Are there any writers who challenge the left-right binary and offer a new...

'murrica

I've yet to meet an Enlightened Centrist who didn't think that Hitler had some good points.

I’m afraid that’s not correct. The designation goes back to the French Revolution. The right wanted to preserve the ancien regime, the left wanted to liberate people from it. The classical liberals (British whigs) were a left wing party.
I agree though that at this point, the distinction is meaningless. The abstraction leaks so much that it obscures more than it illuminates.

>mark 10:23, luke 12:15, luke 12:33, matthew 6:24
>centrist

non declinavit ad dextram sive ad sinistram

The only reasonable way to put this into a dichotomy is psychological in nature. It is the dialectic between inclusion(left) and exclusion(right). It makes sense of the hard left manifestation of borderless relativism and the hard right manifestation of discriminatory extremism. The liberal state channels this into a process of extending human cooperation. The left being responsible for expanding the space for the individual and inviting new participants, the right for maintaining the structural integrity of the whole.

When fascists or whatever say that the right always loses they fail to understand the proper role of the right. The history of humanity is the history of expanding cooperation, as long as the system remains stable the right fulfilled its duty, the left of course misinterprets this process as being 'on the right side of history'.

But we need another dimension which is hierarchy with the left representing the lower ranks and the right the upper ranks. The right advocates for the hierarchy which allows human cooperation in the first place and the left addresses its degeneration and represents those unable to compete. The ideological right undermines this process by calcifying the hierarchy, the ideological left by outright rejecting it. Both are wrong but the far left is way more catastrophic in its assessment since their ideology, if it were possible to implement, would result in the end of large scale human cooperation which is reliant on giving individual sexual competition its due. The catastrophic event on the right usually is jingoism against foreign entities but the consequence isn't as fundamental.

I don't know of any writer who is even dimly aware of any of this. Usually they're naive leftist who think they're in some battle with malignant idiots, which is also whether left or right the dominant conception of the people on this site.

>what do you think is wrong with politics today?
Too much strawmanning coupled with a lack of clear definitions.
One of the main problems that comes with this is the whole ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ split. Many fail to realize that these two terms are highly relative and can easily change in meaning based on who and what they are addressing.
However, the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are not relative, or at least they shouldn’t be. Often times ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are conflated with ‘left’ and ‘right,’ respectively. With a lack of clear definitions, the use of these terms have led to further tribalism and polarization of the political scene.
For example, Marx is understood by most as far left, but without any nuance as to his place between leftists who came after him. A reassessment of Marx today would undoubtedly determine him, although a leftist, a conservative in many respects. He would probably abhor the rampant and predominating identitarian groups of today. This type of nuance is lacking from mainstream political thought, and a major reconsideration of the way we perceive politics is overdue.
I’m just tired of not only being confined to thinking within this binary myself, but also seeing it echoed throughout political discussion taking place today.

The Chapo Guide to Revolution: A Manifesto Against Logic, Facts, and Reason

>>The left sees equality as a priority for society.
strawman. The left sees class division as an artificial construct obstructing societal health and freedom, which it is. Turning that into "the left thinks everyone is equal" is just whining to avoid the elephant in the room.

Yes.
Him

Attached: 150px-Stirner02.jpg (150x387, 15K)

>being right of Stalin
>>>/the gulags/

Me tbqh ;)

The left-right thing is a useful yet simplistic tool to discuss politics. It doesn't actually exist.

nick land

this

>class division is an artificial construct
o i am laffin

It’s just friends and enemies, all the way down.

