From "right/left" to "right/wrong"

The time has come for thoughtful people to change our paradigm.  For too long, we have adhered to the ever more irrelevant reference points of “right versus left” or “conservative versus liberal”.  According to this outdated mode of thinking, which I myself have been guilty of, a person might define his political views as “conservative, but not as conservative as a neo-Nazi” or “liberal, but not as liberal as an avowed Communist“.
This flawed world-view, being based on arbitrary set-points, is unstable and makes it difficult to steer people toward the only positions that matter – truthful positions – and to keep them there.  The old continuum might look something like this:

Most readers of this blog would find themselves somewhere in the middle of this continuum.  In this view, a rabid anti-Semitic neo-Nazi would be on the far right along with those who believe in individual rights.  On the far left would be the collectivists and those who completely deny the reality of race but who hate whites as a group.
I think that any world-view continuum that encourages people to place themselves somewhere in the middle encourages floating and almost ensures that one’s children will float a bit to the right or a bit to the left of their parents.  The ideal situation would be for all of us to strive to be “extremists”.  The truth (regardless of how you, personally, define it) should be on the far right and the false should be on the far left.  In other words, let the “right” remain right – except that it will now mean “correct”.  “Left” will be replaced by “wrong”.
In this world view, which would free us from the crippling old paradigm and at the same time serve as a propaganda tool for us, we would always have good neighbors.  Nazis and Communists would be close to each other and floating would be minimized; each of us would place himself at the far right of the continuum:

The reason I place “eliminate Jews” along with “eliminate whites” is not so much that I don’t like either idea.  Rather, it is because both positions seem to be based on mental illness and hysteria.  Just as anti-whites blame every evil on whites, so do anti-Semites blame every evil on Jews.  Both take their positions to absurd extremes and refuse to acknowledge more refined explanations of the world they observe.
The reason I included “peaceful” in the first continuum, but not in the second, is that peace is not always correct even though most of us desire it.  Sometimes war is correct – for example, if it is necessary for your survival.  In the old world-view, war is associated with both the extreme right and the extreme left.  In the new world-view, it can be neutral.
I left the economic/collectivist versus individual continuum in place for the new world-view because reasonable people have been openly debating the “centrist” versus the “libertarian” views for a long time.  Therefore, I decided I might as well present it according to my own views for the time being.  More refined continua can be developed over time.
How do objective people determine which camps belong on the wrong (left) side of the continuum and which on the right?  There is a simple way to do this without even having to spend a lot of time doing research: simply observe which camps are willing to openly discuss and defend their positions.  This is a good rule of thumb: any camp that is unwilling to openly debate their views belongs on the wrong side of the continuum.  Of course there are some groups that are quite willing to debate, but they still belong on the “wrong” side because they are hysterical.
One reason we should divorce ourselves from the old left/right paradigm is that decades of media bias have polluted it – probably beyond repair.  The masses, and many thinking people with them, have been conditioned to think of the left as right and the right (or what used to be called “right”) as wrong.  In this way, they have so shifted public opinion that what is now considered “right” or “conservative” would have been called “leftist” only a generation or two ago.  Few people want to associate themselves with beliefs that are widely held to be “wrong” or “evil” and the establishment left has done a good job of convincing the public that values that used to be considered good and wholesome are, in fact, evil and racist.  “Good” and “bad” are judgments that are too easily colored by those with agendas.  “True” and “false” stand a better chance of being defended – at least among those who can think for themselves.
Of course we can never completely avoid making judgments about “good” and “bad”, but once the new world-view is adopted, we would be better equipped to make “good” align with “true” and “bad” align with “wrong” as accurately as possible.  It would be a return to a more male way of thinking.  The old “right/left” paradigm seems to me to be more emotion-based; it fits in well with the feminist way of thinking.  It may have its place – but it should not be our dominant political world-view.

