>3 years ago I wasn't really thinking about politics, would have called myself a libertarian social democrat >2 years ago started supporting Trump for the memes, took the Sargon line on Jihad and the migrant crisis >1.5 years ago started reading basic bitch economic conservatism (Milton Friedman), it made a lot of sense >8 months ago was balls deep in Hoppe and Ayn Rand, free market will fix everything, Radical Individualism™ >4 months ago started thinking seriously about the race problem >Now I unironically favour divine right throne & altar monarchy, realize that white societies should at the very least exclude Jews from influential positions, want women to be the property of their fathers or husbands, think slavery and European imperialism/colonialism was a good thing and should be reestablished, and want to Freikorps the fuck out of every single journalist and university humanities professor
How is it that everyone seems to follow this trajectory? Libertarians never go back to being liberals, and true rightists never go back to being libertarians. I thought I was an 'independent thinker' charting my own course towards the truth at every point on this journey, but it was just the same journey that virtually every Fucking White Male who isn't a basic shitlib ends up travelling.
libertarianism, both left and right, is for children
you either become a fascist or a marxist, or you stop caring about politics and become a centrist.
Adrian Rodriguez
>mfw fascism is too left wing
I think you're right, though. Far more people seem to pass through libertarianism these days as a passing phase than remain there.
It's interesting to see how the Sargon brigade are being forced to adopt libertarian attitudes and arguments as the debate heats up and their fundamental ideas start to come under fire. Locke was and is the basis for all non-commie libertarianism. Eventually the skeptics will be forced to recognize that libertarianism is the only position coherent with their basic principles, and from then it'll only be a matter of time before they're fashy too (assuming they remain relevant).
Lincoln Rodriguez
daily reminder the pic related is right
Hudson Butler
>fucking ancap lolbert feudalists >monarchial absolutism for the win
Andrew Walker
...
Leo Diaz
It is very simple from my point of view.
I started in some center-leftist area for people who are completely asleep. I divorced the neo-cons because they lied to me about God and bootstraps. I became libertarian because I took economics early and have always believed in the noble spirit of man. I took a hard turn right when I realized how much I'd been lied to about race. I took a hard turn up when I realized that every productive human endeavor matches a Pareto distribution so reasonably the top 10% of the population has 50% of the noble spirit of man, and the top 1% of those men have 25% of it.
Charles Cooper
>How is it that everyone seems to follow this trajectory? Most people tend to go from radical left/right to the center. The center has two camps: >Moderates, who can't be bothered to hold any beliefs with conviction or logical consistency. >Third Positionists, who hold their beliefs with unflinching conviction, but little logical consistency.
People who start out in the center and then become radicalized like you (stalinist, ancom, ancap, or monarchist) are in the minority. Although perhaps you're not totally immune to the trend; it appears you've swung a little to the left over time.
Hunter Parker
>Although perhaps you're not totally immune to the trend; it appears you've swung a little to the left over time.
I don't think your left-right axis is the same as mine. It's a mistake to see the left-right axis as Individual Rights vs the Collective (as I think you are doing), thus making monarchy left of libertarianism. As far as I'm concerned, monarchy is to the right of libertarianism/classical liberalism, which is to the right of progressivism. I see left-right as representing Order vs Progress - the Founders, for example, would be considered classical liberals or libertarians today, but they were pretty obviously the Left of their time to the Tories' Right.
Zachary Lee
the problem with trying to use a 2 variable visual of politics.
Jaxon Walker
Yes, one of the things I see more clearly now is that it's actually more like 1 variable. Right-libertarianism was just the Left of its time, and left-libertarianism is just the Left rejecting even degenerate Stalin-style order and hierarchy.
Hudson Edwards
>Individual Rights vs the Collective (as I think you are doing) Not what I'm doing. The horizontal axis measures to what extent resources are organized by the market or by planners; far-left denotes a 100% planned economy, far-right denotes a 100% market economy. Thus, radical center (third-position and moderates) denotes "mixed markets".
>thus making monarchy left of libertarianism Libertarianism describes part of the vertical axis. Monarchy can't be "to the left" of it; also, as you've read Hoppe, you know that monarchism and libertarianism aren't mutually exclusive.
>monarchy is to the right of libertarianism/classical liberalism, which is to the right of progressivism While monarchism is certainly to the right of classical and modern liberalism, it's essentially collinear with right-libertarianism as espoused by guys like Rockwell and Hoppe.
>I see left-right as representing Order vs Progress I don't think order vs. progress is a good metric for left vs. right.
For example, the anarcho-capitalists argue for a completely free market, which is certainly an argument for progress in the economic sense, but they are most certainly not left-wing.
Conversely, communists like Rousseau and Proudhon argue for a return to their hypothesized state of nature, by the abolition of private property. That's "reactionary" by definition, since it's an argument for a return to an old social order, but who on earth would say it's right-wing?
Also, the picture you posted shows the dot swinging to the far-right, then doubling back a little to the left. So I'm not wrong when I say "it appears you've swung a little to the left over time".
Joshua Barnes
My change was different. I started at 16 Then I gone to the line that divides 16 and 17 Then to 17 Then to the line that divides 18 and 19 Now I am at 19
If the trend continue I will end at 21, minarchism
Benjamin Phillips
The two descriptions on top stating "the government..." should be changed to "the country" or "the nation". You're implying that in that worldview, the people only exist to serve the governing body, which nobody actually believes.
Dominic Fisher
>The horizontal axis measures to what extent resources are organized by the market or by planners I suppose this is true for the graph I posted. However, this precise definition is not identical with what people usually mean when they talk about left and right, nor does it fit the original Left and Right of the French National Assembly. When we ask whether Frederick II was to the right of Hitler, it would be absurd to draw up a GDP pie chart (did they even have such a measure in the 18th century?) - we just know that Freddie the Great was to the right of Hitler, who was to the right of Stalin, who was to the right of Trotsky. What I'm getting at is that the left-right axis considered in purely economic terms is artificial and unnecessarily constricting of the axis's usefulness. Economic issues only came to the fore in the 20th century (and have subsided in the 21st), but we can clearly see a Right and a Left tradition in Western civilization going back to at least Cromwell's 17th century. >the picture you posted shows the dot swinging to the far-right, then doubling back a little to the left. It's a meme I pulled from a lulz thread a while back, not my personal, exact trajectory.
>anarcho-capitalists... most certainly not left-wing Monarchy is more economically centralized than Hoppean ancapism. But Hoppeanism is just Locke taken to its ultimate conclusion, and in his time, Locke was an arch-leftist. Locke was to the left of Hobbes, who was to the left of Robert Filmer, so I consider Hoppeanism left of divine right monarchy. It's far, far to the right of modern progressivism, but it's still leftist.
Jack Ramirez
>communists like Rousseau... return to their hypothesized state of nature... reactionary" by definition These thinkers didn't advocate a return to the state of nature, they invoked it as a moral justification for the destruction of the existing order of monarchy and private property - in exactly the same way that in modern times, Rawls invoked the 'veil of ignorance' as a moral justification for progressive egalitarianism. It is not 'reactionary' to invoke non-existent metaphysical hocus pocus to draw moral conclusions about society which justify one in advocating broad reforms regardless of their actual, concrete results in actual, concrete society; this is, in fact, exactly the intellectual modus operandi of the Left. With the Dissenters, Levellers, Puritans, etc. their metaphysical hocus pocus was providence; for the enlightenment thinkers, it was various invocations of Pure Reason, for the Marxists, it was Marxist dialectic theory, etc, etc, etc.
Dominic Cook
here you go hope this helps
Brayden Clark
>When we ask whether Frederick II was to the right of Hitler, it would be absurd to draw up a GDP pie chart You look at policies, not data. My knowledge of history is embarrassingly limited (blame the school system), so I can't speak for Frederick II, but Hitler's administration was certainly not a bastion of the free market, Stalin's was quite the opposite, and Trotsky's was still more the opposite.
>We just know that Freddie the Great was to the right of Hitler, who was to the right of Stalin, who was to the right of Trotsky This doesn't properly answer the question of what we mean by right-wing and left-wing, though. You don't appear to be making use of any rigid, systematic approach, but just whatever "most people" say.
>the left-right axis considered in purely economic terms is artificial and unnecessarily constricting of the axis' usefulness (1) Any political metric of any kind is artificial, just like centimeters and inches are artificial metrics. (2) I'd say it's more consistent and easier to reference when put in economic terms; I don't know of any other ordered system in use to describe left and right.
>It's a meme Fair enough.
>Monarchy is more economically centralized than Hoppean ancapism Not quite. Monarchy just means you refer to the king to settle all disputes, including any disputes involving him. Certainly that means law is more centralized (higher on the vertical axis than ancapism), but it does not necessarily reflect economic centralization. Feudal monarchies had more socialistic policies, given they plundered their subjects, while classical monarchies followed a more natural-law train of thought and didn't steal from their subjects as much.
>Locke was to the left of Hobbes, who was to the left of Robert Filmer Again, you're not using any rigid metric here, you're just arbitrarily categorizing thinkers relative to one another.
Cameron Ward
Accurate meme. Although I'd add that the 'controlled opposition' tend to be controlled by their own residual leftist preconceptions (such as the Lockean theory of property as a moral right rather than a social fact), rather than by an actual conspiracy.
Cameron Jackson
>I don't think order vs. progress is a good metric for left vs. right. >progress in the economic sense Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I should have said that left vs right is best described as Order vs """"""""Progress™"""""""", because the reactionary theory of left-right is that Progress in the political sphere is just a leftist meme to bullshit their way into power. A lack of political Progress™ is hardly incompatible with actual technological and economic progress.
John Campbell
>Ancapism is still leftist Perhaps if you could elaborate on your definitions of right and left in operational terms, then I could dispute this. Until then, I'm going to have to deny that any free-market position is remotely leftist.
>It is not 'reactionary' to invoke non-existent metaphysical hocus pocus to draw moral conclusions about society which justify one in advocating broad reforms regardless of their actual, concrete results in actual, concrete society Hold on, going back to this:
>I consider Hoppeanism left of divine right monarchy What is "divine right", if not non-existent metaphysical hocus pocus? And what are its proponents doing, if not drawing moral conclusions about society which justify one in advocating broad reforms (i.e. return to pre-enlightenment norms) regardless of their results in real world?
I would really appreciate an elaboration on what you deem left and right, because I haven't gotten any consistent logical apparatus out of what you have written.
>Dissenters, Levellers, Puritans, etc. their metaphysical hocus pocus was providence Can the same be said of other Christian radicals?
Henry Hernandez
>the reactionary theory of left-right is that Progress in the political sphere is just a leftist meme to bullshit their way into power Disregard my request for a model, this has answered my question.
What literature informs this theory, in any case? Perhaps it would inform my own views.
Brody Nelson
>You don't appear to be making use of any rigid, systematic approach, but just whatever "most people" say. >Perhaps if you could elaborate on your definitions of right and left in operational terms I can't really get any more specific or precise than Order vs Progress™, because the whole idea of Left vs Right is that it is a vague but uncannily relevant heuristic. You can tell within 5 minutes with the Wiki page of any 2 political figures in the last 300 years who is to the right of whom (or who is relatively reactionary and who relatively progressive, if you want another terminology). It's complicated by the fact that we've been moving seemingly inexorably to the left - so the Left's radical vanguard reforms of this generation become the Right's Deeply Held Sacred Values of the next (while the Left has moved on to yet loftier heights of insanity).
I think our central disagreement is that you see Right-Left as an objective measurement of policy reality, like pH. Whereas I see Left and Right as representing two camps in Western intellectual and political history (with analogues in East Asia and the ancient world). These camps are necessarily vague and changing in the finer detail of their belief, so the most you can say about them is that the Right is for the existing, established order which tends to work, and the Left is for morally driven reforms designed to usher in God's kingdom on Earth/True Communism/a truly equal society (this is always evil).
Wyatt James
I was converted from a Hoppean to a full-on reactionary in one sitting by Moldbug's Unqualified Reservations. It was a long sitting, late at night, and I tanked a maths exam for it. He's that good. Start with the Open Letter, the Gentle Introduction or How Dawkins Got Pwned. He'll link you to the constellation of thinkers who informed him, like Carlyle, de Jouvenel, de Maistre, etc., and the various historical sources, whom I've been working my way through. moldbuggery.blogspot.co.za/
Adam Fisher
Something I've always thought was interesting is how at every stage I was totally 100% convinced I was right and the other side was out of their mind.
How can you be so sure and dumbfounded at the opposition, then do a 180 and think the same. So basically now I'm Sup Forums but still think it's possible I could be very wrong.
Ethan Hughes
Oh, I've heard of Moldbug before. I guess now's as good a time as any to sit down and read him.
>I tanked a maths exam for it. He's that good. Good thing for me: it's the weekend!
Brayden Butler
>What is "divine right", if not non-existent metaphysical hocus pocus? This is true. However, the divine right of kings was invoked not to advocate reforms of society, but to shore up the existing political order. As a reactionary, I support a stable existing order (the more secure and absolute the better - see Moldbug on formalism at unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.za/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html) and oppose Progress™. So metaphysical hocus pocus is good when it is invoked to support a stable order, and bad when it is invoked to cast down authority and usher in True Communism. Divine right worked on 17th century societies because they were all highly religious, and you can't argue with God. It didn't work post-Enlightenment, and it wouldn't work today. Today, something else would have to take its place to gild and secure Power in its place.
Luke Torres
You're in for a helluva ride - Moldbug is easily the smartest living thinker I've read. I unironically think that if any one name makes it from the 2000-2010's to the history books, it'll be his.
Asher Clark
In intellectual history, that is - Trump will go down as a political turning point, I think.
Justin Martin
I'm totally fine with some hocus pocus. Humans needs some mental mind tricks to keep them line. Same with the need for a religion
Jace Fisher
People don’t really appreciate just how deep the rabbit hole goes. If you stop at HHH or the alt right it’s like only seeing half (likely much less than half) the picture. I feel like I could read forever and never get everything.
Cooper Ross
No you fucking don't. You retards need to fuck off with this meme.
Grayson Harris
>no 1861 following 1660
Sad!
Matthew Murphy
if your politics can be still be represented as a point on a 2D grid then you are not finished.
Jaxon Rodriguez
Nope. Authoritarianism is when you want to be edgy and offend your parents when you're younger and want to piss people off. As for libertarian style thinking I'm remaining there because my peers are into conformity and authortarianism and I know both sides are going to make my personal life worse to me. Since I feel little to no connection to most of my peers I don't care about this society or greater good arguments.
Thomas Lopez
Conservatarianism ftw.
Luis Johnson
This. Some other god-tier shit: >xenosystems.net Nick Land is literally tfw to intelligent. He seems like a bullshitter at first, but he deliberately writes in an obscure style to keep the normies and brainlets away
>blog.jim.com/ Most pungent NRx stuff out there, almost as smart as Moldbug and Land
>bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/ Expert on East Asian history and current affairs. His Bioleninism is the biggest reactionary insight of 2017
And there's always Social Matter's This Week in Reaction roundup
John Reyes
This is typical. It's one of two main routes people take. The other is where you start out as a conservative and chase tradition, rather then starting as a libertarian and chasing the most logically consistent economics (I took the libertarian route). Both end with the same conclusion funny enough.
Henry Edwards
>starting conservative and chasing tradition Bing, bang, boom. That's me in a nutshell.
Andrew Lewis
Isn't it funny how we end up at roughly the same conclusion? This would actually make a fascinating study.
I think it's because there are many tunnels out of Plato's cave, and multiple fires, lamps, and chinks of sunlight to deceive you along the way. Every kind of rightism, from cuckservatism to lobergism, has some part of the truth, contaminated and diluted with leftist drivel. But once you're out, everyone can see there's only one sun.
