Here, we’ll be examining the underlying mechanism that, I think, allows the Political Mad Lib to operate as it does. Naturally, attempting to link all political belief to a Mad Lib, let alone reducing it to one, is no mean feat. So that said, you’re in for a read. I hope it’s worth it, if not for your own edification and understanding, than at the very least for the absurdity of Part III, which is as dumbfounding as anything I’m ever liable to suggest. So please, unless the allure of Part III is the only thing that can persuade you to read the following, don’t spoil it for yourself. Stick with this through to the end. By the end of all this, either I’m bonkers or we’re all bonkers.

As the Political Mad Lib demonstrates, your beliefs as an Authoritarian or Libertarian or Liberal or Conservative aren’t based on what you believe about something, but how you believe it. I’m not talking about the evidence or rationale you have for this belief, no. That’s why you believe it. How you believe it is different. It’s not ‘how the belief comes to exist’. Instead, it’s ‘how the belief comes to persist’. How a belief is, is how it relates to you.

See, you think that a belief is well, just a belief. It’s only something you think and something you think you’re right about – otherwise you wouldn’t believe it. But beliefs aren’t so simple; hardly. Instead, there are different types of beliefs. There are different ways the belief exists with different traits.

Now of course, it’s pretty hard to visualize a trait for a belief. It’s not something physical or even some effect in reality that we can observe. So what we do instead, is we observe the traits of a belief through its relationships. In the same way fire has a different relationship, a different interaction with paper than water does, so too do the types of beliefs share different interactions. And what do these beliefs interact with? Well, with the only things beliefs can interact with: you and I. So it is that the traits of a belief can be observed in its relationship first to ourselves, to the person who holds the belief, and then to everyone else.

Once we recognize this, the traits of beliefs are pretty easy to see. Now, I’m going to spare you their more precise and particular breakdown, since it gets much more difficult to understand. So rather than doing that, we’re going to break them down within the realm of politics. So in this way, we can see the traits of belief as expressed in politics. They are as follows:

‘I’m right. You’re wrong,’ and, ‘You must. You may.’

Youre Wrong You Must 1 300x227 Political Mad Libs Part II: Why it Works­

These four form the entirety of political belief. The first pairing deals in how your belief relates to yourself. The second pairing deals in how that belief relates to everyone else. Now, unfortunately for many who would prefer to believe otherwise, there’s no gray area to be found in these traits. It’s a ‘one or the other’ situation. It’s a binary. There is nothing between ‘I’m right,’ and, ‘You’re wrong,’ just as there’s nothing between ‘true’ and ‘false’. So let’s examine these four and find out why.

‘I’m right’ is simple to understand. It’s your expression of an affirmative position. It’s you expressing what you believe to be correct or true. In mathematical terms, it would be like this: ‘X=n’, with ‘n’ representing any integer.

‘You’re wrong’ doesn’t appear to have anything to do with yourself at face value – but it does. It’s you expressing what you believe about, granted, another belief: that it’s wrong. So naturally, that’s a belief you have about a belief. But how it relates to you is more nuanced. Technically speaking, the phrasing isn’t ‘You’re wrong’, it’s only that in practice. Rather, the phrasing is actually, ‘I’m not wrong’.

What’s key about this belief is how it’s entirely different from ‘I’m right’. See, ‘I’m not wrong’ is only a belief about how what is true relates to you. It’s you believing that you don’t hold to a falsehood, that you’re ‘not wrong’. But the thing is though, that doesn’t mean that what you believe is true. In fact, it doesn’t mean that you believe anything. And that’s the truth of it. As strange as it sounds, we can just as easily claim that a rock ‘isn’t wrong’ too. It doesn’t believe a single falsehood either. Though hell, it doesn’t believe anything at all. And that’s the nature of this belief.

‘I’m not wrong’, is an admission of disbelief. It’s a claim of not believing a falsehood, but by virtue of not believing anything at all. So to be ‘not wrong’ is to express disbelief in some falsehood. So you could say,

“I’m not wrong about the age of the earth since I don’t believe it’s only 5000 years old.”

Naturally, we’re human though and we’re subject to believe many things consciously and subconsciously. So in practice, this belief results in purging any affirmative beliefs – no matter the source. Internal or external, personal or public. So someone who has this belief, this belief of ‘I’m not wrong’, develops in practice a belief of ‘You’re wrong’ and so attacks not necessarily the belief itself, but the conviction behind it. To them, it’s wrong to believe that you’re right and eventually, to believe anything at all. This is the type of person you could criticize constantly with facts and evidence and who could even acknowledge the truth of them. But they would never give up their position, since to them their position is nothing more than ‘not wrong’. So in mathematical terms, it would be like this: ‘X=/=n’

So all that said, these first two beliefs, that of ‘I’m right’ and ‘You’re wrong’, form the Right and the Left: the Conservatives and the Liberals, as you understand them. Naturally, the Right takes the belief of ‘I am right’ and the Left takes the belief of ‘You are wrong’. This is why the Right has the behavior of setting more rigid standards for things and the Left has the trait of dismantling those standards. In this way, the Left is parasitic by nature, feeding off of the destruction of whatever the Right creates. These two beliefs, that of ‘I’m right’ and ‘You’re wrong’, also come to form the other, and I would argue better way of labeling the Left and the Right: collectivists and individualists. But we’ll cover that later on. For now, let’s return to the last two beliefs.

‘You must’ is again, simple to understand. It is a belief that one’s prior belief, that of ‘I’m right’ or ‘You’re wrong’, must be believed. Though, and this is important, it is a belief not only that others must believe it, but so too yourself. In this way, it’s as much an imposition on others as it is an imposition on yourself. It is truly, ‘I must’, since having a relationship to your beliefs like this makes yourself as much a slave to them as others. It’s like having your own thought police that clamp down on any of your own dissenting beliefs. In mathematical terms, it would be like this: ‘X=3’

‘You may’ is simple once again, a benefit of breaking down political belief like this. ‘You may’ is of course, an allowance for others and yourself to believe as you wish. So as before, it’s not really ‘You may’ as it is ‘I may’. It’s near-enough a recognition of the fallibility of the human mind. However, taken as a principle it results in a toleration of near-everything. In this way, ‘You may’ runs dangerously close to an apathy towards one’s own beliefs and stemming from that, an apathy towards truth and its pursuit. In mathematical terms, it would be like this: ‘X=?’

So these last two beliefs, that of ‘You must’ and ‘You may’, come to form the Authoritarian and Libertarian branches of political belief. Authoritarians believe in practice that ‘you must’ believe as they do and Libertarians believe in practice that ‘you may’ believe as they do.

 

The Big Four: Political Beliefs in a Nutshell

In case you hadn’t noticed, each of the four beliefs became rephrased into beliefs that dealt strictly with the self. With that, they became:

‘I am right. I’m not wrong. I must. I may.’

Im Right I May 1 300x227 Political Mad Libs Part II: Why it Works­

The reason these beliefs develop in practice into beliefs about others is a neat phenomenon called projection. I’m not going to explain it in detail as it’s a complicated topic, so think of it simply in terms of words. Think of your definition for ‘good’ or say, ‘charitable’. Now, if you assume that everyone else shares the same definition of these terms, you’ll put your definitions into those terms whenever they use them. So what they mean by ‘good’ is what you mean by ‘good’. Even what you mean or see as ‘human’ is what they see and mean too. It’s often enough a naïve thing to do. It’s like assuming that everyone likes your favorite band because to you, that band is what constitutes ‘good music’.

Now, the sort of projection we’re dealing with here is a projection of your thought process, projecting your relationship to your beliefs onto all others. It’s not a matter of granting some leeway or an allowance here or there. Neither is it a matter of forcing your process on all others. Rather, it’s a matter of assumption. It is, and I mean no hyperbole, the thought process you consider not just the norm but intrinsic to all mankind. So when someone says, “I think,” you project your relationship to thought onto them. Really, it’s a matter of how you understand thought itself.

The way you think about things becomes projected onto all others which then develops a standard: a ‘right way’ to think and a ‘wrong way’ to think. From there, any deviation is labeled as errant, as problematic, and as false in some form or another. So it is that we come to see hypocrisy or double standards or irrationality or ‘emotional reasoning’ as we’re often want to label it. But what we’re really seeing is a deviation from our own thought process and one we had no reason to hold anyone else accountable to. It was the result of projection, after all.

So am I saying that at the level of processing information itself, human beings are different? Yes, yes I am. Fortunately for us, this is subject to influence and change. Though you can imagine how difficult that is.

Now, before you object, yes, I know it sounds like this shouldn’t be. We want our enemies to be the irrational and subversive. We want our allies to be the rational and constructive. But it’s hardly the case. At least, not insofar as belief is concerned. It’s a matter I’ll be sure to visit at a later date. But for now, consider that as far as truth is concerned with regard to belief, there is no functional relationship between them. A belief is never true and truth is never a belief. They are always divorced, like subjectivity is forever separated from objectivity. This is why politics, since it is founded on belief, is wholly irreconcilable with itself. That doesn’t mean there is no fix for it, however. I’m not some harbinger of doom here. I’m here to help. So with that helpfulness in mind, let’s create the quadrants of the political grid using just these four beliefs.

 

Political Belief: The Result of Two Binaries

Authoritarian Right: “I am right. I must believe.”

  • In practice: “I’m right and you can’t believe otherwise!”

Authoritarian Left: “I’m not wrong. I must believe.”

  • In practice: “You’re wrong and you can’t believe otherwise!”

Libertarian Left: “I’m not wrong. I may believe.”

  • In practice: “You’re wrong but you can believe otherwise!”

Libertarian Right: “I am right. I may believe.”

  • In practice: “I’m right but you can believe otherwise!”

So this is where the political Mad Lib comes from and since it’s based on belief, you need to pick a belief that each of the political groups holds as true. From there, that belief develops into an opinion based on your relationship to your belief. Basically, political belief is your answer to ‘why what is how it is’.

The ‘what’ is some fact. It’s some intrinsic factor usually; like race or sex. Say, ‘woman’.

The ‘how’ is some outcome. It’s something that happens that is related to the intrinsic factor. Say, ‘lifetime earnings’.

The ‘why’ is your claim of their relationship, their interaction. It’s how the outcome is produced with regard to the intrinsic factor. Say, ‘systemic oppression’.

Putting it all together: ‘the lifetime earnings of women are the result of systemic oppression.’

In other words, the intrinsic factor is the cause, the outcome is the effect, and how this outcome is produced, the thing that makes women earn less or blacks commit more crime, is where you insert your relationship that you have to your own beliefs: your ‘why’.

So if women make less money over their lifetimes, the Authoritarian Right will claim that it is because they’re women. The Authoritarian Left rejects this notion and claims instead that it’s anything but being a woman that causes this. The Libertarian Left will claim that no one really knows for sure though it ought to be rectified, while the Libertarian Right will claim that it doesn’t matter, so long as we’re left to believe and do what we want. Simple enough really. Though of course, the relationship these four groups have to their beliefs expands out and creates other beliefs as well. These subsequent beliefs, what I call superficial beliefs, are what you’d recognize as the platforms of the Big Four political factions. They’re beliefs that I’m hardly going to cover in full, since that is a book in and of itself. So that said, let’s revisit individualism and collectivism.

 

Individualism and Collectivism: Affirmation vs Rejection

Individualism is a product of believing ‘I am right’ and projecting that same relationship to your beliefs onto all other people. In this way, you’re preserving your own belief that you are right along with everyone else’s. This sort of individualism is basically a rejection of any authority other than yourself. Now of course, individualists have all sorts of different standards and methods for discerning the truth. Yes, but their decision to adopt these methods and standards is a product of believing that they are right about their efficacy. They are right about the scientific method or Christian doctrine or whatever. Ultimately, the single authority that holds dominion over everything they believe is their own selves.

For the individualist, any sort of collectivism is impossible due to their loss of any single authority. Instead, they may rally together under a shared adherence to some method or shared purpose, but only as a consequence of its efficacy. It has nothing to do with any sort of collective as it doesn’t exist for its own sake. It’s merely a natural consequence of doing what works or merely what one wishes to do. That’s it. This is why any such pseudo-collective breaks apart on what is essentially whim.

Collectivism is a product of believing ‘I’m not wrong’ and projecting that same relationship to your belief onto all others. In contrast to individualism, there is no ultimate authority nor any way of establishing one. Basically, ‘I’m not wrong’ is a result of not taking a position – even rejecting position itself. In this way, one can never be wrong, but neither can they ever develop an affirmative belief – to be ‘right’. So in practice, the collectivist can never claim something definitive about anything. Well, save for the nature of their relationship to their beliefs. So the only affirmative belief they have, the only positive belief they have, is that no one should have affirmative belief or indeed does have any that are true. To them, all belief, all opinion is wrong by virtue of you believing it. So they fight individualism in the same way you’d fight against untruth.

The reason this forms a collective is because they can easily join together in this effort. Sure, they’ve no ultimate authority for what they believe. But they certainly share the exact same relationship to their beliefs in common. They share the same beliefs about those with affirmative beliefs. And such as it is, they have the exact same position with regard to those beliefs: that they are wrong. So as long as people exist who have affirmative beliefs i.e. people who have standards for things, such collectivists will be joined together in their resistance. Also unlike the individualist, the collectivist has no cause to separate themselves out nor even to distinguish their efforts in resisting individualism. This is why collectivist groups congeal together into massive collectives of people with differing intentions but the same purpose of rejection. The best example of this is social justice.

So for example, individualists will have all sorts of different standards and opinions and whatnot. But collectivists are joined together in resisting every single one of them. This is actually true of every group you’d label collectivist. They are joined together not in what they believe, but in what they don’t believe. Though more specifically said, they’re joined together in that they don’t believe. This is where the creeping nihilism of every collectivist group comes from, as a matter of fact. In truth, every true collective is born of some negative belief. It’s created through the opposite of individualism, the opposite of an affirmative or positive belief. So indeed, every collective is held together by virtue of what they don’t believe. Though again and more specifically said, that they don’t believe of something, not just what they don’t believe of something.

Hence, collectivism is a product of rejection. At surface level it’s a rejection of a belief. But deeper down, it’s always the rejection of belief itself. It’s the difference in not believing something about God, and not believing in God. Not believing something about politics, and not believing in politics. Collectivism always comes as a product of rejecting a paradigm altogether. Of course, there are two different rejections with regard to political belief: ‘I’m not wrong’ and ‘I may’. ‘I may’, while seemingly affirmative (especially when phrased as such) is better understood here as ‘I don’t have to’ or ‘I needn’t’. Hence it’s a negative belief in line with ‘I’m not wrong.’

 

The Right: Believers

With this understanding of individualism and collectivism in mind, it’s easy to see traits of the Right and the Left manifest. The Right, being individualists, come in several different forms and often in different iterations, as different sects under the same core belief. Given their belief of ‘I am right’, they’re keen to distinguish themselves based on any and every distinction they can establish between themselves and others. So for example, every individualist who believes in the Christian god could fit under hundreds of different sects, depending on all their different beliefs about God. In the same way, they all have different standards for things in basically every category we have. This is why it’s difficult for the Right to rally together as it doesn’t come naturally. They cannot rally together against what they oppose but instead what affirmative beliefs they share in common. And even then, only as a natural consequence. It’s nothing done strictly for the sake of creating and maintaining a collective.

How the Right’s similarities come into place is, oddly enough, as a result of that which makes them so distinct: ‘I am right’. Since ‘I am right’ is a claim of truth, a claim of rightness, and one with regard to reality, it can be made to suffer disproof. In other words, by making a claim of rightness, it makes that claim vulnerable to being proven wrong. So in this way, the Right can come to see their beliefs fail. Due to this, they’re far more self-correcting than their collectivist counterparts. By virtue of claiming a single truth, they make themselves open to rebuttal by well, reality itself.

Take for example a Rightist who plants his crops in a certain way that he believes is ‘right’. In this case, ‘right’ means ‘that which best facilitates my desires,’ which is to produce the greatest yield. So should this method result in his failure, he’s no choice but to recognize this and change accordingly. Yet, this doesn’t change his relationship to his beliefs. He still believes, ‘I am right’. It’s just that now he has more information that he also believes he’s right about too. Of course, should he refuse to change his ways he may just starve to death. This is fine though, since there’s plenty other Rightists who are all trying different methods based on what they think is right and succeeding to varying degrees. It’s this very sort of decentralized behavior that makes the Rightist so robust, given their ability to survive most anything simply by virtue of adopting different methods for survival at all times. This is a trait falsely attributed to the Left, whose matter of creating distinction is all an arbitrary language game.

 

Reformation: Retooling a Working System

So to be clear, should the Rightist recognize his failure and adapt, he is adopting a survivalist methodology. Moreover, should he continue to test different methods from this position, he is adopting the role of a reformer. Again falsely attributed to the Left, reformation remains in the realm of the Right since reformation is a goal to maintain a purpose but with greater efficacy, rather than to reject or destroy it altogether. Now that is a behavior of the Left. But I digress.

 

Tradition: Maintaining a Working System

Where the traditionalism of the Rightist comes into play is in how they establish what works, or rather what constitutes failure and success according to their standards. This methodology is based in trial and error as opposed to any sort of scientific modeling and prediction. So while they do come to know what works, they’ve less understanding as to how it works. So this blind recognition of success results in appending a sacredness to their methods in order to ensure their continued adherence by subsequent generations. This allows for a greater longevity for the Right at the cost of a creeping stagnation of their methods. In all, the Right trends toward a singular method of operation, but one that isn’t necessarily understood nor one that is indeed the ‘best’ method. Though it does work. The Right doesn’t determine what’s best, only what’s right. As a group, they become almost single-minded if allowed to trend long enough.

This phenomenon is true in every aspect of their lives too. I mention crops here only as a good example, but this expands into social rules, laws and customs, everything. So while the Right trends toward greater survival, it begins to retard the process of the improvement of that survival. Which makes sense, given if survival is the chief concern, then it would certainly dampen the desire to risk it in the hopes of bettering it. With less risk comes less experimentation and with that, less progression, less trials and errors to learn from.

So the Right trends toward a rigidity of standards in everything in terms of outcome. Purpose, method, and finally behavior become fairly congruent. With that, their language suffers the same rigidity and loss of gray area. Though, you would be wrong to accuse them of a lack of nuance in that they’re just as apt to accuse you, or rather the Left, of ambiguity. Just as the Right seeks to live their lives functionally, their language reflects this functionality. Everything is made to fit together, rather than attempt to include every possible divergent iteration. Like their rejection of various ‘gender-identities’ amongst other Leftist corruptions.

Rightists understand everything in terms of cause, effect, and ultimately of outcome. In other words, to the Rightist, everything is purposeful and defined through their purpose.

 

The Left: Unbelievers

The Left, being collectivists, do come in different iterations yes, but they trend toward a singular whole too. Consider that Leftists are the result of purging beliefs. They’re hardly so perfectly devoid of belief in the same fashion the Rightist is hardly so perfectly right in his. So wherever the Leftist directs their purge determines their manifestation of Leftism. If in economics, the Leftist denies the economic models of the Rightist. If sex, the Leftist denies the sexual models of the Rightist.

Yes, the Rightist.

Note that any affirmative position, any positive belief within this dynamic is the purview of the Rightist by definition. Why? Because any affirmative belief is a product of individualism by definition. So with that, the entirety of the Left, the collectivist, comes a rejection of the standards offered up by the Right. So it is that the Left offers up the solution to the Right’s trend toward stagnation by resisting tradition. Though again, the Left isn’t any more conscious of this than the Right. So while the Right operates on mere trial and error, so too does the Left. Basically, the Left is keen to deviate from the Right only by virtue of their relationship to their beliefs, that of ‘I’m not wrong’. It has nothing whatsoever to do with efficacy or indeed survival. This deviation works independently of any particular method, so it is essentially another form of trial and error. The ‘success’ of the Leftist is only in their destruction of the Rightist standard. Vice versa for their failure.

 

Redistribution: Equality and the Loss of Achieving

Since the Leftist removes the concept of being right altogether, there is simply no way to succeed – only fail. Much like the Rightist believes that everything they do is right, the Leftist believes that everything they do and everyone else does, is wrong. With that, the only outcome is failure. This essentially removes the concept of achievement from the Leftist mind, believing instead that everything one has is a product of some grand failure, an injustice of reality. With that, nothing can be seen as deserved nor anyone deserving of it. Instead, it takes on a wholly negative structure. So while nobody is deserving, some people are less deserving than others. So it is that those who deserve something not the most, but the ‘less least’ are granted it by virtue of redistribution. A redistribution that is seen as correcting an injustice.

This is where the Leftist conceptualization of equality comes from. With the concept of achievement nullified, there is no reason anyone should possess that which another does not. So it is that everything is to be equally distributed. This is where their socialism comes from, obviously. Of course, this loss of achievement results in a wholesale nullification of any and all standards for anything. With no way to achieve anything, there isn’t even a way to be anything.

So it is that the standard for ‘woman’ and myriad other identities become severed from well, from any means of defining them through achievement. Basically, the entire concept of identity becomes divorced from any means of determination in reality. In the same way there is no way ‘to be right’, there is no way ‘to be a woman’ or ‘to be a black’. Naturally, one can still claim to be such things, but they may only do so without standard. So they’re a woman, but not because of their body, their mind, their thoughts, their actions, nor their outcomes. They ‘just are’ in the same fashion they’re ‘just not wrong’. If you should challenge someone who claims to be a woman in this way, they can only claim that they are not wrong, rather than actually being right. What they will tell you however, is that your standard for what a woman is, is wrong. With that said, the only way any such people, such Leftists can make claims of their identity is through another person. They’ve a need of an external source of affirmation. Thus they will make claim of their ‘womanhood’ by virtue of everything it is not. This is feminism, if you hadn’t inferred that already.

So consider that where the Rightist can simply state, “I am a woman,” the Leftist can only state, “You are wrong about me not being a woman,” or, “That’s not what defines a woman,” repeated ad infinitum. With that, the Rightist can explain womanhood through a standard while the Leftist can only explain why you’re wrong based on that standard. Therefore, the Leftist is ‘not wrong’ in their belief that they are a woman, since they don’t hold to the false standard for womanhood that the Rightist does. This is a false if not insane assertion to be sure, but this is what you’re dealing with.

 

Victimization: It’s All in the Name

So it is that Leftists are made to suffer an identity not based on their own beliefs, but based on the rejection of the beliefs of others. This is why the Left is able to transform themselves into victims. By virtue of this perspective, their identity is contingent on another but more importantly, contingent on their rejection of another’s standard for it. It’s a standard that, in the Leftist’s mind, is wrong and so unwarranted. It is imposed by virtue of a false, self-originated belief and so victimizes the Leftist through whatever behaviors manifest from that. Like what a Rightist will expect or intend of women, for example. To a Leftist, a Rightist shouldn’t expect or intend of women at all. Neither as a matter of what’s true, which is what a Libertarian Leftist would claim, nor as a moral concern, which is what an Authoritarian Leftist would claim.

So it is that the Left is keener to buck the traditions and standards of older generations. They’re also less definitive in their use of language and more inclusive. Not necessarily of different peoples’, but of people with less standards for things. Really, they’re keen on those that reject the Right and so rally people who reject the Right in various different forms. This creates the perception of a greater disparity and distinction between Leftists. This is an illusion however, since they share the same behavior in common and the same original belief. So while they claim different motivations and intentions, such as lobbying for gays or women or blacks or transsexuals, etc., they’re really just rejecting standards laid out by the Right.

They’re like fire. Fire can burn many things, but we don’t define fire based on what it’s burning. Fire is defined in that it burns, not what it burns.

This is also why the Left always moves more Left. By virtue of their relationship to their beliefs, a relationship based on rejection, they will always remain separate from the Right. This is why you can witness a Leftist jump to evermore extreme positions as the Right moves more Left. This isn’t to keep with any sort of desire for radicalism, but rather that the Left’s relationship to their beliefs requires their separation from the Right. This is something well-demonstrated in the growing extremity of feminism and economic policy, for one of many reasons. This is always why the Left can never be and is never satisfied. The ‘revolution’, the resistance can never end. So with that, the Left is keen to develop a resistance to every new thing in some capacity.

So with the nature of the Left and the Right established, let’s explore the nature of the Big Four political perspectives as they relate to personal belief.

 

Political Composting: Breaking Down the Big Four

Authoritarian Right: “I am right. You can’t believe otherwise.”

When fused together: “This is the only answer.”

Truly, there is no need for any additional qualifier from this point onward. ‘I am right’ creates a relationship to belief that, through projection, creates an entirely self-righteous relationship between everyone and truth. So it is that the Authoritarian Rightist believes only in their own interpretation of truth, whatever its form and whatever their method, and believes that all others believe similarly. As such, he projects his absolutism onto others and views them and their beliefs as just as equally oppositional as his are to them. In essence, he believes that it is impossible to reconcile his beliefs with them and so even his own existence with that of others, since there is no way to measure their validity. This results in a ‘might makes right’ paradigm wherein the only metric by which to measure belief is the fervency of belief. Basically, those with the greatest conviction rule over those with the least. So it is that truth, or rather the ‘truth’ of any such society, is a matter of those most willing and able to enforce their beliefs. Thus ‘might makes right’ is brought into fruition and the ‘extreme Right’ is born. There is only one ‘true’ belief, only one way of knowing and intention for doing.

So for example, as a farmer you would have particular lands or methods – even the occupation of farming itself forced on you, and with any deviation from that representing a moral transgression. The justification as to why deviation represents a transgression isn’t relevant, but is often claimed as a fruitless pursuit which threatens your output. Such output is, more often than not, owed to the enforcer himself in the same vein as a mafia-style shakedown. Really, it’s an imposition of method but also of duty, creating an unwarranted obligation between yourself and those who would force this on you.

This is very often done through nationalism or rather national identity. For example, claiming that ‘as a German’ you’re obligated to act as the German, as the Nazis or whomever would have outlined for you and, of course, to their own benefit. Such that ‘German’ becomes standardized in this way, the unchosen, inherent quality of your nationality creates an unchosen obligation through the enforcement of its standardization. It’s the tyranny of a singularity of truth, thus forcing you to oblige it.

This mono-standard doesn’t allow for recalibration save for the whims of enforcers, and so makes it vulnerable by virtue of centralization. Given the necessity of recognizing fault at the heart of changing one’s method, advancement is rarely seen or rather sees a depreciating trend. So while this same method may persist for hundreds of years given its great utility, it’s eventually doomed by dint of its inability to evolve and so the inevitability of something to render it maladaptive. In essence, the lack of diversity in their methodology intensifies both the benefits and disadvantages of their overall interaction with reality. So like a species without any genetic recalibration nor mutation, a single virus correctly structured will wipe them out entirely, regardless their ability to survive near everything else.

This is the origin of Dictatorship. It’s also the origin, at both an individual and social level, of Stagnation. See also: Egoism, Hubris.

 

Authoritarian Left: “You’re wrong. You can’t believe otherwise.”

When fused together: “It’s anything but that answer!”

Again, through projection this creates an entirely self-righteous relationship for everyone. But instead of a relationship to truth, it’s one to untruth. So it is that the Authoritarian Leftist believes that no one believes that they are wrong. As such, they conclude that truth and the belief in it is an entirely subjective matter. Thus arises their subjectivism, moral relativity, etc.

With subjectivism based fundamentally on rejection, it never produces any truth-content to one’s belief. Instead, it submits to the ultimate ‘truth’ of the inability of belief to encapsulate truth. I call this ‘Actionable Nihilism’ as nihilism in theory doesn’t actually produce it in practice. Nihilism can only result accidentally as a result of a misunderstood intention. So it is that the Authoritarian Leftist or Subjectivist actively seeks the destruction of meaning in every term, every abstraction we’ve created as a species, in an effort to be ‘not wrong’ and so becoming nihilistic by accident. This becomes most obvious and so best understood in their dissolution of meaning in language. Terms come to lose their unique distinctions and with that the boundary between them and others. So for example, while the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ yet persist, their distinction is eliminated. It is claimed instead that both are the result of a ‘social construct’ which to the Authoritarian Leftist simply means ‘affirmative belief’. Thus, with all affirmative belief fundamentally flawed if not outright false, all that exists in the affirmative, all that is responsible for distinction and the ability to perceive it, is an irreconcilable falsehood. Hence the psychotic break courted by the gender hysteria of the Left.

Just like their Authoritarian Rightist counterpart, the Authoritarian Leftist sees no external means, no external authority for determining what is true. So they too resort to the metric of conviction in order to gauge belief. So it is that those with the least standards for things, the least attribution of deservedness or achievement, rule over all others. So rather than an imposition of a single standard like the Authoritarian Right, the Authoritarian Left imposes that none may have any standards, nor achievement or deservedness with them. Thus begins their redistributive efforts and their punishment of whatever traits in reality actually do serve to advantage someone in some way.

With their nature based in rejection, the same way they’re always separated from the Right, they’re always separated from well, what could actually work. So as they punish that which advantages someone by redistributing its outcome to all others, they need to keep finding more and more particular advantages with which to redistribute. They need to keep pushing the envelope in order to reach a ‘perfect’ equality. So for example, should Albert be the greatest farmer in the land and willing to give away the fruits of his labor, he will not be allowed to farm the most or best farmland. Nor will he be allowed to use better equipment than others. He will be forced into the same size plot of land with the same quality, and receive equipment on par with that of his peers. So regardless Albert’s greater ability, he’ll not be allowed to use it to greater advantage – even if to the benefit of the collective. He may even be given worse land than others in order to create an equal output between himself and others.

Eventually they essentially destroy themselves in what becomes a suicide cult, masked as the pursuit of correcting the injustices of reality through moral concern. Put into practice, it eventually devolves into an abject nihilism by dint of a progressive depreciation of ‘truth’ though in practice, a depreciating recognition of causality itself. Yet instead of outright claiming that ‘there is no truth’, they instead claim that ‘nothing claimed is true’. So rather than a conclusion all its own, it’s the process of removing any and all conclusions until no beliefs are left at all. Hence nihilism by accident.

This is the origin of Communism. It’s also the origin, at both an individual and social level, of Destruction. See also: Denial, Resentment.

 

Libertarian Left: “You’re wrong. You can believe otherwise.”

When fused together: “Nobody knows the answer.”

This is where you get an odd sort of absolutism of agnosticism. Basically, it is a claim that the truth isn’t known and even that it cannot be known. They recognize however that no one thinks that they’re wrong about their own beliefs and as such, they shouldn’t impose their own belief as some ultimate standard; a standard which they contend isn’t true or ‘right’ anyway. So by dint of them projecting their relationship to their belief, that of ‘I’m not wrong’ onto everyone else, they acknowledge the inherent subjectivity of belief. With that, they claim that no one should impose their beliefs on others one way or the other, that no one should force their beliefs on others nor have beliefs forced on them. This makes for the most collectivist group in theory, since both, ‘I’m not wrong’ and ‘I may’ are rejections of any affirmative belief. So it is that no particular standard of belief nor behavior is determinable. Though of course, they adhere only to their relationship to their belief, which does create some particulars.

They acknowledge that there exists many different affirmative beliefs held by others, all of which they contend aren’t necessarily true but believed not to be false. They view any imposition of one’s belief onto another as everything from simply false to immoral. Like not wishing to hire women for your company or viewing black as ugly. This is a tendency they share in common with the Authoritarian Left and with that come to form their identity through some external source, namely a person whose standards they resist. This is why the Libertarian Leftist shares the sense of victimhood in common with the Authoritarian Leftist, or at least their sensitivity to ‘oppression’.

Now, instead of attacking and so destroying what creates the advantages within any group of people like the Authoritarian Leftist, they contend that people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such advantages. So instead, their chief target is actually the destruction of disadvantage itself. So rather than trending toward a lowest common denominator, they trend toward the highest common denominator through the removal of what they see as arbitrary barriers. So they direct their concerns toward some current government/social model to which they are subjected and seek to remove whatever barriers they deem to be artificial. An artificial nature they’ve concluded exists by virtue of their belief in the inherent subjectivity of, well, just that: belief. To them, there is no need to bar homosexuals from marriage or marijuana from sale, for example. There is even no reason not to grant food and shelter to those who can’t provide it for themselves nor anyone else. Hence their championing of a welfare state.

However, this essentially agnostic position with regard to truth results once again in the removal of any standards. A bit more nuanced than the Authoritarian Leftist, the Libertarian Leftist contends that there is no reason why one should disadvantage another. Such disadvantage is seen as an unjust imposition and, by virtue of their agnosticism, arbitrary. So it is that one may do what they wish to advantage themselves, but not do anything to disadvantage others. So in theory, you could work as hard as possible and hoard your wealth and crops and everything to yourself, but only so long as no one else needed it. You can purchase and use the best rifle or work the most and best farmland, but only if you allow for the redistribution of what your greater skill and equipment yields. This is accomplished mainly through the concept of ‘cost-value’, which is basically the attempt to bring into equilibrium the cost of production with its value. In essence, it’s the labor theory of value with caveats (sorry). Naturally, this removes notions of preference from such valuations, which is why the Venus Project is the brainchild of Libertarian Leftists: an international artificial intelligence that governs the economy, etc. To them, since we cannot trust our minds to operate distinct from bias, we require a computer to do it for us.

As an aside, that this was named after Mother Venus, coupled with their relinquishing of choice and agency to some greater entity that’s supposed to care for their every need, is so on the nose it’s genuinely hilarious.

So it is that you may have and do what you want, but don’t expect to keep the fruits of your labor should there be a single person to benefit from its redistribution. So it’s another socialist model, but with less violence and far less self-destructive. It operates on what is essentially the kindness of strangers. Though I would rephrase that as the spinelessness of strangers or as an utter apathy toward self, which is what this is. It’s a paradise for the selfless. Therefore, the Libertarian Leftist trends toward an anarchist commune of sorts. As such, they allow for any and all beliefs and most actions, but ensure that there is no particular disadvantage to any of them. So where the Authoritarian Leftist would not allow anyone to succeed, the Libertarian Leftist will not allow anyone to fail. Obviously and once again, a product of their relationship to their beliefs.

This is the origin of Mutualism. It’s also the origin, at both an individual and social level, of Indiscrimination. See also: Equality, Ambiguity.

 

Libertarian Right: “I am right. You can believe otherwise.”

When fused together: “We must each believe.”

The most introspective of the political factions, the Libertarian Rightist focuses more on the existence of the belief itself as opposed to the position a belief describes. Thus they’re keener to preserve and champion that we believe as opposed to any particular beliefs. That is to say, the ability to believe is the only truth or principle they believe in. In this way, Libertarian Rightists are somewhat similar to their Libertarian Leftist kin. So while Libertarian Rightists aren’t necessarily agnostic in their beliefs – far from it, they actually are agnostic in practice since they make no claim of any truth in agnosticism as a conclusion. Instead, their agnosticism is based solely in their recognition of their own fallibility, their own inability to discern truth and the limitation that creates, and not in any particular rightness or wrongness of anything.

Given their beliefs of ‘I am right’ and ‘I may’, they believe they’re ‘right’ and project that belief onto all others. In so doing, they recognize an inherent self-righteousness to all beliefs that is, at the end of the day, immutable. However, by virtue of ‘I may’ or rather ‘you can believe otherwise’, this creates allowances for any and all beliefs. Since every belief is self-righteous, there is no means of determining which beliefs are right or better or greater than any other. And given that the Right defines things through the attribution of purpose, what is ‘right’ or ‘better’ or ‘greater’ becomes a matter of one’s personally desired outcome. It is purely a matter of want. It’s a desire that is individualistic by definition and also self-righteous, by the Libertarian Rightist’s perspective. This is why they’re denigrated as ‘greedy.’

So without any means of determining what is better than anything else or indeed what is even right, the Libertarian Rightist deigns to preserve every possible manifestation of self-righteous belief in an effort to allow for reality to parse what ‘works’ from what doesn’t. As such, to impose restrictions on what is essentially an enormous social experiment is to hinder progress towards truth. Furthermore, to outright ban a particular avenue of experimentation is to install a permanent ignorance where a possibility for progression could exist. It’s like refusing to allow for any experimentation with atoms or nuclear material. Hence why the Libertarian Rightist seeks to remove all restrictions save for those that protect their social experiment from destruction or transformation into a singular methodology i.e. central planning. This social experiment and use of reality as the ultimate arbiter for what ‘works’, is the Libertarian Rightist’s Free Market.

So for example, they contend that each farmer should manage his lands as he sees fit, free to change their methods based on what reality parses as effective or not, and with no particular moral content one way or the other. In essence, while there is a ‘right’ way to do something, there’s simply no way to know what that is until it is tried. So such that trial and error is the only way to determine what works, this method must go as unrestricted as possible. Hence their allowance for near-any and every belief one may possess, near-any standard, so long as it doesn’t limit the ability to believe of another person. This is where their relationship to property and rights comes from. They will allow for claims of ownership of any self-originated thing, tangible or intangible, but will punish anyone who would seek to claim ownership of what is not self-originated. In short, they protect the principle of privatization itself, wherein one has the right only to what one creates.

Distinct from that matter of rights, their morality is designed only to preserve the continuation of their experimentation. So while a man’s property ought to be protected for the sake of the experiment, the value of that property is weighed against the life of a trespasser and their utility in the social experiment. In other words, they discern whether an individual is deemed too threatening to the social experiment to warrant their continued participation in it. Given the Libertarian Rightist’s admission of ignorance regarding what is ‘right’ or ‘better’, they’re often as opposed to corporal punishment and death penalties as their Libertarian Leftist kin. Though they’re certainly well-equipped enough for it, given self-defence is necessary to, you guessed it, protecting the social experiment.

This is the origin of Voluntaryism. It’s also the origin, at both an individual and social level, of Indetermination. See also: Humility, Limitation.

 

Lost without a Compass: The Centrist that Isn’t

I imagine now the host of those who claim the existence of the centrist. No. The centrist is an utter impossibility within this paradigm. There are but two binaries in place and your selection of one relationship within either will determine your position in one of the four quadrants. None are so special as to escape this nor to create for themselves some ternary system. To such people I say, “Get real and get over yourselves.” This notion of operating separate from these binaries is where the observation of centrists being haughty and ‘being above it all’ comes from. As an aside, you’ll find the root of many denigrations of groups to be grounded in very deep, unrecognized truths like this.

Anyway, if a centrist could exist, it would only be one whose utter ignorance of anything and everything exempts them from this paradigm. So with regard strictly to their relationship to truth, a centrist is simply one who is completely ignorant. This is distinct from the Libertarian Rightist, as his is an acknowledgement and admission of ignorance. The centrist is one whose ignorance is unrecognized. So while all the others argue over the nature of ‘X’, the centrist has no idea what ‘X’ even is.

Yet, this begs the question as to what exactly all the self-proclaimed centrists really are. Well, they’re Rightists ignorant of their station. It’s funny how centrism is almost always self-proclaimed, you notice that? Anyway, I do concede that some are just agnostic types from the Libertarian Left who’ve naturally lost any sense of their position. But for the most part, ‘centrists’ are reformers who’ve lost any sense of what it is that they’re supposed to be doing. It’s why they talk of ‘how it should be’ as opposed to ‘how it is’. It’s why they talk of goals they wish to accomplish and all of them reformative and purposeful. It’s also why they find themselves in opposition to the Right in theory but not in practice. They oppose the current set of traditions, the current methodology of the Right, but they hardly oppose its purpose. Instead, these reformers agree with the Left in theory but oppose them in practice. They want to lessen the rigidity of tradition but don’t want to forsake the current beneficial outcomes these traditions produce. As such, you’re likely to have a ‘centrist’ claim that the Left is right in theory and wrong in practice whilst the Right is wrong in theory but right in practice or vice versa. Hence they figure that they’re ‘centrist’ i.e. in between the Left and the Right. But according to the paradigm, the centrist is excluded from the Left by virtue of their possession of affirmative belief.

Centrists mask their true nature by labeling the Left the ‘Far-Left’, in spite of the fact that they don’t share the same nature: the same relationship to their beliefs. The reason they refuse to take the label of Rightist is because they, like all of you, believe that the general beliefs of the Right is what constitutes the Right, rather than the relationship they have to their beliefs. From here, the ‘centrist’s’ reformative instinct motivates them to resist the Right as a matter of association, when they should be embracing the Right and seeking reformation therein. This would come entirely naturally to them were it not for the corruption of our understanding of this paradigm by the Left, claiming for themselves the station of reformation though as they phrase it: progression.

Basically, traditionalists and reformers form the dual aspect of the Right. The traditionalist’s role is to create a functional platform and the reformer’s role is to retool it toward the same purpose, just in a more effective way. It’s to bring the Right as close to the Left as possible, as close to Destruction and Indistinction as possible, without sacrificing the few legitimate truths that the Right has discerned through trial and error. It is akin to scientific testing, of all things. The traditionalist is the control group and the reformer is the test group. Should the test fail, it’s no longer fatal given the soft-landing provided by the traditionalist. So too are traditionalists spared from Stagnation, thanks to the efforts of reformers to retool the system. That this duty has been misattributed to the Left whose chief concern is dismantling the entire system and its purpose – not reconstructing it, is either a great mistake or a truly evil subversion. After all, this is why the Left is so concerned with ‘deconstruction’ as they phrase it.

Should we consider the political compass as presented, the traditionalist finds himself more to the Right and more Authoritarian whilst the reformer finds himself more to the Left and more Libertarian. Though really, both their relationships to their beliefs is ultimately the same. So we consider instead their personality traits. Though I’m naturally uncertain of this, I suspect that the traditionalist is more orderly and less open, whilst the reformer is the opposite. So where the reformer will disrupt tradition and risk for reward, the traditionalist will not.

 

Acceptance: In the End it Doesn’t Even Matter

And so we conclude our examination of political belief. If you’re not left at least a little dumbstruck by the inconsequentiality of it all, the triteness of its true nature, I suppose you never thought much of it anyway. I admit, I was blown away by how intimate it really is. Having considered politics to be a matter of purpose and outcome and intention and intersection, I supposed that politics was of greater scope and complexity than what I’ve argued it to be. Do you suppose reader, that I’ve applied this paradigm to other matters?

You have no idea.

But for now, I would be remiss not to complete this possible devastation of politics without a final addendum: the last trait of political belief that we’ve yet to recognize. It’s a connection between each political faction that, as far as I’ve gathered, has remained hidden. I had considered hinting at this connection here and there, building you up toward some great reveal, but honestly? This sort of revelation doesn’t require any such buildup. If I’m right, your mind’s blown no matter what.

So now and for the uninitiated, let’s discuss the Five Stages of Grief. No really, get ready for Part III.