Around the horseshoe in 80 days

posobiec

Guest starring Jack Posobiec

Well, well, well, if it isn’t Jack Posobiec again. As if I already despised him for playing the race card in the wake of last month’s #FireOliver fiasco, it looks like the Rebel Media’s Washington D.C. correspondent had to ratchet up his obnoxiousness on Friday by interrupting a rendition of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, which he and fellow activist Laura Loomer attempted to shut down the play due to it having a scene in which a character resembling Donald Trump is murdered, which they believe to be “an act of political violence against the right”. After Loomer was escorted out, Posobiec himself likened the audience the Nazi’s, and yelled “Goebbels would be proud” until he himself was escorted out.

Does this sound familiar? Remember when social justice warriors would try to shut down speeches held by Milo Yiannopoulos? Remember how often far-leftists were labelling all of us who opposed them as “Nazis”, cast Breitbart’s owner Steven Bannon as the new Joseph Goebbels, and accused conservatives of normalising hate? Well now you have right-wing idiots acting exactly like the left. Good job Jack, you’re really helping us out by acting like the people we despise. If we ever needed more proof of the existence of horseshoe theory, we finally have it. Posobiec is so bad that most conservatives have distanced itself from him, and even the far-right Richard Spencer can’t stand him or Laura Loomer.

While we’re at it, there have always been some very shady characters in our ranks. In the eighties and the nineties you had the Moral Majority, a bunch of one-nation Christian moralists disguised as Reaganite conservatives. In the 2000’s you had people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, neo-con pundits who exploited the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to artificially generate loyalty to the fake conservatism of the Bush administration, and draw ratings and make money of off easily suckered partisan Republicans. Today you have InfoWars, Jack Posobiec, and other tabloid online personalities who use our real outrage to make a fast buck. Don’t believe me? Soon after the incident the Rebel Media promoted a campaign called “Free Laura”, a crowdfunding campaign to help fund Laura Loomer’s legal defence team. The problem is that the domain for the campaign website was apparently set up a few hours before Loomer and Posobiec interrupted the play. The domain also appears to have been registered by Ezra Levant, the founder of The Rebel Media.

If this screen shot is proof of anything, it’s that Posobiec, Loomer and Levant colluded in order to create a scene of fake outrage as a prelude to a campaign in which Loomer can make money off of partisan conservatives. What I’m saying is that Laura Loomer got herself arrested on purpose in order to justify scamming people. Doesn’t this sound anything like the time Anita Sarkeesian lied about harassment threats from Gamergaters in order to make money off fellow social justice warriors and pimp her own name on the mass media? And before people on the right complain, this is exactly the same principle. It’s the same kind of con job that we saw from the left.

Unlike in the left, however, Rebel Media’s followers don’t seem to tolerate this kind of crap. In any of their videos that has anything to do with the incident involving Laura Loomer, you will find many in the comments section telling them that this is immoral, that they are acting just like the left. It’s great that so many people are calling out people like Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer because it means we are not as unprincipled as the hard left. We despise people like them because they are scumbags, and their actions undermine the very cause they profess to be a part of.

It’s not as though they’re the only right-wingers acting like leftists. Paul Joseph Watson, a man who trades in sensationalism, blamed the Weis Market Massacre on social justice ideology, when there was flimsy evidence at best to suggest that he was motivated by ideology. Lauren Southern isn’t completely innocent either, and on that note, what the hell is she doing shacking up with Génération Identitaire? She may not be a con artist, but she certainly abandoned her journalistic integrity by effectively becoming an activist. Is this why she left the Rebel Media? If so, she didn’t really need to. After all, the Rebel Media is currently stuffed with activists posing as journalists, especially now that Tommy Robinson has been inducted into the family.

For moderate conservatives, even those who like these guys, I must ask one simple question. Is this really the future you want for the right? Do you want the right to become just another variation of the left? If you want conservatism to win the battle of ideas, you will not do it by acting like the left, and if you’re going start quoting Rules for Radicals to try and disprove me, the very fact that you have to quote Saul Alinsky to justify yourself proves that you’re operating from the left’s playbook. If you want people to think that you are a good alternative to the left, you must distance yourself from the loony con artists within your ranks, as thankfully many have. If not, then the culture war will merely manifest in another pendulum swing from the crazy left to the crazy right, and we will have accomplished nothing because nothing will change. We’d simply be repeating the 2000’s when the neo-cons were in charge.

Blue Labour is not a new phenomenon

postwarcons

The modern Tories are often criticised by some in the right because they aren’t truly right-wing. In fact, it can be said that the modern Tory party has become more socialist than conservative. Nowhere is this criticism more pronounced than when applied to Theresa May, the sitting Tory Prime Minister who opened her premiership with an emphasis on social justice. On economic policy, she’s pretty much a left-leaning Tory cut from the same cloth as most of the party, and many have noted that she has pilfered her platform from what used to be Ed Miliband’s Labour manifesto.

Some have taken to calling this Blue Labour, and in this regard, I agree, though I think this is one of those times where it’s important to learn some history. While Theresa May’s leftward lurching manifesto is pretty much the right-wing version of a typical Labour manifesto, it’s important that the Blue Labour attitude that today’s Tory party embodies has been around for a very long time. In fact, the official name for this brand of right-wing socialism is “one-nation Toryism”. This has been the policy of every post-war Tory PM except Margaret Thatcher, and this is because it stems from the paternalistic worldview that many Tories hold in regards to society.

The Tories have always been the party of the owning class, but contrary to what most people may believe, the old Tories never believed in capitalism. This is evidenced by Harold Macmillian (who would later become PM in 1957), when he insisted that Toryism as an ideology “has always been a form of paternal socialism. Similarly, another future PM named Anthony Eden made the Tory’s opposition to capitalism clear at the 1947 Conservative Party Conference:

“We are not a party of unbridled, brutal capitalism and never have been. We are not the children of the laissez-faire school. We opposed them decade after decade.”

The reason they despised capitalism was because it went against their own view of how society should be ordered. In their worldview, your standing in life was something you were simply born into. You were rich because your parents were rich, you were poor because your parents were poor, and your children would more than likely go down the same route as you will. Capitalism challenged that idea. In capitalism it doesn’t matter how you were born, because you earn success through your own merits, and fall because of your own failings.

To the poor, capitalism presents a path out of poverty, and the old elites resented that. They resented the idea that anyone could become as rich as them, but they were most fearful of the idea that they could lose their wealth and status. Capitalism was a threat to the economic privilege of the wealthy Tories of the olden days, and thus they favoured socialism, a system that, in practice, protects that privilege under the guise of looking after the poor.

The old Tories thought that it was their job, nay, their duty to run the country, and because of their desire to limit the free markets, they ended up agreeing with Labour’s policy of nationalisation, high taxation, high regulation, and a generous welfare state. This was called the “post-war consensus”, which is basically a system of Keynesian socialism with no more than a glimmer of free markets. In the era of the consensus, everything was nationalised, and the welfare state grew until it eventually became unsustainable. Although this consensus began under a Labour government, it was the Tories that truly ushered in the era of consensus-style socialism then ran through to the 1970’s. That was one-nation Toryism in action.

Of course, while the post-war consensus was supposed to give us prosperity after the war, it ended up paralysing the economy by overburdening the state, which by the 1970’s was running out of money because it was paying to keep all the industries going, and the taxpayers were getting less and less able to foot the bill. The consensus was defeated when Margaret Thatcher took power and brought a swift end to nationalisation, putting her at odds with the traditional one-nation Tories. In the end, the EU-loving Tories ousted her from party leadership, and returned to their old ways, and now one-nation Toryism, perhaps the last remnant of consensus-era politics, is the policy of the modern Tory party, as exemplified in the current manifesto.

This Blue Labour philosophy is so entrenched in British conservatism that there really is no right wing in mainstream British politics, and no, UKIP is too weak to count. This part of how the left has come to dominate the narrative in British society, because there is no true right to oppose it, and there hasn’t been since Thatcher lost power. Now it seems like we’re headed for a long reign of protectionism, economic regulations, but at least nationalisation is not on their agenda anymore, all while our civil liberties continue the slow path of erosion. This is Blue Labour in action, but because the alternative is blatant Marxism, it seems this is the only way. Just when we thought they were gone, the days of “There is no alternative” are more alive than ever.

My thoughts on Marine le Pen and populism

marine le pen

Previously I didn’t bother commenting on the French election, mainly because I had far too much assignment work, and didn’t know much about French politics to adequately weigh in. Before the polls closed, I thought that Marine le Pen was the best choice for France, but only because I believed she would be the one to bring France out of the EU, hastening the EU’s demise. In fact, given everything that happened before the election, I thought le Pen’s victory was a certainty. So when Emmanuel Macron became President of France – in a landslide no less – I was undoubtedly shocked.

I absolutely despised the idea of a Macron presidency, mainly because he was the establishment candidate, the man who doesn’t give a damn about Islamic terrorism, such as the kind France experienced throughout last summer. He’s basically France’s Tony Blair, peddling the same “third-way” crap that we fell for back in the 1990’s (Macron is called a “centrist”, but he’s really a neoliberal). Given what we knew about Macron, it should have been easy to defeat Macron. However, I should have known that it would be foolish to assume that the wave of populism that succeeding in Britain and America could succeed everywhere just because that was the trend. If that were true, Geert Wilders would have won in a landslide.

What I should have accounted for is that Marine le Pen’s economic policies might have been her undoing. She is essentially a protectionist who wanted to make business pay more taxes for hiring foreigners, a policy even I as an anti-globalist would oppose because it’s downright ridiculous. The problem with Le Pen was that she was too extreme on economic policy. Frexit and scrapping the euro were fine ideas. In fact, that’s why I would have liked for her to win, but given her overall economic agenda, I think I can come to the conclusion that many of Macron’s voters didn’t actually agree with Macron’s agenda as a whole, but saw him as better for their financial interests than Le Pen.

It also doesn’t help that, despite Le Pen’s attempts to soften the party’s image, it can’t escape the controversial history of the Le Pen name. Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie le Pen, was an out-and-out holocaust denier (if he didn’t deny it, he considered it “a minor detail in history”), and Le Pen herself claimed that French police did not round up French jews in the Vel’ d’Hiv in July 1942. Of course, she was lying. The incident she was talking about was the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, an incident in which, yes, French police officers rounded up and arrested Jews living in Paris and handed them over to the Nazis. The name of the incident comes from the arena where the captured Jews were contained before being shipped off to Auschwitz. The incident lives on as a moment of national shame for the French, and Le Pen’s attempt to gloss it over only made Front National seem more like the radical right wing party the media was portraying them to be.

In other words, Le Pen was a crap candidate, mainly because she failed to liberalise the party’s economic policies, and didn’t do enough to clean up the party’s extremist image. If you want my opinion, the party and its populist cause would be better served if the party were lead by someone other than a Le Pen.

Now that I’ve covered my thoughts of Le Pen, and I think I should talk about populism. I used to have a lot of disdain for the idea of populism, but then, I was a left-wing moron who took his definition of populism from the dying legacy media I was fighting. So first, I should clear up the definition of populism. Populism, in the strictest sense, is the idea of uniting the common people against the elites with the goal of meeting the needs of the common people in a society where their needs are constantly ignored by the mainstream political class. A populist can be left-wing (like Jean-Luc Mélenchon), right-wing (like Donald Trump), or somewhere close to the centre.

The main thing to remember about populists is that they typically thrive when none of the mainstream political parties will listen to the common people. In this situation, many ordinary working people will listen to the populists because they’re the only ones talking about their issues (for example, mass immigration depressing wages for the working class). When that happens, you see the elitists come out of the woodwork and attack them.