This entry was posted in libertarian thought, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to From "right/left" to "right/wrong"

  1. I don’t get it.
    Pareto discussed a variety of sentiments that drove political behavior. Jonathan Haight does the same thing as pareto from a more simplistic moral stance. But in general, a culture’s group persistence sentiments vary for each social class within the group for strategic reasons.
    Capital concentration and increased production from it, displaced the landed class, and removed it’s relation to the peasant class. This created shifting power roles and disrupted not only the west but now the whole world. Political structures and moral and ethical habits have not completed their evolution. (Marx didn’t make this nonsense up out of thin air. It was a real problem. Unfortunately, the French, who are the source of just about all horrid philosophical nonsense in the world, supplied marx with his philosophical framework, and he simply promoted it from the middle class into the peasantry as a religion of rebellion.) No man is a hero to his debtors. Jews and white males are pretty much everyones enemies because they expolit the power of capitalism differently. The different social classes in these two groups also approach the problem of political power-seeking differently, with white underclass and middle class, trying to keep their elites in power, so that they preserve their privileges as the politically powerful demographic block. Different jewish blocks have similar vantage points, although the lower class jews tend to be very socialist, the the point where the hassidim are a fully dependent class masquerading as people of conviction, whereas the white underclass tends to break into the catholic socialist and the protestant military, and the military sentiments are very action oriented.
    White protestants and european jews are the creators of the capitalist model of production, because both the english protestants that lost the english civil war, and the families of the jewish diaspora that were not permitted to own land, focused on portable and liquid capital rather than land production. Liquid capital is more productive than fixed land capital because it has a much higher velocity (rate of turn.) Furthermore, it encourages one to accumulate a greater variety of skills. So being outcast turned out to be a blessing.
    However, land-holding sentiments in the christian (largely protestant) military caste, and rebellion sentiments in the peasant caste, encourage different political approaches to land, capital, and social orders.
    So each of these castes uses a different approach to group persistence. Group persistence in the conservative sense, means the ability to hold and defend land. In the economic sense, the ability to hold and defend built and portable capital,. In the peasant sense, the ability to work together in rebellion against those who hold land and capital. ie: freedom is a wacky word with meaning that shifts with each class, because the means of achieving freedom is different for each social class.
    Because there are multiple axis of self-interest and strategy at play in different races, classes and cultures depending upon their minority or majority status, analysis can be very complicated. However, these sentiments are rational, and would be held by almost any group were the roles reversed.
    Here are some diagrams. I think mine are best (Of course I would) but they are all variations on a theme.
    Here is the typical one.
    Here is a variation:
    Here is the pop version:
    Here is the european version:
    Here is my class-and-cultural-origins variation.
    Here is my three-axis version that includes the economic preference for wins and losses.

  2. Gaurav Ahuja says:

    The bars you included were unusual in that it seemed to be more correct just for the political spectrum. It goes from no government to total government. Usually, that is not seen. The term right and left are manipulated for political purposes. Many people who see themselves on the political right and cultural right are actually just older left wing types. This has been going since on the Great Depression in America.

  3. Kman says:

    Jonah Goldberg researched this topic to within an inch of it’s life in his book, Liberal Fascism. He places Nazis and fascist firmly on the left. Placing Nazis or Fascists on the right is a liberal media propaganda trick. When one places the Fascist party or National Socialist party’s platform alongside the typical liberal agenda there is a near perfect coincidence of purpose and intent.

  4. Meng Bomin says:

    Generally, I see political views as multi-dimensional in distribution. It really doesn’t work to fit the set of ideologies onto a simple line or spectrum. People try for simplicity’s sake and there’s probably some value to doing so because of human’s predisposition to adversarial tribalism in politics, but ultimately a one-dimensional representation is an oversimplification.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I agree that it is an oversimplification. In my original draft, I started by stating “Americans, just like people everywhere, are simple-minded.” Perhaps I should have left that in because sometimes we must stoop to the level of the masses to get a point across.

  5. fred says:

    Meng is right that government is multi-dimensional. Such would entail an array. But if the parameters are limited to a single dimension such as government control then a left-right spectrum makes sense.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Government is multidimensional – but even the “good” things that government does are actually bad (in my view) because they should ideally be done by private parties. So, from an outside perspective, government is “wrong” because it is based on wrong premises – even when it does right.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Great video by the way. Thanks for sharing it. I don’t particularly agree with his take on anarchy though; he almost equates it with chaos.

      • fred says:

        Im no fan of the nanny state either. The only thing I think they should do is protect property rights. I even see protecting property rights as the justification for national defense. Other than that, I don’t think the gov should do ANYTHING. I’m not a lawyer so maybe that’s crazy. But it makes sense to me.
        I thought anarchy pretty much was chaos. I’m not arguing. I’m just curious what you had in mind with that statement.

  6. jew2 says:

    Part of the problem with the left / right model is that one axis is not enough.
    Check this out.

  7. Irving Lynds says:

    Thanks to the Glen Beck wannabees this viewpoint is sometimes taken as fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *