And I always wondered why Thomas Fleming one time editor of Chronicles went back to the Greeks to write a book on morality.

I'm the definition of mid-wit and I thought Plato's work was a comedy as was Mencken's translation of "Anti-Christ", so that makes me wonder who exactly falls for that crap?

Anonymous V January 27, 2018 10:10 AM  

The leftard/atheist/SJW/evolutionist/communist/socialist slogan. "The Lies, sophistry and semantic manipulations will continue until they are duped."

“When words lose their meaning, the people will lose their liberties”––Confucius

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:13 AM  

Jonathan Haidt divides people between those embrace three-base modernist moral reasoning and those who use older, more complex six-base moral reasoning. But his theory takes a good bit more time to explain, and one of my hands is occupied holding a baby, so I'll have to leave it at that for now.

Anonymous johnc January 27, 2018 10:13 AM  

An additional characteristic I find helpful is order and authority on the right and whatever the opposite of that is on the left. The failure to accept that creation is ordered around authority is one of the biggest trip-ups in modern eras (say, the last 500 years, but especially in the last 150 years).

re: non white Christian society vs a non Christian white society

A non-Christian white society might, in theory, have indoor plumbing. But even high-IQ populations can struggle with some serious morality issues. John Fisher and Lee Rigby came to the same end. And John Fisher didn't have any more legitimate trial by jury than what you see in a typical banana republic.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2018 10:13 AM  

Apologies for posting again, but Feser's blog is a great place to read over arguments from Aristotle. A lot of short-essay length posts for free.

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:16 AM  

I tend to think that if someone denies they have an ideology, it must be a really bad one.

My interpretation of that is that they are so firmly controlled by their ideology, they are not even aware of it.

And while he's not always right, when he is right, Chesterton puts it beautifully, "There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic."

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2018 10:16 AM  

@16 Better a midwit with humility and clarity, than the academic post-midwit filled with pride and sloppy thinking.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer January 27, 2018 10:24 AM  

But, how can this be? I was reliably informed by Jack Burroughs that style and "energies" trump ideology, beliefs, policy etc. /sarc

In seriousness this is a very good and useful summary.

Blogger tweell January 27, 2018 10:27 AM  

If folks want to read these philosophers in their own words and understand more about their views (Vox summarizes them admirably, imho):
Plato's The Republic is his defining work, and indeed the foundation from which socialism grows.
Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics explain his view of the individual and state.
All three are available at gutenberg.org

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:29 AM  

Let's see, Stefan Molyneux. Always been pro-family. Always been Aristotelian. Used to be anti-Christian, but has seriously altered his views, even if he's not a Christian yet. Nationalist? Honestly not clear. It is interesting to see his views more clearly coming into alignment with one side as time goes on.

Anonymous Patron January 27, 2018 10:35 AM  

Zaklog - Stefan Molyneux did recently say he was wrong about nationalism. I seriously wonder if he'll become a Christian in a few years.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 10:36 AM  

"Left = Plato. Anti-Christian. Anti-family. Imperialist.
Right = Aristotle. Christian. Pro-family. Nationalist."

I think it's the right approach to lay out a simple heuristic for dispelling the cloud of confusion that obscures this issue. But this heuristic has some problems that I've never heard you address.

1) Why do you not mention Equality (Left) and Inequality (Right)? For many people, that is the main axis that differentiates the two poles. It's certainly the main reason people disagree with you when you argue that the Nazis were Left wing.

2) Ancient Rome was extremely imperialistic. But it was also extremely inegalitarian. Going by your heuristic, Ancient Rome would have to be of the political Left, despite its extremely hierarchical nature. Is that really what you believe?

3) It's true that Plato's Republic was collectivistic and recommended the abolition of the family. But Plato's vision was extremely hierarchical, too. If you include the Equality-Inequality axis, then Plato ceases to be anything like a reliable heuristic. Moreover, many of the most Right wing Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Traditionalists are themselves ardent Platonists.

That's because,

4) Christianity itself is metaphysically Platonic: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos). and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was not made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." ... " And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

That is Platonism, Vox. In its spiritual essence, Christianity is a metaphysical extension of Plato. Not Aristotle.

Yes, Christendom is more rooted in Aristotle. But the actual metaphysical teachings of the Gospels are Platonic.
The moral teachings, maybe not so much. But the metaphysics are much more Platonic than Aristotelian.

It seems to me that this seriously complicates your heuristic.

5) "Anyone who is against Christianity is necessarily against the West, also known as Christendom."

The West had a very long Greco-Roman (not to mention Nordic and Celtic) pagan tradition that preceded the rise of Christianity. Are you saying that anyone who seeks more to resurrect the ancient pagan traditions of the West is "against the West"? Or are you saying that a neo-pagan would have to oppose Christianity with open hostility in order to be against the West?

In other words, what is your stance on the Pagan elements of the Right? Do you include these people, with certain conditions, in the Real Right? Or do you dismiss them, as you do with guys like Spencer and Anglin, as Fake Right?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 27, 2018 10:36 AM  

We do have Sweden as an example and the women on the loose who run that example have imported Murder Inc. within its borders. Now the jihadis are running about their ghettos with AKMs and tossing hand grenades at the cops just for fun. In effect leaving conservatives as the only ones who will actually listen to the feminists (conservative being an ancient word for bag holder).

Pro tip for the pale complected Swedes, gun the f*ck up.

Anonymous Walter Oleg January 27, 2018 10:37 AM  

Christ is the Logos.

These are the conversations I want to watch.

E. Michael Jones and Jordan Peterson discuss the JQ from a theological,biblical, symbolic perspective.

Kevin MacDonald and Jordan Peterson discuss the JQ from an evolutionary and psychological perspective.

Jordan Peterson and Andrew Anglin. Anglin will do the Future Authoring Program and personality test offered by Peterson and Peterson will discuss it with him.

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:38 AM  

@26 Patron. Yes, I've been watching his changing attitude in regard to Christianity for some time. I even had a conversation with him about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PuW-R7_Ks8

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 10:41 AM  

VD: "A Europe that is not white is not Europe. I would choose a non-white Christian society over a white non-Christian society every time, because white non-Christian societies are uncivilized murderfests."

That's an interesting and surprising answer, Vox. This is at the root of your many disagreements with the rest of what calls itself the Alt Right. You don't discount the relevance of race, but ultimately you are a Christian Nationalist, rather than a White Nationalist.

Maybe your longtime readers already knew this about you. But I did not.


Anonymous Uncle John's Band January 27, 2018 10:43 AM  

@ 15. Zaklog the Great

Except the left is very hierarchical. Hive-like, almost. The difference is more in the criteria by which the boundaries are drawn, rather than whether there will be boundaries at all.

Except maybe for the useful universal brotherhood of man idiots who really believe, but even they have a place in a hierarchical leftist structure. They just don't see it.

Anonymous CrystalBlue January 27, 2018 10:43 AM  

maniacprovost wrote:The left believes that the ends justify the means.
How does this compare with Vox's "win at all costs"?

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 27, 2018 10:44 AM  

@29 Yeah, much as I like Peterson, none of that is going to happen. He's already been asked about Jewish people on one of his Patreon Q & As and gave it short shrift. He's also assented to shutting Faith Goldy out of a free speech event because, according to his explanation, she was not sufficiently critical in her interviews with alt right personalities.

He's brilliant, and I like a lot of his material, but I very much doubt you will get him to engage with the alt right, let alone Anglin.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 10:46 AM  

Why do you not mention Equality (Left) and Inequality (Right)? For many people, that is the main axis that differentiates the two poles. It's certainly the main reason people disagree with you when you argue that the Nazis were Left wing.

Because MPAI. That's like claiming that ideology is defined by Unicorns and Not-Unicorns. Equality does not exist in any form of any kind. It is an absolute and utter myth, and no one on either the Right or the Left actually believes in it, no matter how they preen and posture. It is not a valid heuristic.

Ancient Rome was extremely imperialistic. But it was also extremely inegalitarian. Going by your heuristic, Ancient Rome would have to be of the political Left, despite its extremely hierarchical nature. Is that really what you believe?

As I just pointed out, egalitarianism is irrelevant. And Rome was both pre-Christian and pre-ideological, and is therefore irrelevant... though it is worth noting that the Left is always trying to rebuild the Roman Empire. Many Romans would have been Leftists; certainly Marius and Sulla would fit right in with the modern Leftist rulers.

In other words, what is your stance on the Pagan elements of the Right?

They are numerically insignificant and mostly irrelevant. They will either come around like the noble pagans of Rome did or they will throw in with the Left.

Blogger Koanic January 27, 2018 10:48 AM  

It is certainly a good heuristic for present purposes, although I doubt Genghis Khan was a leftist.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 10:50 AM  

You don't discount the relevance of race, but ultimately you are a Christian Nationalist, rather than a White Nationalist.

I have never been a White Nationalist. I have repeatedly pointed out the utter stupidity of White Nationalism. It's as anti-nationalistic and strategically hopeless as the Pan-Arabist and Pan-African movements. White nationalism doesn't even exist outside of the United States; it only exists there because American nationalism was destroyed by the civic nationalists in the 20th century.

Maybe your longtime readers already knew this about you. But I did not.

I'm not surprised. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are neither very intelligent nor well-informed.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 10:52 AM  

I doubt Genghis Khan was a leftist.

The heuristic is for modern ideologies. It is not meaningful to try to apply it to things which are temporally inappropriate or non-ideological.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 27, 2018 10:59 AM  

Is sadism inherent to the type Sigma?

Asking for a friend.

Blogger Lazarus January 27, 2018 11:00 AM  

@7

You were doing so well and then ended with a glaring contradiction.

Blogger tuberman January 27, 2018 11:01 AM  

I agree with VD's points whole heart, but Globalist parasite money has created many fake Right:

* GOPe people who work with the Chamber of Commerce for Open Borders
* Other "True Conservatives" who hire illegals to save money, by putting the excess off on taxpayers.
* Churchian "Christians" who have taken money from the government for importing and distributing the enemy.
* All Libertarians at this point
* Alt-Retards and even semi-Alt-Retards
* Countless virtue signaling wimps or Cucks.
* Pundits who survive by getting money from Globalist funds
* Countless Judea-Christian fools with their double standards for Israel vs. the USA.

* Etc.

Follow the parasite, open-borders money laundering for who gets paid well for their policies, or is bribed or threatened into submission.

Tons of Fake Right to claim to be for the USA and the West still, but have reasons to betray the Right, and true Christianity.

Anonymous Philipp January 27, 2018 11:06 AM  

Off-topic but relevant (Vox and moderators: if you disagree, just delete):

"Up to 5,000 US blacks have moved back to Ghana—and thousands more to other African states—over the past few years as part of a growing movement to live in a society in which they say they will be able to live in a world “in which black people are in charge.”

http://newobserveronline.com/blaxit-5000-us-blacks-have-moved-to-ghana/

That's a good trend. If these African-Americans (or better "returning Africans") can help develop the Afrian countries, then it will be a win-win situation.

Blogger pyrrhus January 27, 2018 11:06 AM  

@3 There are people that might only check two of those points. EG:

Anti-Christian, Pro-Family, Nationalist

I thought about this, and can't think of a single person who fits this description...Best I can do is a few who are pro-family, but still adhere to the anti-Christian anti-Nationalist narrative.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 11:06 AM  

@13 VD

"Happy 2100! What did we learn about the 21th Century?"

"white non-Christian societies are uncivilized murderfests"

"And don't you forget it!"

Going to be a lot of dead people as a result of messing with this reality, but what does the Devil care about that?

As to Right/Left, I think it's important to note that both concepts are explicitly Western. The aspects of both will appeal to other cultures, but if they aren't Western, they don't have the same effect. China managed to be "Communist" for, what, 30 years? Sure, they kill 10s of millions of their own people, but it didn't stick. They just got a slightly different class of Mandarins.

The Envy, Power-drunk and Destructive aspects of Leftism always have a natural appeal in any culture, but that's because Leftism is always Anti-Christian. It's a religion designed to claim the good parts of Christianity while claiming the "bad" parts don't need to exist. As a result, it operates more like a Virus on any mono-theistic religion, and the results are slaughter factories.

Anonymous DissidentRight January 27, 2018 11:14 AM  

Alt-Retards don’t grasp the fact that Leftism in general and socialism in particular is a blank check for whites to be evil.

And we’re really, really good at being evil.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 11:21 AM  

@14 wreckage

What really pickles a few brains is when you point out that Aristotle was brought about to set the stage for the life of Christ. His philosophical work was important for leaving a language & text base that could handle the deeper theological concepts, while it cannot be ignored how important his greatest pupil's work was in laying the foundation for the things to come. Granted, that required Alexander to go, "eh, let's just conquer the known world", and then go & do it.


@16 Mr.MantraMan

Plato is catnip to the class of wannabe Intellectuals. "Philosopher-King". Think about that. Plato sets the Philosopher as the greatest in society. An actual "Secret King". Add in a good dose of the normal appeal of Gnosticism, and you've got the basis for an appeal to the deepest desires of ever Gamma that can understand the text.

That's why The Republic has stuck around. Ever Gamma thinks themselves a King, and Philosophy has always been full of them since 1000 AD.

Plato or Socrates was actually a fool of the highest order, which is why it's so destructive. Marx is probably the only one who will surpass Plato in philosophical destructiveness, though Confucius makes a good play for the title.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 27, 2018 11:28 AM  

How is the term "imperialistic" defined in this heuristic? (Sounds like the start of a rap, that.)

I ask because one critical element of Christianity is that it is a proselytizing faith, defining itself as the optimum universal way for all mankind and laying upon its followers a duty to spread that Word and bring it about. Given that that would necessarily require the ultimate elimination of any culture or subculture incompatible with its moral strictures, a case could be made that Christianity is imperialistic by definition in that it calls for cultural domination and transformation. How would this apparent contradiction be resolved?

Blogger tuberman January 27, 2018 11:30 AM  

DissidentRight wrote:Alt-Retards don’t grasp the fact that Leftism in general and socialism in particular is a blank check for whites to be evil.

And we’re really, really good at being evil.


What if Alt-Retards in the final analysis are being paid for and supported by the evilest people on earth, and are just tools for them? These people are indeed also Caucus Whites themselves, but have no affinity for other whites, and will destroy them all in the end. They only care about their own exact bloodlines, and want the USA, Christianity, Western Civilization, and most of the rest of humanity dead, so to keep their rule in place.

Alt-Retards are just one of their many tools, and they despise you.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 11:31 AM  

Me: Maybe your longtime readers already knew this about you. But I did not.

Vox: "I'm not surprised. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are neither very intelligent nor well-informed."

Yes, of course, Vox. Because all highly intelligent and well-informed men are thoroughly fluent in the thinking and teachings of Vox Day.

How it could it ever be otherwise?

Anonymous Conservative Warrior January 27, 2018 11:34 AM  

Weird how “Left” is defined as stereotypicaly Jewish. You can pretend to leave behind your anti-Semitic ways, Mr. Day, but the Internet remembers forever.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 11:35 AM  

@43 pyrrhus

For lack of a better phrase I can find, "assumptive states". Specific assumptions preclude other ones from being operable at the same time. Most people that would be called "well ordered" don't really have too many assumptions that are glaringly incompatible with each other, but it's also why as someone goes deeper into the Left, they deal with a lot more cognitive dissonance.

It helps to realize most assumptions are based around, "does this keep me alive today? And tomorrow? Good, that's my assumption". Though be mindful that almost no one actually chooses their assumptions. Those are a combination of in-born, familial, cultural, ideological and theological. (Non-closely held assumptions can be changed, but deeper ones rarely can be.)

In the case you pointed out, it's really Anti-Christian and Nationalist that collide. Being Anti-Christian will almost always require an Imperialist outlook, as in most cases it means you need to remove Rome and the hearts of Protestantism & Orthodoxy.

You can make a few arguments for a few people in the past that were Anti-Christian & Nationalist, but that's more "Anti-People Using Christianity To Invade The Country". Anti-Christian in a broad sense, but more narrowly Anti-Imperialist.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 11:35 AM  

"How would this apparent contradiction be resolved?"

By not using an idiot's definition of "imperialistic".

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 11:35 AM  


Vox: "Because MPAI. That's like claiming that ideology is defined by Unicorns and Not-Unicorns. Equality does not exist in any form of any kind. It is an absolute and utter myth, and no one on either the Right or the Left actually believes in it, no matter how they preen and posture. It is not a valid heuristic."

I agree that no one really believes that everyone is *actually* equal. But it's nevertheless true that some societies *aspire* more to equality than others. It's also true that those societies often resent and pathologize displays of inequality.

The moral and political concern with maximizing equality (which being pragmatically reconciled to the impossibility of ever attaining full equality) is a very real cultural, political, and historical force.

You don't have to believe that ultimate equality is attainable to acknowledge that some societies seek to maximize equality and to minimize inequality, and that some societies glorify inequality, greatness, aristocracy, hierarchy, heroism, and so on. These distinctions undeniably do exist. Moreover, the weighing of the relative value of equality vs inequality is something that preoccupies every society, in one way or another.

So it doesn't really make sense to dismiss the Equality-Inequality axis as irrelevant to your heuristic.

I think this needless exclusion of the Equality-Inequality axis from your criteria for distinguishing Left from Right is the main source of your disagreement with so many people about the true nature of the Right.

You could gain a lot from reconsidering this question.

Anonymous No True Rightist January 27, 2018 11:36 AM  

Everyone other than VD is Fake Right.

Anonymous Mind Control January 27, 2018 11:37 AM  

Oh look, it's Vox trying to convince us that Nazis are leftists again. Getting yall to say that up is down is classic Talmudic conditioning.

Blogger CM January 27, 2018 11:40 AM  

As I just pointed out, egalitarianism is irrelevant. And Rome was both pre-Christian and pre-ideological, and is therefore irrelevant... though it is worth noting that the Left is always trying to rebuild the Roman Empire. Many Romans would have been Leftists; certainly Marius and Sulla would fit right in with the modern Leftist rulers.

And Caesar Augustus and his Golden Age would fit with the right, with his religious, pro-family reforms, and nationalistic reforms.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 27, 2018 11:41 AM  

Perfect breakdown. The left will call someone a liar one moment and deny the very existence of truth the next.

Blogger paradox January 27, 2018 11:41 AM  

Let's see, Libertarian Reason Magazine, anti-Christian, Anti-family,(pro-gay marriage, pro-transgender and pro-abortion), Imperialist (somewhat, they favor imperial power when it comes to DACA). Therefore, Reason Magazine is Left-wing.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 11:42 AM  


Vox: "And Rome was both pre-Christian and pre-ideological, and is therefore irrelevant... though it is worth noting that the Left is always trying to rebuild the Roman Empire."

I'm starting to get a feeling for your extremely circumscribed use of the terms "Left" and "Right." Is it really your view that because Rome was "pre-ideological" in the Western sense, that we cannot reasonably classify it as being predominately Right or Left in structure and spirit? Right and Left are legitimate distinctions only after the birth of Christendom and ideology?

I dunno, Vox. Most intelligent people are never going to accept that principle. That doesn't mean that you're entirely wrong. You can set up the terms like that if you want, and within your framework, you will be right. The problem is that people generally will not accept your framework.

This is a good example of what I mean when I describe your approach as over-preoccupied with words and definitions. To most people, Ancient Rome was of the Right in more or less the same way the Nazis were of the Right: both regimes were intensely inegalitarian in their primary aspirations and ideals. That is true even if the Nazi were highly ideological, and the Romans were pre-ideological.

I think you have a serious blind spot on this issue.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 11:42 AM  

@47 Stephen J.

You're stretching too far. Christianity doesn't care what the government system is. Christians living in a place would care, but Christianity doesn't care. As for cultural norms colliding, no cultural norm is ever static. They always change, if slowly, over time. All of the current ones as changes/responses to previous ones. The process will continue in all cultures for the rest of the history, whether a place is Nationalistic or Imperialistic. It's a natural aspect of having a culture, thus the only thing that having Christians around does is make everyone actually have to live up to standards. (That's part of why Christians are hated.)

It does result in Christians having little problem hitching a ride with whatever set of Imperialists are up to conquering places. We'll just be away from the battlezone setting up missions.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 27, 2018 11:43 AM  

@59 Butthurt for days.

Blogger James January 27, 2018 11:44 AM  

"And while he's not always right, when he is right, Chesterton puts it beautifully, "There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic." So GK is telling us that the most ideological are those who are unconscious of having an ideology? In some cases, yes, but I'm still convinced that there is a lot more dishonesty going on with people who have horrible rotten immoral unconscionable Leftist Marxist Progressive SJW-type ideologies.
As for Vox Dei trying to convince me that Nazi's are Leftists, I don't need no convincing. National Socialist means what it says, Nationalist Socialist, and in the Nazi's case, it is clear especially in hind sight that the Socialist part was in charge and the Nationalist part was a ruse to bamboozle the rubes.

Blogger tuberman January 27, 2018 11:45 AM  

This is why, today, I look at things through Nationalism vs. Globalism rather than Right vs. Left. The latter way has validity, but allows all sorts of Fake arguments, yet Nationalism vs. Globalism is more clear cut.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2018 11:45 AM  

" a case could be made that Christianity is imperialistic by definition in that it calls for cultural domination and transformation. How would this apparent contradiction be resolved?"

You err in mixing up the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world. Someone else is still in charge here. This will not always be the case.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 27, 2018 11:45 AM  

@42 Philipp

The original article was a good topic on Gab a few days ago. If they are going to be more happy moving back to Africa, then it sounds like a great idea.

Blogger CM January 27, 2018 11:46 AM  

Given that that would necessarily require the ultimate elimination of any culture or subculture incompatible with its moral strictures

Why not just the elements of the culture or subculture that contradict Christianity?

I'm discovering I'm a bit of a Romans 1 inclusivist. I think every culture has embedded a Truth that has been perverted and distorted. Some in those cultures are able to see past the perversions, or foreign kings wouldn't have found themselves kneeling before a baby in an animal food box.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 11:46 AM  

"Right and Left are legitimate distinctions only after the birth of Christendom and ideology?"

The terms date to the French Revolution, so yes.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 27, 2018 11:47 AM  

That's why I asked what definition of "imperialistic" *was* being used.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 11:49 AM  

@58 paradox

Libertarianism has always been a Leftwing ideology, but it's from the American branch. American Progressive thought is Puritanical without any hint of God involved. As a result, the branches & split-offs respond to the core assumptions of the Puritanical Left.

It's always been Utopian Leftism of those that really just to be left alone. There's a reason the party has descended into running people for election that are clearly high the entire time. There's a Midwest/West Coast aspect to all of it. (Being that much of those regions are descended from people that ran away from the coasts, there's some genetic lineage to it.)

It's a "fun" ideology and generally appealing, though the problem is that it can't work, doesn't work and never will work. It's a bit like having a pet unicorn or dragon.

Blogger Roy Lofquist January 27, 2018 11:49 AM  

You want a book? Here's a book. The best book ever. I fervently wish that it had been around 60 years ago. I think it would have made a huge difference for me, personally.

https://www.amazon.com/Cave-Light-Aristotle-Struggle-Civilization-ebook/dp/B003EY7JG2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517071397&sr=8-1&keywords=the+cave+and+the+light


"The Cave and the Light is a magisterial account of how the two greatest thinkers of the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle, laid the foundations of Western culture—and how their rivalry shaped the essential features of our culture down to the present day."

Blogger Nate73 January 27, 2018 11:51 AM  

>penumbras, emanations

Killing me lol.

Anonymous Avalanche January 27, 2018 11:53 AM  

@59 This is a good example of what I mean when I describe your approach as over-preoccupied with words and definitions. To most people,

Yeah, And that is just exactly the Supreme Dark Lord's intended audience, yes?

Have you never heard this business maxim?

90% of solving a problem is CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING the problem!

Blogger James January 27, 2018 11:53 AM  

"Ancient Rome was extremely imperialistic. But it was also extremely inegalitarian. Going by your heuristic, Ancient Rome would have to be of the political Left,"

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that everyone seems to have forgotten about Bread & Circuses, Panem et Circenses. What could possibly be more Marxist Communist Progressive Leftist SJW than that?

Blogger Were-Puppy January 27, 2018 11:54 AM  

@63 tuberman
This is why, today, I look at things through Nationalism vs. Globalism rather than Right vs. Left. The latter way has validity, but allows all sorts of Fake arguments, yet Nationalism vs. Globalism is more clear cut.
---

^ This.

OpenID het1 January 27, 2018 11:55 AM  

Well, but even a conception of IDEA belongs to Plato ("left":-))

Anonymous Gary January 27, 2018 11:56 AM  

Imagine pushing Democrats Are The Real Racist Nazis memes in the current year...

For those of us who’ve evolved past 2006, see below:

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney = Plato. Anti-Christian. Anti-family. Imperialist.

Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, Franco, Huey Long, John F. Kennedy = Aristotle. Christian. Pro-family. Nationalist.

Blogger Koanic January 27, 2018 11:56 AM  

> Equality does not exist in any form of any kind.

True. However, there exist profound sociobiological differences along the equality-hierarchy axis, and therefore also in the downstream ideological spectrum.

Lions are hierarchical; the alpha gets the girls, the losers get the bush. Bonobos are egalitarian; everyone gets the girls. Yet behind this hypocritical facade, the alpha nevertheless fathers 60% of the next generation. This is by design.

We need not look far to find a similar phenomenon in humans. Men are pack hierarchical, women are herd flat. When women rule, as they do now in the West, the result is high egalitarianism, however hypocritical.

Surely this is relevant to the Left-Right axis. Whatever else Hitler may be, he is more right wing than Angela Merkel.

Anonymous rien January 27, 2018 11:56 AM  

Left = Ideology
Right = Reality

Anonymous DissidentRight January 27, 2018 11:56 AM  

@63 This is why, today, I look at things through Nationalism vs. Globalism rather than Right vs. Left.

Nationalism is necessary but not sufficient.

@48 What if Alt-Retards in the final analysis are being paid for and supported by the evilest people on earth, and are just tools for them?

Alt-Retards are just guys who take it for granted that Christianity is false, which makes them suspicious of (if not hostile to) the real Right, which is Christian.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2018 11:58 AM  

I simplified this years ago.
There are only two types of people:

Liars
Honest men

I suppose you could refine it a bit but generally that works for me well enough.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2018 12:03 PM  

As long as we use my definition of Christian I'll take the ACTUAL Christian non-white society every time.

Anonymous Bob January 27, 2018 12:04 PM  

Left: Group rights
Right: Individual liberty

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 12:04 PM  

"Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney = Plato. Anti-Christian. Anti-family. Imperialist.

Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, Franco, Huey Long, John F. Kennedy = Aristotle. Christian. Pro-family. Nationalist."

This is what happens when you arbitrarily list names of famous people (about whom you know nothing) in an attempt to sound smart and above it all.

Anonymous Never Forget January 27, 2018 12:05 PM  

At it's core, the AltRetard group is anti-semitic. That is why they must be denounced. Especially today, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Atone.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 27, 2018 12:07 PM  

Christianity doesn't care what the government system is. Christians living in a place would care, but Christianity doesn't care.

In the specific, no, but insofar as Christianity calls for a more just society (which does not mean a society of enforced equal outcomes, sorry SJ Christians), transforming cultures will inevitably transform governments, as well -- they needn't be identical, but they must share certain commonalities to allow for peaceful and profitable coexistence.

As for cultural norms colliding, no cultural norm is ever static. They always change, if slowly, over time.

Agreed, but there is a difference between whatever changes occur merely by natural, "free-market" if you will, interaction over time, and consciously and deliberately organizing a plan of proselytization and action (social, political, or even possibly military) to bring those changes about as quickly as possible.

The latter is what most people think of as "imperialistic", and while I don't think Christianity should be spread by the sword, there is no denying that it occasionally has been.

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 12:10 PM  

And back to fixing things.

As a heuristic for politics/ideology, Vox is absolutely correct, but I've grown to view the Left/Right divide as a matter of how individuals process the world mentally. At which point, it's just Aristotle(Right) vs. Plato(Left).

And so Vox's answer to Jack's question about an Equality vs. Anti-Equality divide is absolutely correct if incomplete. 'Equality' is a Platonic Pure Form, an abstracted ideal that doesn't exist in instantiated reality. So asking a child of Aristotle about it is, indeed, asking him if he's pro-unicorn or anti-unicorn. Translating 'Equality' from Plato to Aristotle is to ask the question "Is this fair?"

Which means that the Right isn't Anti-Equality in the sense that favored laws and ideals of the Right, particularly those found within Christianity, are about making things as fair as pragmatically possible and erring on the side of grace. The Christian Nationalist Right is a Pro-Equality position where the rubber meets the road.

Jack's belief that Christianity is Platonic is also an incomplete answer. Christianity is designed to have elements that appeal to both the Left and the Right. It speaks to both Plato and Aristotle at the same time, before Plato and Aristotle even showed up to provide a heuristic or basic understanding for it.

Now the people Plato stands to represent aren't inherently Anti-Christian or Anti-Family or Imperialist. It's just that Plato screwed up and put down the original template that lends people who think like him to be Anti-Christian, Anti-Family and Imperialist. Carl Jung's Archetypes are Platonic Pure Forms, and as far as I'm aware (limited to say the least), Jung is the person who's done the most to reform Plato's camp into the modern world. This is some of what Dr. Jordan Peterson is doing too.

Also, Natural Rights are the Platonic Pure Forms of laws that actually work, like the Right to Free Speech. Individual Property Rights is damn close to one too, I think. This would also explain why lefties are all about their imaginary rights to such and such.

And to extend that down a few more steps, for the left, Imperialism is an attempt to instantiate the One True Government and being Anti-Family is an attempt to instantiate the One True Human Family. This is part of where Plato screwed up. His belief that reality is an expression of his Pure Forms is exactly backwards, and because Jung is the closest thing to a real update the Left has had, they're still trying to go about things exactly backwards. Philosophically speaking, the Left is mostly still stuck in the Classical Age whereas the Right has developed a little further...

OpenID het1 January 27, 2018 12:11 PM  

Some times ago I have wrote a book about Huey Long.
https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4620397/
But readers could not understand – was Long Left or Right:-)
This is non-linear situation.

Blogger Brad Matthews January 27, 2018 12:12 PM  

I was hesitant to nail it down to truth and lies because I have been working on my tendency towards binary thinking. Ultimately, if the intent is to deceive, then it is truth and lies. It's probably accurate to distill it further to simply good and evil.

Blogger Brad Matthews January 27, 2018 12:13 PM  

Although not all tenants of either philosophy are that clear cut.

Blogger SirHamster January 27, 2018 12:14 PM  

Left = Redefinitions, complications, explanations, interpretations, penumbras, emanations, and appeals to authority, credentials, and the sacred spirit of Science.
Right = Truth


Amen. Ultimately, the right is defined by our pursuit of what is Right.

Blogger pyrrhus January 27, 2018 12:15 PM  

VDH complete demolition of illegal immigration fictions...https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/01/26/mythologies-of-illegal-immigration/#more-168789

Blogger pyrrhus January 27, 2018 12:15 PM  

I'm guessing that VDH couldn't get his piece accepted by any of the regular "conservative" sites...

Anonymous Gary January 27, 2018 12:16 PM  

“This is what happens when you arbitrarily list names of famous people (about whom you know nothing) in an attempt to sound smart and above it all.”

Lol, and the first cuckservative falls into the trap.

Go on, tell me how Christian the “Hellfire Club” was, along with Mormons and virtual atheists like Reagan and Jefferson. Tell me how how many Chaldean Christians are alive in Iraq thanks to (((GOP))) imperialism.

Now tell us why Huey Long and JFK were NOT nationalists.

You’ve been called, cuck.

Anonymous Rider of Rohan January 27, 2018 12:20 PM  

“At it's core, the AltRetard group is anti-semitic. That is why they must be denounced. Especially today, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Atone.”
^^^^^THIS

Let us never forget that Leftists are always anti-semites. Every. Single. Time.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 12:22 PM  

@85 Stephen J.

Actually, it wouldn't be "free market", but it is actually a case of Darwinism. Whatever works better, survives. All Christians do is bring something better, and it keeps winning out. At least when it isn't slaughtered by the droves, though that has only, occasionally, worked.

Imperialism is a Government Structure, while Christianity requires nothing of the current government of a culture. The more oppressive, in fact, the faster it grows. This is why you're trying you're failing to the dictionary definition, as it is. Or there is no such thing as Nationalism and all cultural norms are Imperial in nature.

(The word you would be looking for is "Invasive", btw. Which Christianity is and we've got no bones to really pick about that. We want you to save your soul.)

Anonymous rustty fifie January 27, 2018 12:23 PM  

S1AL wrote:"Right and Left are legitimate distinctions only after the birth of Christendom and ideology?"

The terms date to the French Revolution, so yes.



I've been curios as to whether the terms didn't reference the left and right hand paths of Luciferianism, even then.S1AL wrote:"Right and Left are legitimate distinctions only after the birth of Christendom and ideology?"

The terms date to the French Revolution, so yes.



I've been curios as to whether the terms didn't reference the left and right hand paths of Luciferianism, even then.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 12:24 PM  

There are times, when you're not sure if someone is just trolling, a paid shill or a local that's having a laugh.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 12:29 PM  

This is a good example of what I mean when I describe your approach as over-preoccupied with words and definitions. To most people, Ancient Rome was of the Right in more or less the same way the Nazis were of the Right: both regimes were intensely inegalitarian in their primary aspirations and ideals. That is true even if the Nazi were highly ideological, and the Romans were pre-ideological.

You're a liar. Of course you think my preoccupation with the truth is wrong. You want to keep blathering and furblegarbling until you can claim, with a straight face, that black is white, war is peace, and 2+2=purple. I know exactly what you are, how you operate, and whom you serve.

And most people are idiots. Why on Earth would I care what they think about Ancient Rome, National Socialism, or anything else, for that matter?

I think you have a serious blind spot on this issue.

That's nice. I think you are both evil and stupid.

Anonymous vfm 0202 January 27, 2018 12:29 PM  

"I ask because one critical element of Christianity is that it is a proselytizing faith, defining itself as the optimum universal way for all mankind and laying upon its followers a duty to spread that Word and bring it about. Given that that would necessarily require the ultimate elimination of any culture or subculture incompatible with its moral strictures, a case could be made that Christianity is imperialistic by definition in that it calls for cultural domination and transformation. How would this apparent contradiction be resolved?"

Oh look, someone taught a monkey to Hegel!

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 12:31 PM  

Rashadjin: "And so Vox's answer to Jack's question about an Equality vs. Anti-Equality divide is absolutely correct if incomplete. 'Equality' is a Platonic Pure Form, an abstracted ideal that doesn't exist in instantiated reality."

It's true that real Equality does not exist, but I don't think that merits treating it strictly as a Platonic form.
Because the human *aspiration* to equality is empirically very real as a political force, as is the glorification of inequality. These are so obviously real that that they can easily observed, weighed, classified, and analyzed in Aristotelian terms.

"So asking a child of Aristotle about it is, indeed, asking him if he's pro-unicorn or anti-unicorn. Translating 'Equality' from Plato to Aristotle is to ask the question "Is this fair?"

But even if it's true that the issue of practical equality is a question of "fairness," how does that render the political consideration of Equality-vs-Inequality the equivalent of the unicorn?

Contemporary politics is permanently convulsed by questions of fairness. It's obvious that practical considerations of equality and inequality are politically urgent for countless people.

Why do you dismiss the Equality-Inequality axis as irrelevant when it is plainly important to the politics and culture of most countries in a very concrete and practical way?

Blogger Koanic January 27, 2018 12:32 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:There are times, when you're not sure if someone is just trolling, a paid shill or a local that's having a laugh.

Nazi hasbara is like sweet and sour soup on a concentration camp victim's tongue.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 12:33 PM  

"I've been curios as to whether the terms didn't reference the left and right hand paths of Luciferianism, even then."

Nope, just gathering arrangements. There might have been some symbolism in relation to left = opposition, but that's as far as it extends. The most​ interesting thing about it that's not discussed is that the (right-wing) Girondists were proto-Federalists, while the Liberals (centrists) were more traditional nationalists.

"Go on, tell me how Christian the “Hellfire Club” was, along with Mormons and virtual atheists like Reagan and Jefferson. Tell me how how many Chaldean Christians are alive in Iraq thanks to (((GOP))) imperialism.

Now tell us why Huey Long and JFK were NOT nationalists."

That's a cute trick. Lie about a couple of people, then choose the most divisive from the list and claim they represent the whole. Fun stuff, but I don't play "find the queen" with hucksters.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 12:36 PM  

This thread is already so clogged with monomaniacs and facile obeisance payers, I'll just take the references to useful works of/on Aristotle and Plato.

Yes, you goons who just had to bring up the utterly irrelevant and mentally incoherent semitism/antisemitism into this thread. Just stop before we become absolutely certain that you're sub-90 IQ programmed serviles.

Anonymous Elder Son January 27, 2018 12:38 PM  

Left = MPAI's
Right = MPAI's

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 27, 2018 12:38 PM  

The lucubrations of the high-midwit are, in themselves (and ultimately), the greatest argument against democracy that can be produced.

Anonymous johnc January 27, 2018 12:44 PM  

This is actually half-decent rhetoric: https://i.redd.it/0ywc0i1womc01.jpg

Blogger Akulkis January 27, 2018 12:47 PM  

@Looking Glass

Very astute analysis regarding Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Confucius & Marx.

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 12:47 PM  

@100 Jack Burroughs

When you're talking to someone like Vox, asking them to place ideologies or politics on the Equality/Anti-Equality spectrum is a category error. It does not compute. And there's plenty of fine reasons for them to not bother working around that. Particularly for Vox, who's ruthless about his philosophy. A category error will never be and should never be more than a category error to him.

Aspirations and ideals do have great affect on humanity - we call for rhetoric for a reason - so they are real in the sense of being animating spirits in the backs of peoples' heads. But even saying that, you should begin to appreciate what Vox is getting at when he refuses to categorize ideologies and political systems based on the animating spirits within the adherents of those systems. There's no hard link between the two, so egalitarians can be Imperialist in one era and Anti-Imperialist in the next.

So yes, you can measure the human aspiration to equality within a given population, but that does not mean what you want it to mean in the context of discussing and categorizing ideologies or political systems.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 12:49 PM  

The equality/inequality "axis" is utterly irrelevant Jack. In a world where individuals by definition have different characteristics, equality neither has, nor does, nor can ever, nor should ever exist in any way shape or form. Not equality of origination, not equality of outcome, not equality of treatment or perception.

As a current state it is nonexistent, as a future state it is abjectly and objectively impossible. If two individuals even could become precisely equal in any aspect they would cease to exist as individuals in that aspect.

Blogger James January 27, 2018 12:49 PM  

"Let's see, Libertarian Reason Magazine, anti-Christian, Anti-family,(pro-gay marriage, pro-transgender and pro-abortion), Imperialist (somewhat, they favor imperial power when it comes to DACA). Therefore, Reason Magazine is Left-wing." By Jove, he's got it!!! The rest of us realized that Reason Magazine was Crypto-Marxist a long long time ago.

Anonymous Patron January 27, 2018 12:51 PM  

Oh go away. I literally cannot atone for things that (1) I wasn't around for, and (2) my nation opposed.

6M Jewish dead being the worst crime in history is a bad joke.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 12:56 PM  

Why do you dismiss the Equality-Inequality axis as irrelevant when it is plainly important to the politics and culture of most countries in a very concrete and practical way?

Because it's utter bullshit. It literally does not exist. No one genuinely believes in equality in any way, shape, or form. They merely say they do. It is as relevant as one's opinion on leprechauns.

All you are doing is underlining how stupid and unable to learn you are. Your arguments aren't just wrong, they are irrelevant.

Blogger James January 27, 2018 1:03 PM  

"Christianity doesn't care what the government system is. Christians living in a place would care, but Christianity doesn't care" Christ and Christianity care at a metaphysical and spiritual level. Consider what Jesus said about the Rulers of the Gentiles in several places in the gospels:
Matthew 20: "25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: "


Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 27, 2018 1:04 PM  

Jack's fundamental problem is that while he's entered the orbit of Animus, he misapprehends it and subsequently applies that misapprehension to the Left/Right political dichotomy. A dichotomy that has a definite, verifiable historicity to it. Ergo, the anachronisms, obfuscations, conflations, contradictions and transcendental 'feel' to his line of reasoning.

Koniac has, several times now, attempted to toss Jack an ontological life raft or ten, but they keep bouncing off Jack's commitments and Koniac has been uncharacteristically shy about pressing the issue further.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:06 PM  

I'm kicking around an idea for a book proposal (thinking of shopping to CH, actually) on this topic. Been thinking about it quite a bit.

I think the heuristic works except for the imperialist/nationalist bit. I think you can have left-wing nationalism and right-wing imperialism.

The way I see it, what the divide ultimately comes down to is the acceptance or rejection of spiritual order and thus spiritual hierarchy. A basic left-right litmus test is: do you accept the existence of saints? That is, do you acknowledge that there is such a thing as spiritual perfection, that it is possible to attain spiritual perfection, and that beings who have attained this kind of spiritual perfection are objectively spiritually superior to us ordinary beings?

From this basic rejection of saintliness, the left's insane egalitarianism flows naturally and inexorably.

Anonymous Stephen J. January 27, 2018 1:07 PM  

"Oh look, someone taught a monkey to Hegel!"

And someone taught a parrot to squawk. If you can't politely answer an honest question or you're so paranoid you don't believe any skeptical question can be honest, go back to your lightless stable and eat straw with the other Dwarfs.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:08 PM  

No one genuinely believes in equality in any way, shape, or form. They merely say they do. It is as relevant as one's opinion on leprechauns.

Vox, with immense respect, I don't think you're right here. There are people who, at some level--we can quibble about how "genuinely"--really do believe in absolute spiritual equality.

To take this to the extreme, and in the direction I'm thinking for a book, the classic example here is Lucifer (or Morgoth for the Tolkien fans). Lucifer's rebellion is, at bottom, a rejection of the idea of a spiritual order. Lucifer takes himself as the full ontological equivalent of God Almighty.

Leftism is literally Satanism. It's why they're so obsessed with garbage-tier English Romantics like Byron and Keats who glorified Luciferean/Promethean rebellion.

Blogger Koanic January 27, 2018 1:09 PM  

> Koniac has, several times now, attempted to toss Jack an ontological life raft or ten, but they keep bouncing off Jack's commitments and Koniac has been uncharacteristically shy about pressing the issue further.

I am not unsportsmanlike. And Koranic or Koaniac are funnier.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:10 PM  

"I think you can have left-wing nationalism and right-wing imperialism."

You can't. Imperialism erodes the national "family" from the inside out by spending its quality and discipline irrecoverably for short-term profit. Decadence follows and the nation dies.

Blogger Thomas Henderson January 27, 2018 1:12 PM  

The terms right and left arose out of the national assembly of revolutionary France. Those on the right stood for tradition, the king, legitimate authority, and sacred order. Those on the left stood for rebellion, the republic, equality, and secularization. So defined the United States has been leftist from the get go.

Canadian conservative philosopher George Grant ascribed to Americanization the sharp leftward pull in Canadian politics that he witnessed in the late 1950s and 1960s.

Since much of the world is now secular and republican, I like #78 rien's contemporary definition, left = ideology, right = reality.

As far as Christianity and the dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle is concerned all things are reconciled in Christ and made new. Since Jesus is the image of God made perfect, fully God and fully Man, the Platonic form and the Aristotelian virtue of action are realized in the incarnation. That’s what reconciled much of ancient philosophical schools to Christianity. The answer to Tertullian’s question, “what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?” ended up as everything. Opposites could be held together and entertained in tension to one another in a faith capacious enough to hold both.

That said, much of the right in Europe these days are quoting scripture, and using Matthew 21:41 as a barb. "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:14 PM  

Imperialism erodes the national "family" from the inside out by spending its quality and discipline irrecoverably for short-term profit. Decadence follows and the nation dies.

Of course this is true. But the fact that right-wing imperialism is a short-lived and unstable equilibrium doesn't mean it can't in principle exist. I think here of Bismarck's Prussia.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:16 PM  

You started out good, Thomas, then you attempted Theology.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 1:17 PM  

Vox: "You're a liar."

I might be wrong, but I haven't lied. If you declare pre-Christian, pre-ideological civilizations as off-limits for considerations of Left and Right, then it really does sincerely seem to me that you are making an excessively abstract, word-centered, and definitional argument.

"Of course you think my preoccupation with the truth is wrong. You want to keep blathering and furblegarbling until you can claim, with a straight face, that black is white, war is peace, and 2+2=purple. I know exactly what you are, how you operate, and whom you serve."

There are different kinds of truth.

Yes, 2+2 always equals 4, no matter what. And by dint of the law of non-contradiction, black is not white, and war is not peace.

But when we are talking about Left and Right, the issue is not nearly as settled and clear as you pretend. You'll notice that you've never felt a need to post a heuristic for determining the difference between up and down, or black and white. There's a reason for that.

Right and Left are labels we apply to very complex and often ambiguous and paradoxical human and political phenomena. That's why there is lots of reasonable disagreement about these labels.

For instance, Nationalists often point out that the Nation isn't the constitution, it's the people. I'm pretty sure I've heard you say similar things, too. Well, in the same way, I'm arguing that Right wing and Left wing are not simply words with definitions, they are *people*; they are human, social, and political *types*. And these types existed long before Christendom and the ideological era.

For this reason, it seems to me that you can't just declare, by dint of definition, that ancient Rome is not a fair subject for consideration of Left and Right merely because it was pre-ideological and pre-Christian. The human types still existed then. (Moreover, Plato and Aristotle were pre-Christian and pre-ideological, but you've put them at the very center of your heuristic. That seems like a contradiction.)

You don't have to agree with this objection, but it IS a substantive objection.

That is my honest opinion about what you are doing. It isn't a lie. Even if I'm wrong, my misperception of you on this issue is pretty widespread--and not just among the teeming masses of morons that you're always dismissing. MANY intelligent people find you perplexing on this issue.

Instead of calling me a liar, why don't you actually try to persuade us by explaining, perhaps in a new way, how I've gotten you wrong?

"And most people are idiots. Why on Earth would I care what they think about Ancient Rome, National Socialism, or anything else, for that matter?"

I'm not talking about idiots. Many intelligent people think you're very weird on this issue. Those are the people I mean. If you care at least a little about maximizing the influence of your views on intelligent people, then you might consider carefully answering their objections instead of dismissing them.

JB: "I think you have a serious blind spot on this issue."

Vox: "That's nice. I think you are both evil and stupid."

This is a pristine example of the blind spot I'm talking about. You get weird on this issue, Vox. You really do.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:21 PM  

For this reason, it seems to me that you can't just declare, by dint of definition, that ancient Rome is not a fair subject for consideration of Left and Right merely because it was pre-ideological and pre-Christian. The human types still existed then.

Thomas' point, that the language of left and right comes from the physical arrangement of people during a gathering in France at a particular moment in French history, is important to keep in mind. It's not straightforward or obvious that this frame, concerned initially (and perhaps to this day primarily) with questions of the relationship between the Throne and the Altar, can be applied to pre-Christian Rome.

That said, I think man's instinct to rebel against God (or, if you prefer, sacred Order) in the name of a false equality isn't necessarily tied to any one historical moment. We definitely see this in the Gracchi, as well as the corruption endemic to leftist political programs.

As always, proceeding in our analysis cautiously and with a keen eye for detail is best.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:23 PM  

"Of course this is true. But the fact that right-wing imperialism is a short-lived and unstable equilibrium doesn't mean it can't in principle exist."

You're mistaking my distinction. It can't exist because it's a fundamental violation of the family aspect at a different "level of magnification". If your state is imperial, it is also inherently anti-family, although this may not become immediately apparent.

It is also a fundamental violation of the Christian aspect, "my kingdom is not of this world".

So, by accepting imperialism you violate both the family and Christianity. You have no elements of the right remaining, because you put a value of the left above your other supposed values.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 1:24 PM  

"The terms right and left arose out of the national assembly of revolutionary France. Those on the right stood for tradition, the king, legitimate authority, and sacred order. Those on the left stood for rebellion, the republic, equality, and secularization. So defined the United States has been leftist from the get go."

No. Try again. This time with actual history and not "the Enlightenment is literally Satan" idiocy.

Anonymous BBGKB January 27, 2018 1:24 PM  

No one genuinely believes in equality in any way, shape, or form. They merely say they do. It is as relevant as one's opinion on leprechauns.

When leftists believe in equality it means "no one is better than me". 3rdworlders also have different definitions of respect

I doubt Genghis Khan was a leftist.

Given that his history starts off with being an idiot bastard kicked out by his family,who befriended an advanced tribe that took pity on him only to have his estranged family kill off the tribes defenders & loot them I would say he was a leftist.

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 1:25 PM  

@117 Darth Dharmakīrti @Jack Burroughs

Eh, Jack is pressing some of Vox's buttons. Associating Rome with the Right like Nazi Germany with the Right and saying such is a normal association is a particularly bewildering bit of mind bending acrobatics that makes me think Azure or whoever was correct in saying that part of Jack's problem is the human problem of demonizing the opposition and then lumping them all together as one amorphous mass of Hitler. Also a particularly Leftist thing to do.

I'd ask Vox to be kind to the fellow Moon Child who can't bridge the gap like I can, but...

You do have a point about people genuinely believing in equality, Darth. They're just so far outside Vox's frame that it's indistinguishable from a mental defect of the particularly silly, post-hoc rationalization variety most of the time.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:26 PM  

To put it more simply, "a man cannot serve two masters". Either the imperialism goes away, or you're serving the left.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 1:27 PM  

@107 Akulkis

Thanks. I've thought Plato as old & foolish when I first read The Republic. In the vein of "old, important text that's just part of a Classics education". Took some years to realize just how deep into the woods people get because of the ideas.

The hook into the Gamma "Secret King" was something I realized somewhere in the last year, when I just randomly wondered why Plato had stuck around. (If one looks closely, you'll notice that Plato normally is taught before Aristotle. There's instinctive deck-stacking happening with that.) So the only way Plato has stuck around so well is that it has to either be really good at pointing to fundamental realities (like The Prince or The Art of War) or be pure catnip to the people that keep these works relevant.

The Republic posits that the Philosopher should rule from their enlightened insight, not taking credit for the greatness they bring to the City. It makes the Philosopher both Ruler & Secret King. Credit to Vox for all of the insight into Gammas, but that clicked and put it all together.

It also gives some explanation for why Socrates got himself executed. He simply couldn't let go of the issues. Socrates would like us to know that the train is fine.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:29 PM  

So, by accepting imperialism you violate both the family and Christianity. You have no elements of the right remaining, because you put a value of the left above your other supposed values.

I'm not sure I'm committed enough to the idea that nationalism/imperialism fails to track right/left that it's worth arguing about. Certainly you make good points, and I agree that imperialism, to the extent it is necessarily expansionist, is inherently anti-Christian.

No. Try again. This time with actual history and not "the Enlightenment is literally Satan" idiocy.

I think you're confusing me with Jack but I am interested to hear in how your account of history means the statement you quoted is wrong, because it looks just about right to me.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 1:31 PM  

I might be wrong, but I haven't lied.... There are different kinds of truth.

Evil and stupid.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 1:32 PM  

Since I know somebody is gonna go off on the wrong tangent, here are the historical fall fallacies to which I'm referring:

The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by 13 years.

The "right" in France was ambivalent on the Monarchy, much like early American revolutionaries.

"France stands for Freedom" is a quote attributable to a French King, from multiple centuries earlier. The notion of absolute monarchs didn't just spring up out of the ground fully-formed.

"Sacred Order" is a fabrication of latter-day Monarchists.

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is more linked to the Liberals than the Jacobins, who were worker's-Paradise commies.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2018 1:33 PM  

"Weird how “Left” is defined as stereotypicaly Jewish."
Judaism is family-oriented, possibly the most Nationalist/anti-Imperialist religion ever to exist, and PRE Christian. It's also Aristotlean, as you can discern from its criteria for prophets (Was he wrong? Not a prophet. Kill him.)

I don't know what kind or form of Jewishness you're thinking of, Mr I'm Really Totally A Conservative, but I suspect it's rather more to do with your own internal contradictions than Vox's.

Blogger Rich Hughes January 27, 2018 1:33 PM  

left: Progressive Secular.
Right: Regressive Sectarian.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 1:36 PM  

Rashadjin: "Jack is pressing some of Vox's buttons. Associating Rome with the Right like Nazi Germany with the Right and saying such is a normal association is a particularly bewildering bit of mind bending acrobatics"

It is a perfectly normal association if you allow the Equality-Inequality axis to be part of your heuristic. No bewildering mind bending required. That's the core of my disagreement with Vox.

"that makes me think Azure or whoever was correct in saying that part of Jack's problem is the human problem of demonizing the opposition and then lumping them all together as one amorphous mass of Hitler. Also a particularly Leftist thing to do."

I'm not "demonizing the opposition," and no one on here has any good reason to think I'm a Leftist. Lots of people on the Right believe that the Nazis were of the Right, and for the same reasons I do.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 1:36 PM  

There are people who, at some level--we can quibble about how "genuinely"--really do believe in absolute spiritual equality.

And those people are demonstrably wrong to do so on the basis of their own doctrinal documents. I really don't care what a few people who don't grasp their own doctrine and can easily be shown to be wrong happen to incorrectly believe.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:37 PM  

"It is a perfectly normal association if you allow the Equality-Inequality axis to be part of your heuristic."

"It is a perfectly normal association if you allow batshit insanity axis to be part of your heuristic and are fantastically historically ignorant with a massively inflated head."

Blogger James January 27, 2018 1:37 PM  

"Because it's utter bullshit. It literally does not exist. No one genuinely believes in equality in any way, shape, or form. They merely say they do. It is as relevant as one's opinion on leprechauns."

I believe in the kind of "equality" that doesn't think a person is limited due to not being able to prove his ancestry back to nobility for hundreds of years in the past. I believe in the kind of "equality" that does not think caste systems like they still have in India make any sense. Which is nothing like the phony "equality" that liberal communist Marxist Progressive SJW-types claim to believe in.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 1:38 PM  

I'm kicking around an idea for a book proposal (thinking of shopping to CH, actually) on this topic.

We don't consider book proposals. Write the book. Then we'll consider it.

Learned that one the hard way. There is no point in wasting any time on a book that may never be written.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:39 PM  

Lots of people on the Right believe that the Nazis were of the Right, and for the same reasons I do.

The bandwagon I just pulled out of my a** rides again!

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:39 PM  

The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by 13 years.

Irrelevant

The "right" in France was ambivalent on the Monarchy, much like early American revolutionaries.

Not quite true (the Americans in particular were functionally Republican from the get go)

The notion of absolute monarchs didn't just spring up out of the ground fully-formed.

Absolutely, but this cuts against the heart of your point. Absolute monarchy or tyranny for whatever reason seems to be the way the Leftist political program shakes out (think Looking Glass' excellent observations on the Philosopher King, Lucifer in Hell, 20th century Communism, etc.). The right-wing program is one of a sustainable order, with natural ("organic") checks and balances: the peasantry, the clergy, the nobility, and the monarchy are all parts of the order.


"Sacred Order" is a fabrication of latter-day Monarchists.


[citation needed]

This would absolutely have been news to e.g. Dante


"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is more linked to the Liberals than the Jacobins, who were worker's-Paradise commies.


Also irrelevant

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 1:40 PM  

We don't consider book proposals. Write the book. Then we'll consider it.

Learned that one the hard way. There is no point in wasting any time on a book that may never be written.


Cool, and thanks for the heads up. In the mainstream publishing world, they want proposals (why, I couldn't really tell you). Your system seems objectively superior, but then, that's no surprise.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 1:42 PM  

JB: "I might be wrong, but I haven't lied.... There are different kinds of truth."

VD: "Evil and stupid."

Vox, I know you're busy, and lengthy replies are maybe not realistic for you.

But come on, man. This hit-and-run name-calling over a substantive disagreement about an unsettled issue is profoundly weird behavior.

Anonymous Patron January 27, 2018 1:43 PM  

I'm not sure about this TBH. The British Empire in North America didn't seem to be anti-family, and was clearly pro-Christian & until Quebec's conquest, nationalist too. British rule in Africa was also a Christianising force, and would have been in India too but for the old hands who preferred quiet Hindu or Mohammedan subjects. Yet even there it ended suttee etc. And wherever you We're, British rule tended to be relatively easy to remove unless (eg Austalia & North America) there was genocide or population replacement involved.

Anonymous [Adult Swim] January 27, 2018 1:44 PM  

This Burroughs guy is tedious, time for the big guns somebody go get Wheeler and give Burroughs a taste of his own medicine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzlbyTZsQY

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 27, 2018 1:44 PM  

I am Jack's malfunctioning limbic system.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 1:45 PM  

"This hit-and-run name-calling"

"There are different kinds of truth"

Yes, we call them "truth" and "lies".

This is why you (accurately) were pointed out (not "name-calling" if it's an accurate assessment of character) to be both evil and stupid.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 1:46 PM  

@142 Darth Dharmakīrti

At some level, Right/Left has an aspect of Order vs Wish. When it comes down the nasty details, one either leans towards Reality or what they believe it should be. That's really the major fault-line between Aristotle & Plato. "What Is" vs "What I Want It To Be".

The first group has a large tendency to survive longer than the second group.

Anonymous User January 27, 2018 1:46 PM  

It's kind of Vox to explicitly state his model in which "Nazis are leftists" is a true statement. It's an appealing novelty, but it observably lacks adoption. Most Westerners use a model closer to the following.

From https://infogalactic.com/info/Left-wing_politics:
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism), as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice). The term left wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".

And from https://infogalactic.com/info/Right-wing_politics:
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences and/or from competition in market economies.

I note this wikipedia style ideological edit with amusement: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=724306512&oldid=445630

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 1:49 PM  

@136 Jack Burroughs

It is a perfectly normal association if you allow the Equality-Inequality axis to be part of your heuristic. No bewildering mind bending required. That's the core of my disagreement with Vox.

...I need to stop being surprised when people front up the problem the discussion is having and then do nothing to change it themselves. This is Vox Popoli. You are a guest. Vox is under no compelling mandate to subscribe to your heuristic and extend his views out from it. Your job is to make a compelling case for your heuristic first, and failing that (you failed in all aspects), adopt Vox's heuristics as the starting point and try to make your case within his framework. To put it another way, don't barge into Vox's house and demand he sets the table your way. It's rude.

A bit more to the point, allowing the Equality-Inequality axis to be part of your heuristic for ideological and political classification system is definitely non-standard.

And I call you a Leftist using my definition of a Lefty, not Vox's or basically anyone else's around here, and per my definition, you're definitely a Lefty. I know the distinction is lost, but it remains fun, and so I continue.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 1:51 PM  

I just realized that Jack is literally arguing the Wikipedia definition of "right-wing". Note the intro quote:

"Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Argument ad Wiki. Now I've seen it all.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 1:58 PM  

@152 S1AL

Someone did a comic, some years ago, about people arguing the points of discussion within the wiki itself, without realizing it.


@151 Rashadjin

We clearly need Vox's take on the Avocado-Beer axis. It's an important heuristic to the Right-Left discussions.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 2:00 PM  

"Not quite true (the Americans in particular were functionally Republican from the get go)"

No. Some were (e.g. Paine), but as of the writing of the Constitution, several were still on board with a limited monarchy (a la Great Britain).

"Absolutely, but this cuts against the heart of your point. Absolute monarchy or tyranny for whatever reason seems to be the way the Leftist political program shakes out (think Looking Glass' excellent observations on the Philosopher King, Lucifer in Hell, 20th century Communism, etc.). The right-wing program is one of a sustainable order, with natural ("organic") checks and balances: the peasantry, the clergy, the nobility, and the monarchy are all parts of the order."

This is a Monarchist view. Nobody associated with the right-wing of any political system, dating from the inception of the right-left spectrum, had ever held to the necessity of such an order. Even the Old Testament warns against monarchies. Everyone believes in both the natural basis for and necessity of "order". The disagreement is about what kind of order is preferable.

I'm also trying really hard to not make this a denominational dispute, and am thus limiting my arguments about monarchies.

Anonymous Blastmaster January 27, 2018 2:03 PM  

I do enjoy trans fats though

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 2:03 PM  

VD: "Because it's utter bullshit. It literally does not exist. No one genuinely believes in equality in any way, shape, or form. They merely say they do. It is as relevant as one's opinion on leprechauns."

I've already answered this, but I'll try again.

It's not a matter of whether people really believe that everyone is actually equal. Of course, no one believes that. It's a matter of whether people seek to maximize equality, and to minimize inequality; or, conversely, whether they seek to glorify inequality, greatness, heroism, and so on, and are untroubled by the increase in inequality.

That is a very real and important political axis. Unlike leprechauns, it demonstrably does exist, and every society wrestles with it in the real world.

VD: "All you are doing is underlining how stupid and unable to learn you are. Your arguments aren't just wrong, they are irrelevant."

I have answered your objection, Vox. It's not about whether Equality exists; it's about the extent to which a society aspires to equality, or glorifies inequality.

But you have replied merely by restating your objection, as if I didn't answer it: "Equality doesn't exist, and no one actually believes in it."

In this context, which of us, really, has a weakness for irrelevance and is unable to learn?






Anonymous User January 27, 2018 2:05 PM  

Jack, what do you hope to gain by arguing with someone who has dismissed you as stupid, evil, and ignorant?

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 2:11 PM  

In this context, which of us, really, has a weakness for irrelevance and is unable to learn?

I repeat. You are evil and stupid. All of your garblewaffling and reviso-pleading is in vain. I am demonstrably able to learn and to refine my arguments. You, quite clearly, are not.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 2:14 PM  

This hit-and-run name-calling over a substantive disagreement about an unsettled issue is profoundly weird behavior.

Yeah, that won't work either. You're still evil and stupid. You don't seriously believe anyone buys your dialectical pose, do you?

You shouldn't.

Blogger maniacprovost January 27, 2018 2:16 PM  

The left believes that the ends justify the means.

How does this compare with Vox's "win at all costs"?


I wouldn't "win at all costs." But 99% of the "principles" that cuckservatives prefer over victory are BS. There are few to zero situations in which you must choose between doing the right thing, and winning. If you think doing the right thing requires you to lose, you are probably wrong.

Why do you not mention Equality (Left) and Inequality (Right)? For many people, that is the main axis that differentiates the two poles.

Vox's answer to this is good, but the way I would phrase it is that the left believes in Equality of Outcomes, while the right believes in equality of opportunity... which is 100% in line with my heuristic. The fact that equality of opportunity doesn't exist is a subject for another debate.

Ancient Rome would have to be of the political Left

Few things are totally of the Left or Right, and an entire civilization obviously cannot be classified one way or the other.

All these comments on Vox "ignoring" the equality-inequality "axis".... Do you know what an axis is? Do you know what orthogonality means? It's a different freaking axis. Left. Righ. Up. Down. North. South. Equality. Inequality. It's like accusing someone of ignoring the "equality axis" during ocean navigation class.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 2:17 PM  

"To put it another way, don't barge into Vox's house and demand he sets the table your way. It's rude."

I haven't demanded anything. I have merely disagreed with Vox, and I have asked him some questions. A guest has a right to disagree, does he not?

And I haven't been disrespectful, either. I mean, other than noticing that Vox gets weird when he is questioned on this issue.

But I think that's fairly mild compared to being called evil and stupid, repeatedly, by Vox.

So I'm not seeing it, Rashadjin. Where exactly do you think I was out of line?

Anonymous User January 27, 2018 2:18 PM  

This simplifies nicely to:

Left: Bad
Right: Good

Although that definition is likely confusing to those who are not aware of the good-bad dimensions of the three normative sciences logic, ethic, and aesthetic.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 2:19 PM  

VD: " You don't seriously believe anyone buys your dialectical pose, do you? You shouldn't."

Ok, *now* who's projecting? This is exactly my point about you on this issue.

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 2:21 PM  

@156 Jack Burroughs

Look, Jack, I'm one of the few people here can appreciate where you're coming from. A good first step would be to best my critique of your position. You haven't. Instead, you keep trying Vox's patience with predictable results.

So go back a few steps, explain how the animating spirit of equality within the back of the human psyche is concrete enough to form a real political classification system around and maybe you'll get somewhere. Short of that, you may as well reread the first 155 comments a few more times because it ain't going to change.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 2:22 PM  

VD: "I repeat. You are evil and stupid. All of your garblewaffling and reviso-pleading is in vain. I am demonstrably able to learn and to refine my arguments. You, quite clearly, are not."

Vox, I developed my point, and you have not responded to that development. I don't doubt your capacity in general to learn and to refine your arguments, but you plainly refused to do that in this context.

Blogger maniacprovost January 27, 2018 2:23 PM  

Well... The idea that there are "two poles" is a simplification of Ricardian scope, which would, taken to its logical conclusion, result in the existence of only one axis with every idea lying along a single spectrum, and thereby necessitating 100% correlation between unrelated things... resulting in massive cognitive errors, biases, and a near-ineffectual philosophical worldview...

which is how Most People see the world.

Blogger maniacprovost January 27, 2018 2:26 PM  

Here's a relevant Voxpoast:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-iq-delta.html

Blogger Koanic January 27, 2018 2:27 PM  

On the subject of Left and Right, there's nothing left to write.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 2:28 PM  

That's enough, Jack. I've given you the opportunity to speak your piece. You haven't changed my opinion in the slightest, to the contrary, you have confirmed it.

Now shut the hell up and let everyone else discuss it.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 2:28 PM  

S1AL,

I think we're talking past each other somewhat. Probably that is in part due to a denominational dispute lurking in the background. But bracketing that as much as I can:

I don't think the problem is monarchy or not-monarchy per se. Old Testament notwithstanding, Christ's injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is typically interpreted to mean that the question of political structure is orthogonal to Christian orthodoxy.

So while I don't know who Jack Burroughs is or what this clearly-pre-existing dispute is really about, I do think there is something to his argument here, that what defines the left is its (claimed) rejection of hierarchy and vertical structure. I think the internal logic of leftism leads inexorably to such patent absurdities as universal suffrage, precisely because leftism is premised on the rejection of hierarchy. By the same token, though, there is not any one single "correct" way to organize society. To a large extent it's going to depend on the society in question. Monarchy clearly has a long pedigree and many benefits, but it is not without problems. My point here is that e.g. an oligarchical structure, or even one with an Athenian-style democracy (that is, a tightly limited franchise).

Thinking about this as I write, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think, as you seem perhaps to be interpreting me, that right/left tracks the relative concentration or distribution of power. It's not about whether power is held by a single autocrat or some larger number of people; it's about the political-philosophical understanding of where that power comes from, that is, from God, or from each of us within ourselves individually (the Luciferean/Promethean view).

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti January 27, 2018 2:31 PM  

Sorry, I left a sentence hanging. That should be: an oligarchical structure... is not necessarily less "right-wing" than a monarchical one.

Anonymous User January 27, 2018 2:33 PM  

"Christ's injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

I've always interpreted that as more of the God-Man's wry sense of humor.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 27, 2018 2:34 PM  

VD: "Now shut the hell up and let everyone else discuss it."

Ok, Vox. It's your blog. I'll leave you to it.

Anonymous johnc January 27, 2018 2:38 PM  

@154 Everyone believes in both the natural basis for and necessity of "order".

Hardly. Evil is pushing disorder all the time. You can't even have order without truth, and some people don't even believe in truth.

Blogger Rashadjin January 27, 2018 2:40 PM  

@161 Jack Burroughs

I haven't demanded anything.

Every time you pin something as making sense on Equality/Anti-Equality axis, you implicitly make the demand that the person listening to you assents to using said axis as a legitimate measure of the ideological/political spectrum. Vox will not concede this (at least because you haven't made an appropriate case for it), and part of his response is from an inherent understanding of the implicit demands you're making of him. This would be one of those buttons you keep punching.

Another button is getting cross with him about history. Vox is a genius in the spectrum that makes him extremely good at history. He suffers no fool with pretensions about how much they 'know' about history (to include historical philosophical positions), particularly when they approach the subject from a Lefty mindset and make fiat claims about things that he has all the reasons to disagree with.

And so Vox calls you evil and stupid because, despite it all, you haven't modified your approach to the situation on the ground or given him the basic courtesies he should rightly expect. You're acting like a high class interweb punk and pretending the 'high class' part means he should be nice to you.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 2:43 PM  

Darth -

I think there's certainly some talking past, so let's reorient on the question of "order".

From the Christian perspective (since we can agree on that point), the most fundamental points regarding order are these

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it."

And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.'

From that starting point, we are justified in saying that human order is willfully imposed, not naturally occurring. Arguments about "natural order" and "natural law" are actually about Divine mandates and morality, not political systems.

This extends to government. The question is not one of order vs. disorder, but what kind of order.

Note that the deliberate framing of left as anti-Christian and right as Christian strictly limits the scope of right-left to a fairly modern timeframe, as regards Europe/America. In point of fact, it limits it to Europe and America, in most cases.

Within that context, which side has had the tendency to impose the strictest forms of order? Clearly the anti-Christian societies.

Thus, "order" is not the point in question. It's actually an outgrowth of Christian morality - the more moral the people, the less need for law.

Tangentially, this is why libertarianism is the political cult of the white, Christian middle class - the assumption that other people share their Christan morality.

Blogger Bodo Staron January 27, 2018 2:43 PM  

VD, do you see Christianity as an extension of Aristotles ideas? Or as the conclusion? I may use the wrong word here.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 2:46 PM  

"Hardly. Evil is pushing disorder all the time. You can't even have order without truth, and some people don't even believe in truth."

'You shall be like God, knowing God and Evil'.

Evil has never been about pushing disorder. It's about replacing the healthy order with an unhealthy one. Order/Chaos is a pagan dichotomy.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band January 27, 2018 2:48 PM  

Defining complex fields is inherently difficult, making lengthy careful categorization a precondition to meaningful discussion.

The equality/inequality axis is just an expression of the more general empiricism/rationalism axis that has plagued us since the Enlightenment, and is itself an iteration of... Plato and Aristotle. Is the world view principally built out through observation and logic, or is it an application of a limited set of inviolate principles? Is it primarily inductive or deductive? Christian. Pro-family. Nationalist is a progression from the individual outward, while leftist positions invariably presume the conclusion.

Everyone may be ideological to an extent, but there is a significant difference between an "ideology" of self determination in at least the pursuit of objectivity, and setting out with a small set of objectively false universal ideals.

Anonymous User January 27, 2018 2:49 PM  

Michael Moorcock style Order/Chaos, sure. To a Christian "well-ordered" means in accordance with God's will and disordered is the negation of that.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 27, 2018 2:58 PM  

@178 S1AL

Yup. Evil is rejection of the Lord's Order for the Order of someone else.

Order always happens where Humans congregate. It might be a horrible one, but Order of some form will happen. A horrific Order is better than Anarchy. (This is the lesson of the Iraq War, not that many clearly wanted to take it.) All of Political Philosophy is simply arguing about the Form of Order.

Order, like Gravity, is both a fundamental and a force that acts upon others.

Blogger S1AL January 27, 2018 2:59 PM  

'Michael Moorcock style Order/Chaos, sure. To a Christian "well-ordered" means in accordance with God's will and disordered is the negation of that.'

That's a definition, but not 'the Christian' one, and not relevant to the point in question, which is about the Wikipedia description of "right-wing politics" that Jack has been using.

Blogger paradox January 27, 2018 3:06 PM  

@110 James

Reason Magazine Marxist? Ha... that's a good one! They maybe 'culturally' Marxist, but pro-capitalist they be.

Now, conservatives like to believe the Koch Brothers are Right-wing, when in fact they are Left-wing. That is... they follow Reason Magazine in anti-Christian, anti-family.

Anonymous User January 27, 2018 3:09 PM  

No, it really is. It follows from what we know of God, that He is omnipotent and perfectly benevolent and that he wills things of us, but gives us the freedom to disobey his will. When we did so sin entered the world and in a very real sense we broke reality so badly that He had to come personally fix it. Christian eschatology is entirely about the eventual perfect re-establishment of God's order.

Christianity is fundamentally ordered and monarchic—Jesus is Lord. God has a divine will and sovereignty over everything. Acting in accordance with God's will is submitting to His sovereign right to order the universe, morally and otherwise.

Blogger Chesapean January 27, 2018 3:10 PM  

The heuristic doesn't work for me. I see Plato, then Aristotle, as extending and elaborating the more ancient hermetic traditions.

Although they take different approaches, both Plato and Aristotle operate under the same hermetic assumption, "As above, so below."

That particular assumption defines the creation story in Genesis, among other things Jewish. It is also the explicit concept of the Lord's Prayer, among other things Christian.

So, instead of a division of schools, I see more the branches of an essential tree here.

The heuristic value of the political terms "left" and "right" is merely that they describe different categories of internally consistent illusion.

Blogger Skyler the Weird January 27, 2018 3:12 PM  

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Allende, Castro. Definitely LEFT.
Mussolini? Leaning LEFT
Franco, Pinochet. RIGHT.

Blogger Skyler the Weird January 27, 2018 3:14 PM  

Left off Chaing Kai Shek. Leaning RIGHT

Blogger tublecane January 27, 2018 3:36 PM  

@15-That is an incomplete view. The left wants boundaries to be fuzzy in some places, for instance as regards distinctions that bolstered the Old Order. You know, man-woman type distinctions.

In other areas, they want mile-wide steel barriers keeping things apart. Suddenly everything's Either/Or, with no room for subtlety. Again, this happens to coincide with what's useful in tearing down the Old Order. Either you're In or you're Out and with PC.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 3:41 PM  

VD, do you see Christianity as an extension of Aristotles ideas? Or as the conclusion? I may use the wrong word here.

I think Aristotle saw less darkly than nearly any fallen man in human history. I expect his reaction to Jesus on the throne would be to kneel, smile, and say, "ah yes, now it all makes sense."

Blogger tublecane January 27, 2018 3:44 PM  

@50-Infinitely more interesting that you read Jewishness into it.

Blogger Chesapean January 27, 2018 3:52 PM  

@Darth Dharmakīrti

"The way I see it, what the divide ultimately comes down to is the acceptance or rejection of spiritual order and thus spiritual hierarchy."

Perhaps, but maybe there are different varieties of spiritual order. The Nazis, for example, were famously pagan or Satanic in their spiritualism. Today, many on the Left accept Satanism as legitimate, even while they denounce Christianity.

My take would be that Good vs. Evil is a valid heuristic, whereas Left vs. Right may not be sufficiently clear-cut to serve heuristic purposes.

r/K selection theory in biology is another avenue to follow. A fair argument could be made that Leftists are like rabbits (prey) whereas Rightists are like wolves (predators). The predator has a larger set of available decisions to make and is therefore more susceptible to considerations of Good and Evil.

Just a couple of random thoughts. Good luck to you!

Blogger tublecane January 27, 2018 4:05 PM  

@63-Nationalism vs. globalism is an clear basis upon which to ideologically separate people right now, because people are revealing themselves and becoming polarized on that issue. It helps when they self-identify and self-segregate. But of course it's related to the larger left vs. right, as you must realize. It's not as if you can go back 20 years and find left and right flip-flopped on the issue. The right has been accused of "isolationism" and the left of pushing the NWO my entire life.

Of course, the distinctions don't match up perfectly. Especially in times of ideological shift, as I believe we're experiencing now. That complicates mattes.

There's also the relativistic issue. If you're for absolute communism on a community level but don't care about the rest of the world, how does that compare with neocons (like Nazis, for some odd reason often confused with being on the extreme right), for instance, who are aren't as radical on the homefront but want the while with world to be run according to Midcentury American Consensus Liberalism? I dunno. These things are complicated.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 4:10 PM  

"which is how Most People see the world"

You described binary thinking in a lot more words, maniacprovost.

Although, just because polar thinking usually isn't accurate doesn't mean that it never is.

If we can pull current modes of thinking back onto good vs evil, I think we've overall done a service.

Anonymous Deadlocked January 27, 2018 4:21 PM  

Remember that the concept of ideology is, in itself, an intrinsically Western concept.

Can someone explain this? Why is ideology intrinsically Western?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2018 4:22 PM  

"I dunno. These things are complicated."

Which is exactly why I appreciate Vox taking the time to boil it down to a useful on/off system. The better question than "are there exceptions/nuances" is "are the exceptions significant".

From where I'm standing, they aren't looking very significant.

Blogger VD January 27, 2018 4:42 PM  

Why is ideology intrinsically Western?

Because the concept was formulated by Westerners.

late 18th century, from French idéologie, from Greek idea ‘form, pattern’ + -logos (denoting discourse or compilation).

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2018 4:56 PM  

"You could gain a lot from reconsidering this question. "

What, you gonna give him a cookie?

Blogger James January 27, 2018 5:34 PM  

"Reason Magazine Marxist? Ha... that's a good one! They maybe 'culturally' Marxist, but pro-capitalist they be" you think they're pro-capitalist because they're pretty effective being crypto about their Marxism. Or they were before so many people started catching on and seeing them for what they are. John Lennon put it this way, "If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna fool people into believe'n your not a Marxist any-how."

Blogger NoneOfTheAbove January 27, 2018 5:37 PM  

The right at it's best is beautiful.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/why-we-are-so-good-looking/

It is even SCIENCE!

"The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716302201

Anonymous AT January 27, 2018 5:41 PM  

Left = Mendacity
Right = Truth

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts