Category Archives: Philosophy

Horseshoe theory is bunkum

It has become popular among centrists to discredit the Alt-Right, saying that while alt-rightists ostensibly are the inverse of SJW’s and Antifa, Alt-Rightists are in fact the exactly the same as their leftist counterpart. I notice Sargon of Akkad and others pushing this point. I observe it is an instinctive response by normies against the political upheaval of our times. Let us take a closer look.

First, a representative illustration of Horseshoe theory:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.55.53

The top reveals how the advocate of horseshoe theory sees himself: as a person led by classical liberalism, science and reason.

The left and right sides are fairly accurate in the eyes of today’s normie: the left is into environmentalism, feminism and socialism while the right is into Catholicism, chauvinism and nationalism. At the ends both sides grow toward each other, symbolising the idea that the extreme left and extreme right are in fact the same.

Which is bunkum. It is intellectual laziness at best, purposeful obscuration on average.

It is like saying virgins and players are the same because they are both extremes ends on the spectrum of the sexual market. It is like saying good and bad are the same because they are both extreme ends on the spectrum of morality. It is bunkum.

The only thing that can be said in favour of horseshoe theory is that people with strong political convictions occasionally switch sides to the other political extreme; e.g. young leftists turning rightist when they grow older. This is because politically minded people by nature understand the game of power and sometimes find it in their benefit to play the game differently. It is not because they have not changed.

The left is defection, the right is cooperation. The left is chaos, the right is order. A leftist lies, a rightist talks truth. It is as simple as this. Stretch out the horsehoe, make it into a ruler, and already you have a much better illustration of reality.

What is actually going on is that the centrist wants to avoid the responsibility that comes with choosing one side, fearing repercussions from the other. This is fair game. But it has nothing to do with truth, for sitting between truth and lies makes you a soft liar.

A much more accurate representation of the political spectrum is the following illustration provided by Radish:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.45.19

As you can see, fascists are in fact quite similar to communists, just not for the reason horseshoe theory tells us. Fascists are leftists. It was in fact literally in the name of Hitler’s party: the national socialists. Hitler used leftist government to supply his army, hence the failure to supply his army.

Furthermore Radish tells us that mainstream 2013 has moved frightfully far to the left, far away from it’s purported liberalism of, say, Tabula-Rasa-Locke, who was in retrospect also an obvious leftist.

We see now the silliness of centrists imagining themselves above political extremes: centrists are shaped by the political extremes. 200 years ago centrists thought the emperor of Habsburg was the best thing since sliced bread and women belonged in the kitchen, today centrists think emperors are evil dictators and women belong in the office. The Overton window is the delicate balance between extremes and its make-up is decided by its extremes, not its middle. The middle follows the history’s current, has always followed history’s current, and is therefore neutral, neither good nor bad, though passively good in that they hope to have a good life which is best accomplished when civilisation flourishes.

All of which is as friendly a manner in which I can say: Sargon of Akkad, know your place.


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.

From Socrates to Jesus to Nietzsche to Jim

I do like that title.

Western philosophy pretty much peaked with Socrates. Aristotle was nice with his classifications, Plato was okay with his cave riddle but Socrates nailed it: the only thing we know is that there is stuff we don’t know. Beyond that Socrates seems to have just gotten on with his life,; speaking truth to power and paying the price for it. Socrates’ life shows the veracity of his philosophy.

But Socrates did not catch on in Greece. He was too high-brow.

Western religion pretty much peaked with Jesus. Damn man, that guy man, Jesus… King of the Jews, huh. What year are we living in again? Year X after you-know-who, amirite? Jesus knew how to occupy the West for a millenium or 2.

But Christians see their churches empty. The faith is dying. An event Nietzsche predicted over a hundred years ago: God is dead. Hail ├╝bermensch! But is God really dead, or is it Jesus who is dead, and with Jesus our connection to God? That remains to be seen. (although Socrates is raising his hand)

But like Socrates, Nietzsche did not catch on. He demanded too much. I have to transcend myself? That sounds like a lot of work. I dunno man. I work to live, I don’t live to work.

Maybe that’s why Jim is an old, fat and bald man. It is a nice counterpoint.

Will Jim catch on?

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 23.47.16
Socrates has something to say