In short, the five stages of grief, the Kübler-Ross model, represents one’s emotional response to some devastating experience, though particularly of loss. The typical example is one’s own impending death or a death in the family. So it is that when you are informed of such a devastating circumstance, you move through these five different stages in response.
First, you deny the truth of the situation.
Second, you become angered by the situation.
Third, you attempt to bargain within the situation.
Fourth, you become depressed with this situation.
Fifth, you accept the situation.
So as an example:
“No, I don’t have cancer. Fucking goddammit why did this happen?! You’ve gotta help be doctor, I’ll give you anything! Oh god, I’m going to miss everyone and everything. Well, everyone’s got to go sometime.”
Ah, loss! Loss is the key to all of this. The five stages of grief are actually one’s response to a loss of some pivotal truth. Something core to yourself like your sense of rightness or goodness, or some externalization of such personal truths like a loved one or an ideology. Naturally, since the Kübler-Ross model deals in matters of truth well, it’s little wonder then that the political factions line up perfectly with these stages. More importantly however, since the Kübler-Ross model represents a cycle, a progression from one stage to the other, so too are the political factions similarly aligned. That is to say, the entirety of political belief revolves around one’s relationship to truth and all as a matter of its progressive loss. Each political faction represents a different stage of loss. So, let’s line them up then:
Denial – Authoritarian Right
Anger – Authoritarian Left
Bargaining – Libertarian Left
Depression – Libertarian Right
Acceptance – Secret (for now)
Of course, we’re not going to see any cycle emerge with their titles alone. Just as the Kübler-Ross model is a matter of relationship to belief, so too must our political factions be represented. If you recall, I outlined a brief blurb regarding the nature of each of them after having described them. So let’s reference those instead:
Denial – Dictatorship: Stagnation, egoism, hubris
Anger – Communism: Destruction, denial, reprisal
Bargaining – Mutualism: Indiscrimination, equality, ambiguity
Depression – Voluntaryism: Indetermination, humility, limitation
Acceptance – Secret (for now)
Still, it’s not exactly obvious. Too right! We need a simple, bare-bones example to compare it with. So let’s take something as true, anything at all, and catalogue what happens as you slowly lose your belief in it:
1) This is right! (Ego)
2) This isn’t right! (Denial)
3) This isn’t known! (Agnosticism)
4) I cannot know! (Inability/Humility)
5) This never was! (Rejection)
Playing it out:
1) This is the truth!
2) This is flawed; it’s not the truth!
3) Well, I don’t know for certain one way or the other.
4) Now I don’t think I’m capable of even understanding this.
5) This never existed – it was a product of my own mind.
Note however, that one doesn’t merely find flaws with their beliefs, but also in their ability to believe. As any wise person will tell you, every belief lost is a stark demonstration of your own fallibility. So there’s two ways to lose belief: as a matter of fact and as a matter of ability. Well gee, look at that! Another binary. Could this, perhaps, tie into the rest of the argument I’ve made prior?
The Left vs Right wings are with regard to matters of fact. So one is either certain of truth or certain of untruth. Hence, ‘I am right,’ and, ‘I’m not wrong’.
The Authoritarian and Libertarian wings are with regard to matters of ability. So one is either certain of their ability to discern truth or certain of their inability to do so. Hence, ‘I must,’ and, ‘I may,’ as in ‘I must be right’ or ‘I may be wrong’. Thus the true axes of the political compass are ‘Fact’ and ‘Knowledge’ and when taken to their opposing poles: ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ and ‘Fallible’ and ‘Infallible’. Or if you want, the axes are ‘Determination’ and ‘Interpretation’ or ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’.
Authoritarian Right – Infallibly, “That’s right!”
Authoritarian Left – Infallibly, “That’s wrong!”
Libertarian Left – Fallibly, “That’s wrong!”
Libertarian Right – Fallibly, “That’s right!”
See it now? This means that politics is just the injection of axiomatic, assumed-belief i.e. presumption at each step on this path. With this injection of self-righteousness at each stage, each stage is presented as a standalone position or ideology distinct from the others. The progressive nature is lost and what should be a growing humility with regard to belief is replaced with an adamant belief in the ‘truth’ or ‘rightness’ of one’s current stage of loss.
First it MUST be right. Then it MUST be wrong. Then NO ONE knows. Then I CAN’T know. Then it DOESN’T exist.
Nowhere is the self-referential, the self-originated nature of this paradigm better demonstrated. Whichever stage you find yourself occupying can be a matter of pure happenstance and yet you defend it as zealously as you’d defend yourself. I know this to be the case in fact, given that whilst most have no idea how it was they arrived at their position in the first place, nobody knows where they’re sure to head next. See, it’s only in recognizing the mechanics of this paradigm that you can claim any understanding of your true position and with that a legitimate rejection of all others. It’s the difference between recognizing a single data point and recognizing the trend of all data points. And the only truth lies in the trend.
So let’s line it back up with the grief cycle, keeping in mind that the grief cycle refers to matters of loss i.e. being wrong:
Denial (that it could be wrong) – Results in Self-Righteousness of prior belief
Anger (that it is wrong) – Results in Denial of prior belief
Bargaining (that it could be either right or wrong) – Results in Agnosticism of prior belief
Depression (that it’s beyond your discernment) – Results in Humility of prior belief
Acceptance (that it was never real anyway) – Results in Rejection of prior belief
Note that the rejection of your prior belief isn’t rejecting the truth content of the belief one way or the other. It’s actually the removal of the belief altogether. It’s not a denial of its traits or quality or what have you, but instead an outright elimination of the entire concept as it had been created in your mind. It’s the difference between an empty glass and no glass at all; it’s the removal of an entire category. So in the end, it ceases to exist in your mind in any fashion other than as a result of flawed perception. It becomes recognized as a delusion. So rather than something entirely subjective, it becomes something entirely not. With that, you accept this reality by rejecting said perception. This is why that, in order to successfully fill in the Political Mad Lib, it must be something each faction believes in. Perhaps this all sounds like some fanciful philosophical mumbo jumbo. Unless of course, you’ve lost faith in God. Ahem:
Denial – Results in Egoism: Catholic Christian – How God is. Period.
Anger – Results in Denial: Gnostic Christian – How God isn’t. Period.
Bargaining – Results in Agnosticism: Agnostic Christian – How God can’t be known. Period.
Depression – Results in Humility: Protestant – How I can’t know God. Period.
Acceptance – Results in Rejection: Atheist – How God never was. Period.
The first four are all believers in God in one form or another. It’s only until any and all belief in God is outright rejected that we come to see the formation of the atheist, distinct from any sort of religious paradigm. Though I will explore this in more detail later, consider how these different Christian factions line up with their political counterpart. Now consider that the Gnostics of old described God as unknowable and incomprehensible and even somewhat vicious. Also, that androgyny was the norm with sexual distinctions representing an aberration. Sound familiar? Note also that the Protestants were responsible for the creation and implementation of capitalism, both ultimately faith-based and so Libertarian Rightist. Furthermore, there’s the championing of equality by every iteration of the Libertarian Left, Agnostic Christians included. Note also the regimented, unambiguous conclusions offered by the Authoritarian Right and Catholics alike. Such as it is, one’s beliefs or rather one’s positions are a product of their relationship to their beliefs more than anything. Hence the parallels between these seemingly disparate factions and the inescapable nature of this paradigm.
Belief is Relationship: Where there is Belief, there is the Paradigm
To this point, you will observe more overlap between the Gnostic Christians of centuries ago and so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’, than with the post-modernists or Marxists of only a generation ago. This paradigm is so old you see, that to explain it solely through its political/economic manifestation sequesters it to only the last few hundred years. That said, to see what comes next, you need only refer to the history of the Gnostic church as it had interacted with the other ancient factions within the paradigm. Limiting yourself to only modern-day manifestations of the paradigm not only limits your understanding, but attributes its origins to all manner of false progenitors. Each of which deserve no credit nor indeed, blame for having originated any movement therein. They are, all of them, swept along like driftwood on the sea of human psychology; more prone to observe and to justify their observations rather than to examine their origin. In other words, Marx is vastly overrated.
Language is Relational: The Paradigm in Everyday Words
Now just because I like freaking people out, here’s what happens when you apply this same paradigm to merely the term ‘woman’:
Denial – Results in Egoism: Traditionalist i.e. sex roles
Anger – Results in Denial: Feminist
Bargaining – Results in Agnosticism: Egalitarian
Depression – Results in Humility: Regular Person
Acceptance – Results in Rejection: MGTOW
In case you don’t know what a MGTOW (MIG-toe) is well, a MGTOW is essentially a man who, like the atheist with regard to gods and religious concerns therein, has rejected the notion of ‘woman’ as a category altogether by arguing that it’s entirely a matter of projection. It’s a ‘glass that never was’ as opposed to an empty glass, to reuse the analogy. ‘Woman’ is still a ‘human female’, but without projecting any personal quality into it and thus no affirmative outcome for it. It is essentially redefinition without bias: without desire or intention for it. It’s exactly the same way an atheist argues that God is entirely a matter of projection as well, as something of your own mind, hence creating an entirely parallel relationship between the MGTOW and the atheist with regard to ‘woman’ and ‘God’ respectively.
I imagine you don’t really understand how someone could reject ‘woman’. Well, it’s a natural consequence of studying the feminist really, given ‘woman’ is the feminist’s God and they the priests and prophets of its religion. So the same way an atheist loses faith in God through his study of Christianity, the MGTOW loses faith in ‘woman’ through his study of feminism.
Understand that given the utter pervasiveness of the paradigm, this pervasiveness of the Big Four, that one can seek to transcend it within any topic of discussion. So MGTOW was with regard to ‘woman’ as a value-laden abstraction just as atheist was with regard to ‘God’ as a value-laden abstraction i.e. something of desire and tangible intention. It’s really neat that you can find this everywhere.
From Self-Righteousness to Denial: The Nature of Ideological Whiplash
I imagine some of you are wondering how one shifts from egoism, from self-righteousness to denial in one step. In other words, the shift from Authoritarian Right to Authoritarian Left. You probably suppose that denial as a behavior belongs at or near the end of this progression. Well, when transitioning into denial, the fervency of the belief (authoritarianism) isn’t yet lost, which preserves the extremity of the belief. So from egoism to denial, it’s only switching from a positive belief to a negative belief. Or as we’ve come to understand it: from Right to Left. The Authoritarianism is preserved. Basically, their loss of belief has yet to result in a loss of faith in their own ability to discern truth. So while fact changes, their fallibility or rather infallibility to discern it does not. So their switch appears to be quite polarized, all while the prideful nature of their belief, their unquestioning of themselves, remains.
This is well demonstrated even by your naïve self who, I guarantee, has become immediately angered or annoyed with someone or something that strayed even a tiny iota from your own self-righteous perception. Like how you can become enraged and hateful toward a beloved comedian who offends you. How they could come to shake your belief in them and disillusion you of their quality, just over one thing they said about one topic. This is the nature of offense, after all. It’s the result of switching from an Authoritarian Right perspective (egoism) to an Authoritarian Left perspective (denial). This is why the Left is characterized by offense-taking and why, I argue, they must be continuously offended in order to help them progress to the next stage of loss.
The best way to think of the change from egoism to denial is with regard to the subject matter both exist in reference too. So while the egoist would describe the subject matter, his ‘truth’, as an Unstoppable Force, the man in denial would describe the same subject matter as an Immovable Object. The Unstoppable Force, by dint of being ‘true’, is an imposition: a force on all others and one that cannot be resisted. It’s the ‘truth’ after all. The Immovable Object, in keeping with the ‘unknowingness’ and ‘incomprehension’ espoused by its adherents, is immovable by dint of its inability not only to be altered but even to alter, only to cease alteration: to stop something. In the case of language, it ceases the process of developing distinction and with that defining something.