The elites try to suppress the influence of populism through use of the mainstream media, which has poisoned the term “populist” by conflating it with demagoguery and bigotry, with some occasional Nazi analogies thrown in. Of course we know the mentality. When the people vote the way the establishment wants, it’s called “democracy”, but when they don’t, it’s called “populism”, and that’s because the populists want to actually change the system, and this threatens the status quo created by the neoliberals, neoconservatives, and their corporate masters. They’re the ones that actually run the show, and the populists are their enemies.

In other words, I am a supporter of populism, though I’m more cautious of the populist candidates after Le Pen’s failure. Why do I support populism? Because regardless their ideological position, I think we need populists right now, because they expose the condition of the society they operate in. In a society in dire need of social change, there will always come a populist reformer, and the longer the state of decline happens, and depending on the condition of society, the more extreme the populists get, and the more people who are willing to turn to a charismatic leader to fix everything. So yes, I believe that populism is part of the life cycle of a society. If they succeed, then there’s a chance that society will improve. But if they fail, the society becomes even worse as the old elite ingratiates itself further at the expense of the common folk, and without any intervention, the society collapses.

In conclusion, the need for populism, even in France, is greater at this stage than at any point in modern history. The problem with Le Pen is that she was doomed from the start, and yet many prominent eurosceptics simply took sides with Le Pen purely because she was the Frexit candidate. For all the good she could have done, we eurosceptics were fools to blindly back the deeply flawed candidate that was Marine le Pen. I don’t think this will change the EU’s fortunes to their favour. They’re still doomed. We’ll simply have to wait a little longer for the EU’s inevitable collapse.

Why fire anyone? Screw the FCC!

I’ve always hated Federal Communications Commission, not just as an institution but the mere idea of it. How is it that the US constitution enshrines your right to say whatever you want, but somehow that right is not extended to TV? As someone who values free expression the FCC appals me, and it should appal all supporters of free speech whether you’re left-wing or right-wing. So it bothered me when the whole #FireColbert fracas showed up. Apparently the failing agitprop artist Stephen Colbert made a lame quip about Donald Trump’s mouth being fit only for being “Putin’s cock holster”, which is about the edgiest thing he’s said in years.

With #FireColbert, I think it was both the left and the right willing to piggyback on this, and I wouldn’t feel the need to bring it up at all were it not for the emergence of a second FCC-related hashtag campaign, this time targeting someone who I cannot believe I am forced to defend here. This week, John Oliver did a segment where he again campaigns for net neutrality (which is actually one of the few things I agree with him on), in light of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality laws.

He launched a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself”, in which he urged viewers to send complaints to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, in the hope that he might reconsider his plans axe regulations put in place under the Obama administration. However, the campaign seems to have been marked by DDOS attacks against the FCC, which appear to have happened soon after the campaign. FCC executive Matthew Berry also took to Twitter to denounce the many racist messages and death threats that people have submitted seemingly through Oliver’s campaign.

Many people have lashed out against John Oliver on Twitter, including Rebel Media reporter Jack Posobiec, who accuses John Oliver of deliberately inciting “racist fans” to attack the FCC, as if the FCC did nothing wrong. Oh but it gets better. Now Posobiec wants you to think John Oliver is some sort of “racist hatemonger”. What the hell is he thinking? He’s literally playing the race card in the same way the SJW’s always done, and his followers are eating it up. In fact, various other right-wingers, in their zeal to get him fired, are now starting to sound exactly like the authoritarian leftists they despise. It’s not just on Twitter. On Milo Yiannopoulos’ post sharing an article I found, several commenters seem more interested in the fact that John Oliver is a leftist, than the dilemma posed by the FCC getting involved. They don’t care because John Oliver is a political opponent of theirs.

They don’t seem to be getting that this is the exact same problem, but because the FCC is targeting leftist comedians for “obscenity”, somehow it’s okay. I can guarantee however that if the FCC-compliant Steven Crowder did the exact same kind of campaign that John Oliver did, and people sent racist messages through it, he would likely come under fire from the authorities too, but everyone on the right would defend him. In fact, I suspect that most of these right-wingers don’t care about the FCC now that Donald Trump is the president, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, then they would be the first to oppose the very existence of the FCC.

