Left vs Right I: etymology

Life is complex, but life is also simple. Dualistic. It seems thinkers of our time have settled on two main terms to describe the divide that splits the modern world: right and left.

Before we get into the theorising let us take a look at the etymology. In their original meanings left and right are instinctive words, yet hard to explain. Your left is simply, on your left. The side of your body where your heart lays. Your right is the opposite side, housing your liver. Left and right are coordinates for navigating your environment, similar to directions on a compass, but more primal.

The origin of the political left and right stems from the French revolution. In 1791 French revolutionaries rewrote the French constitution such that the old legislative body was stripped of its power. In its place came a new body, the Legislative Assembly, in which the revolutionaries enjoyed all the power.

Now, because the Legislative Assembly was brand new, fresh traditions were shaped every other day. On such tradition was the observation that there were two opposing groups in the Assembly: the group on the literal right side favoured a constitutional monarchy, felt things had escalated far enough. The group on the literal left side wanted the king dead, were in favour of more evermore equality and fraternity. Of course the conservatives lost, the Jacobins won and France endured all the lovely perks of having leftists in power.

Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 12.55.48

So that’s it for origin stories. On to the good stuff. Why is the right/left divide so accurate? Because nature is dualistic. Every organism has 2 choices: to cooperate or to defect. Life in many ways is a never-ending series of prisoner’s dilemmas, a constant choice between working together with others or screwing others over. Eve cooperated with Adam until she defected on him. The choice turns out to be so fundamental to our survival that we’ve come to genetically specialise in one or the other. Rightism is cooperating, leftism is defecting.

Let there be no surprise that leftists categorically deny this label. In their defence, our definition pretty much puts them in a position where we are asking them how long they’ve been beating their wives, so they are in a bad position to defend themselves. But the truth speaks for itself, and the truth shouts that leftists by nature are defectors.

For cuttlefish, there are 2 main mating strategies. The first is to adhere to the mating ritual, which fighting other males for dominance (co-op/co-op). The strongest male gets to mate. This is good for the species, not so much for the weaker male. So many males employ an alternative mating strategy: pose as a female and sneak past the strong males (co-op/defect). If the bluff is successful, the weak male mates. Bad for the species, good for the weak male.

This in a nutshell is leftism vs rightism. The rightist wants to co-operate because he knows he is strong and he has the most to gain with all-around honesty (it is probably correct that the rightist does not care about what is good for civilisation either, that any boon to civilisation is merely a side-effect of his personal preference to play it straight). The leftist wants to defect because he knows he is outmatched in straightforward co-operation. The rightist builds the system, the leftist games the system.

8 thoughts on “Left vs Right I: etymology

  1. I’d only quibble that what constitutes a eugenic mating or resource pattern is a function of external pressure.

    The left’s novelty seeking and out-group loyalty were adaptive for a brief window in historic time. Pressures from immigration, extreme social decay, among other things, have begun the slow and painful process of reversing that. In the near future it will be, as you suggest, highly maladaptive to be a shibboleth spouting liberal. Not because doing so will be an instance of defection per se (it will likely be in keeping with established dogma for a while yet), but because the environmental pressure of so many more minorities will make their game far more dangerous than it is helpful in bolstering their status.

    We are only now seeing the return to that rule-set which you describe, in which there are concentric natural tribal loyalties with expectations of cooperation in order to ensure the survival of the (sub)species.

    1. In the face of external pressure you can either cooperate or defect. The form varies, but the purpose stays the same.

      1. Yes. I just wanted to suggest that as the external pressures change the roles can reverse.

        The left isn’t the perpetual defector. They’re the perpetual novelty seeking conflict avoider. When liberalism was at it’s height in the mid 20th century, that was the cooperate strategy. It made most people better off to behave according to those rules, export economies thrived, and it was the old right that was defecting by reminding everyone of the truth about race, tradition, and so forth.

        Today the liberal strategy is clearly a net loss to most white ethnics due to outsourcing, wealth redistribution to migrants, non-white ethnic nepotism, etc. So the new raft of external pressures makes the right the cooperator acting in a manner that will benefit the tribe, while the left is the defector acting selfishly and to the detriment of the tribe.

        The overall point is that, I don’t think the functional liberals (not to be confused with the migrants and other hostile tribal interest groups) are inherently defective and dysgenic per se. They are now, but if one suggests they always were, one would have to explain why liberalism rolled along for centuries to many historic successes. You could say it was all terribly short-sighted and forgetful of natural law, but I think it’s easier to simply inveigh against holding to liberalism when it is no longer to the demonstrable benefit of the tribe.

        1. That seems wrong to me.

          The left is the perpetual defector. Saying liberalism in the 20th century was the cooperate strategy is like saying Madoff’s late 20th century investment schemes were the cooperate strategy.

          You confuse means with ends. The reason the left is the perpetual novelty seeker conflict avoider is because they are looking for ways to defect, not the other way around. That is their niche.

          Within leftist defection parties there is be plenty of room for cooperation, but the general purpose of the leftist party stays defection on a more powerful party (traditionally, the king). This is why leftists are eternal martyrs.

          Liberalism has rolled along for centuries because white man is a mix of leftist/rightist genes. E.g. cucks. Leftism usually implodes like Madoff’s ponzi scheme, but modernity’s tech explosion meant the scam could go on for much longer. Until of course it can’t.

          Liberalism has not been of benefit to the West since 20 years or so, in fact has never been of demonstrable benefit to the West. Liberalism was a religious scam from beginning to end, and it will continue until the scammers are stopped.

  2. I would suggest that with their elaborate system of political correctness, shibboleths, loyalty tests leftists are very much like two cuttlefish when they meet flashing through a million different rippling colors per second watching for one off-color remark. Within their own value system they’re very cooperative and conscientious.
    The difference is they determine in-group status through earned virtue rather than intrinsic qualities or adopted allegiances. So rednecks who counter-signal them with ethnic loyalty and Jesus Christ are enemy out-group while even Somalis who don’t openly challenge their hierarchy are assigned higher status.

    The underlying conflict comes from the Enlightenment doctrine of equalism adopted in reaction to the power of hereditary aristocracy. From this thought comes the attitude we have to prove ourselves in a meritocracy instead and if your fellow man does not have the same opportunity you do, the game is not fair and any points you may have scored are void.
    From the lib point of view, it’s the working class whites then who are cheating sore losers trying defect on the basic social contract of civilized nations and who are sabotaging the divine progress of humankind. When you understand how their ideology makes them think, it is easier to see why they go into mass hysteria and homicidal rage when counter-signaled.

    1. Yes, I think that is the correct conclusion. Most rightist are to some extent cucked. It is the nature of the game.

      In the Netherlands if you earn more than 2750 euros (or 3130 dollars) a month you pay 40% of that in taxes. 52% if over 5500 euros. How much of that money is spent usefully? Maybe 5%? The remainder goes to the cuckoo.

      For a rightist to be truly uncucked he has to completely cut loose from the system, taxes and otherwise. Which is not impossible, yet quite hard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.