It’s like multiplying by zero.
This sounds esoteric to be sure, so consider only the relationship the denier, the Authoritarian Leftist has to the term ‘woman’. Naturally a feminist, they refuse to allow for any definitive characteristics for ‘woman’ and so with that, no operable definition. What’s more, in order to maintain this, a ‘woman’ mustn’t produce any effects that could naturally come to define them. So the ‘woman’ is undefinable, even at the level of biology, and irresponsible, even at the level of basic cause and effect. So it is that ‘woman’ is immovable in that it defies interaction and an object in that it produces no effect. This ‘immovable object’ status is known simply as victimhood when applied to matters of human agency. Hence why the Left makes victims of everyone and attempts to explain their coexistence through the interplay between their victimization, otherwise known as intersectionality. Or how rocks move past each other as you pour them from a bucket. This ‘victimhood’ is all a consequence of believing that they’re ‘not wrong’ about an identity. So there’s that mystery solved.
The Angry Left: Rage, Resentment, and Denial
In comprising the anger stage, the Authoritarian Leftist is thus most prone to and indeed driven by anger. Be it the rage of Antifa, the irritability of Social Justice Warriors, even how the Gnostics describe God i.e. their ‘truth’, as vicious. Consider also the accurate defamation of the Marxist and the Feminist for hating the poor and women respectively by dint of their low expectations and so standards for those groups. Those in the anger stage are well, angry and this anger transforms into hatred. To quote one Jesse Lee Peterson and indeed, many before him:
“Anger comes from a resentment of reality,” and so it is that the denier is angry.
Though on the topic of hatred, consider that all any Leftist needs to do in order to level such accusations at the Right, is for the Right to simply have any standards at all. Hence why the Leftists’ understanding of racism and sexism and every other ‘ism’ has lost all reference to supremacy or even preference, replaced with the simple attribution of any characteristic at all. In other words, should you attribute any outcome to race, you’re racist. Should you attribute any outcome to sex, you’re sexist. Such as it is, the denier cannot allow for any definition of terms or indeed, for their ‘immovable object’ to suffer any shift at all. Ergo, one is accused of being an ‘ist’ should they espouse any standard at all. Hence the ever-growing list of Leftist defamations directed against the Right: the innumerable ‘ists’ that we have all become.
So it is that the nihilism endemic to the Left comes by virtue of their depreciating distinctions between terms and so loss of meaning in language. This is the self-destructive nature of anger though in truth, the nihilism inherent to denial. Call it the ‘Anti-Life Equation’ for many reasons, though fundamentally for its utter rejection of the most human of characteristics: curiosity, and its responsibility for literally every thing. Should man find worship in or want for the attribution of sacredness to some aspect of their character, it’s ever curiosity that is most deserving. For even to debate this rests on its inherent ability to entertain another candidate.
Political Compassions: The Feelings of the Four
It’s not only Authoritarian Leftism that links so perfectly with the feelings/behaviors of its stage of loss. I’ll spare you a full examination of this, but we’ll consider it in short.
The Authoritarian Rightist is the denier insofar as they refuse to entertain the possibility of falsity. They don’t so much manifest denial as an active behavior, as outright denying some truth, but as a natural consequence of refusing to entertain other possibilities. So while the Authoritarian Leftist would deny something actively and in anger, the Authoritarian Rightist would deny something passively by not even considering it to be a possibility. So while the Authoritarian Leftist would see it as a threat, the Authoritarian Rightist would not, and that’s the crux of it really. It’s like whether you’d become hostile toward someone who threatens you or entirely dismissive. So the Leftist version of Authoritarianism seeks to destroy the threat while the Rightist version can’t even see anything to destroy or necessary to destroy, let alone consider it threatening to his egoism, to his self-righteous position. It’s only when you take something as a possibility, as something right or wrong either way, that you can then fight it. Returning again to the analogy of the death of a father, one can only become threatened, angered, resentful, and so actively deny their loss only when they recognize that their father has died. So it is that the denial of the Authoritarian Rightist is their shear inability to recognize any other possibility that what they currently believe.
The Libertarian Leftist is the bargainer, attempting to reconcile the wrongness of belief with their fallibility, though ultimately to find an equilibrium between fact and knowledge. It’s the same way their equality leads them to redistribution, to balance matters as they see it. They often find themselves arguing each other out of any affirmative belief, ensuring that everything remain a matter of the unknown. So where something is claimed true, they will find its falsehood and where something is claimed false, they will find its truth. This is why the Libertarian Leftist, often identified solely as an egalitarian, is drawn toward the behavior of skepticism. Though they fail to recognize their transformation of agnosticism from a recognition of personal limitation to an imposition as an absolute: an affirmative belief all its own.
The Libertarian Rightist is the depressed one. His position offers him no reconciliation of truth by his own hand and really, no ability to discern it in full. Like a man whose father has died, neither that man nor the Libertarian Rightist can do anything nor ever have the ability to remedy their loss. So their ‘depression’ comes both from their loss and in the recognition of their limitation and so inability to surmount it. Hence the humility of the Libertarian Rightist in having recognized both his limitation and inability. So too in his submission to reality as that which is responsible for determining truth, rather than himself. Again, this is why every iteration of the Libertarian Rightist holds some external arbiter as a grander authority than himself and a necessity for faith in it. This is God, Free Market, even simply ‘woman’ for the man with distinct values and intentions for them.
Political Atheism: The True Progressivism
So with all this said, does there exist a political atheist? Honestly? Yes. But, but-but-but, it transcends political belief itself and permeates the entirety of our relationship to everything we believe. Such is the nature of escaping, or rather transcending the paradigm. You don’t merely reject politics as it stands and so your self-righteous beliefs therein, but near every belief within near every matter you can. This sort of transcendence is a submission to our universal methodology of understanding and with that a relinquishing of any ideology you’ve formed in opposition to it. This transcendence is so sought after and so powerful that every major religion hints at it. It’s the very fundament of human consciousness itself, the progression of knowledge, and knowing of knowing. It is called philosophical individuation.
In short, the process of philosophical individuation replaces everything. It represents the entirety of the capacity for discernment itself and the underlying structure of every model of reality. The good news is that we’re close now. We’re very close to recognizing its hidden machinations and our operation according to it. Call it the singularity of human understanding, if only because that’s what it would be. Should you have garnered any respect for my insight at all, understand just how real I’m being right now. Philosophical individuation is so true that I can’t understand it. It’s like looking at truth incarnate or indeed, the ‘face of God’, as the Bible phrased it.
In Conclusion: All Beyond My Station
I hope you can appreciate the amount of criticism this claim will garner. For that reason, should you have understood the nature of the paradigm and accepted the reality of it, I ask you not to leave me as its chief defender nor any sort of authority. With all the criticism sure to come, it’s simply far too much disproving for one man to do. Though, the real effectiveness of this argument lies in its introspection. It’s not in challenging its claims but in applying them to yourself that it finds purchase – inarguably so, if you’re earnest. So please, consider your relationship to your beliefs and see how they stack up. See if you can establish any distinction. See if you can manifest a relationship to one of your beliefs that isn’t one of the four I’ve outlined here. It would be doing me a favor, honestly. I’m a deceitful bastard by my own admission, so I don’t take faith or uncritical acceptance of my arguments as a compliment. You’re just another sucker, in that case. So please, don’t be lazy. Activate those almonds and meet the challenge as though you’ve some ego to lose since in the end, that’s the whole point.
So did I break politics? Lemme know what you think.