I really dislike having to defend John Oliver, but this time, he is actually innocent, or at least I think he had good intentions with his campaign, but he grossly underestimated what could happen with online campaigns. The problem here is that the campaign was a golden opportunity for people who wanted to screw with him. Think about it. The campaign was filled with bot accounts, and was apparently a conduit for DDOS attackers. This tells me that his campaign might have been intercepted by malevolent individuals who probably hate John Oliver to the point that they wanted to make him look bad, so they hijack his online campaign by sending DDOS attacks to the FCC, and flooding the comment section with racist bot comments in order to make it look like John Oliver was leading an army of racists, hackers and trolls against the FCC. That’s my theory at least.

Of course, nobody seems to be interested in the more important question – why does the FCC even exist? All it does is impose stifling regulations on TV and radio, and thanks to them, American cable television is so heavily regulated that nearly all of it is boring, offensively bland, and so formulaic that it it’s incapable of edgy, boundary-pushing content. Just about all the TV imported to Britain is forced to comply with these regulations, so for me, it’s no different to watching heavily regulated British television.

I think a lot of the controversy, particularly with regards to Stephen Colbert, could be resolved if President Trump did the noble thing, and simply axed the FCC. If he did that, not only would he save money by eliminating a pointless regulatory body, but he would also attract more supporters, especially from libertarians such as myself. Again, I don’t like defending people like John Oliver. I’ve gone on record denouncing him as a liar, and I consider him to be a hypocrite (which I’ll talk about in a later post), but I also believe that it’s wrong to try and get him fired because of something that offended you, which is what the left has been doing for the past few years. With Trump in power, am I going to have to sit here and watch the right turn into the left? I should hope not, but as the Trump years drag on, I worry that this may be an inevitable reality.

When did being right-wing become such a bad thing?

left vs. right

There once was a time were one person could say they’re right-wing, and another could say they’re left-wing, and the two could engage in a proper and balanced debate. However, we now live in a time where mainstream culture is so heavily entrenched in left-wing ideology that political discourse has come down to “left wing is good, right wing is bad”. People have grown up with the idea that all right-wingers are reactionary bigots and wacky evangelists, completely glossing over the kind of bigotry and oppression that far left ideologies have proven themselves capable of.

When I was a teenager, I was practically entrenched in the left wing, probably because I thought the left was morally superior compared to the right, and I didn’t know much better. I essentially bought into the nonsensical narrative that was so common back in the day and still is now, and I didn’t bother to research the other side. I didn’t even think they had any arguments that made any modicum of sense, but then again, I was just a stupid teenager back then. I didn’t even think that there is a left-wing bias pervading society and culture. In fact I always ignored the conservatives’ warnings of a liberal media bias, thinking it was all quack, but I was wrong. Not only is the liberal media not a myth, but it’s been going on for quite some time apparently.

Today, being right-wing has apparently become a social stigma, a stick used to beat people with which we disagree with. Right-wing thinkers are either left to obscurity or dismissed as crazies and trolls (some of them probably are, but I digress), while left-wing commentators like Owen Jones, Jessica Valenti and Michael Moore are propped up as intellectuals by mainstream outlets like The Guardian, no matter how insane or ill-constructed their arguments are. In today’s political discourse, facts no longer seem to matter. All that matters is whether you’re left-wing or right-wing, and if you’re right-wing, you apparently get lumped in with neo-cons, internet trolls, religious fundamentalists, neo-nazis, fascists, and all sorts of other awful people, and that’s if you’re not dismissed as ignorant.

I’m not even completely right-wing (though I am sort of a modestly right-wing libertarian), but I find this attitude very childish, and that’s part of the reason why I ultimately abandoned the left, and also because of the way social justice warriors (the narcissistic progeny of Marxist social justice courses) have militantly censored discussion and silenced debate in the name of their far-left ideology (meanwhile they aren’t considered extremists by the mainstream). All the more vexing is the fact that I have found a number of right-wing and mostly libertarian arguments to be quite reasonable, meanwhile the left-wingers now sound like gibbering loons with arguments that don’t quite stand up to scrutiny.

It’s not as though the right isn’t as capable of being as extreme as the far left. I know that because I used to do extensive research on Fox News back in 2010/11. However, Fox News and all the other right wing outlets seem rather tame and definitely comical compared to their left-wing equivalents, particularly the far-left online news outlet The Young Turks (owned and presented by Cenk Uygur), who in many ways mirror the kind of grotesque circus that I’ve chided Fox News for, but if anyone on Fox News says something stupid, the mainstream media won’t let you hear the end of how stupid it is, but when Cenk Uygur does it (and he will), nobody in the media seems to bat an eye. Let me see if I got this right – Bill O’Reilly screws up and all the news outlets and comedians dogpile on him, but Cenk Uygur screws up and gets no scrutiny from the mainstream media, all because one is right-wing and the other is left-wing.

The problem as I see it is that ever since the left gained dominance in the political and cultural arena, the whole political discourse became about the “enlightened liberal” versus the “ignorant conservative”, and if all else fails, “love vs. hate”. The problem is that it gives people an excuse not to think critically about ideas and issues that need to be examined with more care and nuance, and the end result is a hopelessly distorted political climate where you can silence your critics with words like “racist” or “sexist”, therefore suggesting your opponent is hateful when in fact he or she may not be.

I’m not at all convinced that being right-wing is necessarily bad. I’m not a conservative, but I can name a handful of intelligent right-wing thinkers, commentators and politicians who have made reasonable arguments, including Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, Gavin McInnes, Douglas Murray, Steven Crowder, Dinesh D’Souza, Ron Paul, Allum Bokhari, just to name a few. It’s also a mistake to believe that all right-wing ideologies are authoritarian. The right wing encompasses philosophies that generally favour reduced economic regulation, and support capitalism. The more libertarian philosophies in the right wing include conservative libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and objectivism, just to name a select few. The right wing is just as intellectually diverse as the left (or so I think), and yet the leftists would have you believe that the right-wing is full of insane idiots who probably aren’t fans of human rights.

My point is simple. I feel that the dialogue between left and right has been hopelessly distorted, with the left dominant in society and indoctrinating the young generation with vapid, meaningless nonsense that breeds more narcissists than critical thinkers. What I gather from the right-wing perspective is that you the individual are responsible for your own station in life (that’s not true with all of them, but a number of rightists think this way), whereas the left teaches you that “the system” causes all of your problems, and effectively that you have no agency. Of course the dominant left-leaning culture wants to dismiss right-wingers as idiots, because they don’t buy into the narrative that the system is the cause of all your suffering, and I don’t think a lot of people buy that anymore. There is a wealth of information out there that disproves a lot of the left-wing nonsense we’ve been conditioned to believe as teenagers, and I suggest that you go out and find it, along with looking into the names I mentioned in the previous paragraph, because, more than anything else, I want people to question what they have been taught by the media. If they did, I think they’ll find that they have been fed lies, and a narrative that doesn’t hold up very well to scrutiny.

Rethinking the ideological battle lines

left-right spectrum

The old left-right spectrum, which nowadays is woefully inaccurate.

In the old days, it was assumed that ideology ran on a linear spectrum of left and right, with moderates in the centre. In the public consciousness politics generally came down to “conservatives” versus “liberals”, with conservatives on the right end of the spectrum and liberals on the left. From my observations, this was particularly pronounced in the culture war of the 2000’s. If you supported the government, supported religion (particularly Christianity) and favoured interventionist foreign policy, you were a conservative, while if you opposed war, favoured the separation of church and state, and distrusted the government, you were a liberal. Ah, those were simpler times.

However, now this would prove to be inaccurate, as the new culture war of the current decade has unravelled. Now it’s the “liberals” who are supporting bigger government and pushing for ever greater levels of political correctness, while the “conservatives” sound more like classical liberals. In the establishment at large, both sides in the traditional spectrum seem to want the same thing – bigger government on behalf of large corporations. Today’s leftists across the world have alienated themselves further and further from the common man, proving the inevitable backlash from the extreme right, which often proves just as bad as the social justice warriors, both of which quickly prove the validity of horseshoe theory (which I fervently subscribe too).

For those who may not be aware, horseshoe theory is a theory of ideology in political science which argues that left and right are like the ends of a horseshoe, in that the further along the left or right you go, the more closely similar they are. In the end, those in the far-left and the far-right both arrive at the same point, saying much of the same things but employing different rhetoric as they do it. In other words, when taken to their extremes, both the left and the right are exactly the same.

horseshoe theory

Given how much Stormfront sounds like right-wing SJW’s, this makes much more sense.

For a more nuanced take on the left-right spectrum, the horseshoe model is ideal. However, I would like to suggest another model. Allow me to introduce you to the political compass, which has been around since 2001. It was coined by the British-based Political Compass Organisation with the intention of helping people to better understand where they stand politically, and the kind of company they might keep. Simply put, it’s a multi-axis grid that is split by two axes. The left-right axis represents the traditional left-right spectrum, which is a measure of economic policy rather than social policy. In this sense, those on the left wing of the spectrum favour greater government regulation of the economy, which they feel should be run by a collective body. By contrast, those on the right wing of the spectrum feel that the economy should be left in the hands of competing individuals, organisations and market forces. At the very far end of the left wing is where you’ll run into communism, a system where the state has total control of the economy. At the very far end of the right wing is where you’ll find laissez-faire capitalism, which is essentially capitalism without any regulation from the state whatsoever.

Social policy is measured by the up-down axis, which, in my opinion, reflects the current culture war we are witnessing – the conflict between libertarianism and authoritarianism, or as I might put it, individualism and collectivism. Those on the upper half of the spectrum are authoritarians, as they believe that rules and traditions should be obeyed. Authoritarians believe that the state should have more power, and that the state has a right to intervene in people’s lives. I have reason to suspect that some of them believe that this power can be used for good, but an authoritarian always believes that he or she will be wielding that power. At the very top end of the authoritarian side is fascism, a system led by a dictator with absolute power, and I must stress that you will find fascists on both the left and the right of the spectrum (as I explained with horseshoe theory). Those on the lower half of the spectrum are libertarians, as they believe in the sanctity of personal freedom and individual rights. Libertarians believe the power of the state should be reduced, and that government should have little involvement in our lives. At the very bottom end of the libertarian side is anarchism, a system wherein the state is completely abolished. Now that that’s out of the way, I can go on to explain the four quadrants in more depth.

On the top left you have the authoritarian left. A left-wing authoritarian typically believes in a planned economy controlled by the state (sometimes called a command economy), and that states should control businesses and industries. This is where you’ll find the communists, Marxists, socialists, progressives, neofeminists, proponents of Keynesian economics, and of course the social justice warriors. Famous examples would include Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Bernie Sanders, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I would personally count Anita Sarkeesian here as well because of how her brand of feminism, in terms of narrative, is very much akin to Marxism, same goes with the #BlackLivesMatter movement. A debatable example of a left-wing authoritarian would be Adolf Hitler, who, despite the popular misconception that he was far-right, was essentially a socialist who believed in a command economy. Speaking of Germany, I believe that the anti-fascist movement in Germany is becoming a left-wing authoritarian movement, as they have placed racist anti-white posters on public property, and have been known to threaten anyone who disagrees with them, ironically becoming the very thing they have set out to fight against (I’ll talk more about that in a future post).

On the top right you have the authoritarian right. A right-wing authoritarian typically believes in the legitimacy of the state, but is in favour of the free market. You’ll typically find them placing emphasis on social and religious norms, whereas many left-wing dictatorships attempted to excise religion altogether (such as in the Cultural Revolution of communist China). They are usually sceptical of social change, and believe in maintaining the status quo, which is why they are so reviled in the mainstream media. This is where you’ll find the neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, traditional conservatives, paleo-conservatives, oligarchists, religious fundamentalists of all persuasions (but especially Christianity and Islam), monarchists, reactionaries, neo-Nazis, nationalists, and the alt-right. Famous example would include Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, Richard Nixon, David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (and his father), and Donald Trump. Pretty much all the Republican nominees except Rand Paul fit into this category, and this is especially true of Ted Cruz, a hardline conservative who fits in perfectly with the GOP. You’ll also find corporatism thrives here, because for the neo-cons, the “free market” allows them to subsidise the military-industrial complex and grant corporate welfare to the multi-national entities. The extreme racists of Stormfront, televangelists, Islamic terrorists, as well as the neo-con sock puppets at Fox News, could be found here as well.

On the bottom left you have the libertarian left. A left-wing libertarian believes in individual rights, but is still concerned with society at large. They promote personal freedom with emphasis on also promoting equality, and they typically advocate for reducing the power of large corporations and protecting worker’s rights. This is where you’ll find the social liberals, libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and choice feminists. Famous examples include Emma Goldman, Christina Hoff Sommers, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Bill Maher, Jill Stein (from the US Green Party), Thomas Paine, and Carl Benjamin (the YouTuber better known as Sargon of Akkad). Some of the more moderate socialists and progressives may be found here as well.

Finally, on the bottom right, you have the libertarian right. A right-wing libertarian is the definition of “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, as they advocate capitalist economics and have a generally liberal stance on social issues (for example, they ardently defend the right to free speech). They stress the importance of individual rights, and do not trust a large government to protect them at all. They also believe that state regulation hinders the ability of a free market to grow. This is where you’ll find the mainstream libertarians, free market capitalists, classical liberals, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, and a new phenomenon described as “cultural libertarians”. Famous examples include Rand Paul (and his father Ron Paul), Gary Johnson, Austin Peterson, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and debatably Milo Yiannopoulos. You may find some disaffected Republicans, such as those in the Tea Party movement, in this quadrant.

This is a vastly superior model that addresses the inadequacies of the old-fashioned left-right narrative and I feel it reflects the real culture war between individualism and collectivism. But, of course, the mainstream media doesn’t like nuance, so they just use the old system so they can get people to choose a side and fight each other to the bitter end. They’re duping people into accepting a grossly oversimplified ideological narrative, and the result is senseless, especially when you consider that anyone can use the political compass. I took the test on the Political Compass site myself (and if you want to, you can too if you click here), and here is the result.

political_compass

As you can see, I qualify as a right-wing libertarian, but I’m so close to the left that I tend to consider myself a centrist. You could call me a moderate libertarian if you want, because I tend to focus on issues rather than ideology. In days gone by I would have been a left-wing libertarian, and I was certainly this as a teenager (by which point I leaned pretty far to the left). However, over the years I’ve been growing very tired of the insanity exhibited by the political left, and ultimately jumped ship to the other side, mainly because it turned out their arguments were more rational. As a right-wing libertarian, I invariably fall under the same category as the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who is more of a moderate than the two mainstream candidates (one of them a neo-liberal and the other a neo-conservative).

Of course, I fall under this category chiefly because I believe in individual rights and the responsibility and agency of the individual. I don’t care about race, gender and sexual orientation as the left does. In fact, I reject identity politics as a whole. I also believe that socialism is a very bad idea, and it only serves to take responsibility away from individuals. Therefore, in my opinion, socialism goes against the core values of libertarianism. That’s why I prefer capitalism, because it creates the conditions in which we have the advanced society that we have at all.

I know that this been a very drawn out post, but I think I’ve illustrated my point quite well. The culture war we know is now very different to what it was a generation ago, and the battle lines have been redrawn. Yet the mainstream media and the political establishment would much rather remove complexity from political debate, because it’s much easier to control a population that does not understand the big picture than it is for them to present a reasoned argument to the public. For those who argue that ideology does not matter, I say that it in fact does matter, but only if you can understand your ideological position can you wield it effectively in the world of politics.