What do they say?

based. write this book faggot

this just sounds like reddit tier "YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND I CAN PROVE IT MATHEMATICALLY" hyper-centrism to me

Attached: 1553817548550.jpg (718x706, 30K)

All attempts to plot political positions on a spectrum are necessarily reductive. 2, 3, 4 dimensions, you'll always leave out some important distinctions. More than that and placings on the compass aren't really digestible like they are on a 2d compass. Really, we should abandon the autistic attempt to plot everything on a graph. What purpose does it serve? If you like an idea, ground and defend it; if you dislike one, argue against it. Reducing all of political thought to the measurements of a ruler is like trying to classify animals as land vs. sea or warm blooded vs. cold blooded. Maybe it describes a real distinction, but it's not the only distinction, and maybe not the most important, and the labels are fundamentally relative rather than fixed. There is a correlation between left-right placement and voting habits, but that seems to me to be more about the dominance of two parties on the political process than anything meaningful. Consider also that in some countries the voting habits fall along three spectra, E.g. in Israel, Ireland, Belgium, where Zionism/republicanism/Flemish separatism matters.

How is left/right less relative than liberal/conservative? When you use the latter as synonyms for the former, fair enough, but when you understand them as bodies of ideas and historical movements, they describe something specific and particular. If someone says "I believe in liberal thought, in economic and social freedom, etc." you know something meaningful. If someone says "I am left wing, against hierarchy and for progressive change" you don't know anything without more context.

Humanity is forever stratified into the ruled and rulers. Any revolution just means you get new rulers and a lot of dead people.

Attached: 1516298312421.png (300x300, 148K)

Not necessarily providing an ascended viewpoint, but Papa Ted identified that the left are batshit insane and the right are foolish for being stuck in the past. Whilst they're different, they are similar in that they're minor issues compared to the real threat.

Most people "ascend" the binary because people don't care to take a binary side.
If someone is for anti-coorporate nature preservation and also doesn't want immigration to his country - as many do - they are I'll informed if they go for any one party of commonly represented ideology

>class division as an artificial construct
>competence hierarchies
FIFY

Its called third positionism, look it up

What is Yea Forums's stance on Yockey? Is a communist and fascist alliance possible?
Also he was killed by the FBI right?
I find it funny that the only real political discussion on this site takes place on Yea Forums instead of the "politics" board

Attached: a07289e9cfe7c3dce64ba66db1b2491a.jpg (300x458, 18K)

>The history of humanity is the history of expanding cooperation
I'm not sure what you mean by this and/or if you can defend it with good arguments/data.

>Really, we should abandon the autistic attempt to plot everything on a graph. What purpose does it serve?
Well, since you're asking, the people in power can use it to give people in "democracies" the illusion that they have a choice between two "opposite sides", while in reality the "left" and "right" parties in the West are pretty much the same, ideologically, with only minor differences.
I'm not suggesting some dumb conspiracy theory, the thing basically runs automatically at this point. Moldbug has some good insight, I think.

This is most evident in the US and UK. Some other countries have more variety, though.

>yes mr factory owner you are so much more competent than me and my fellow workers
>ignore the fact that the factory could easily thrive without owners but not without workers
Imagine thinking capitalism is a meritocracy XDDDD

Yes.

Attached: d3e9ad4bdf520c5452e3b09fd749bd446968ce93b7d98b64d6f5db93d68c45ad.jpg (732x635, 85K)

The individual and the social are not opposites. Their opposite is negation, antimovement, discontentment and what have you.

>fourth political theory
>when its essentially the same as the third

lol this aint alternative. its straight up alt-right

Vilfredo Pareto was right about that to a certain degree. I believe Pareto said that a Democracy realizes itself into a clandestine Aristocracy.

I think that inevitably however, you do need to realize that democracy is something significant. And this push for equality and equal representation is even less of a governmental phenomenon these days than it is a social one.

Very different than living under an Aristocracy. So perhaps he is right as regards the ruling class, but something different happens to the population under a democracy as opposed to an Aristocracy.

And I’m not saying it’s a bad or a good difference, it’s just significantly different. :3

>alt-right

Attached: 1483898323522.jpg (207x244, 7K)

You sound like someone who has never needed to serve in a managerial/supervisory capacity. Workers in general are extremely incompetent and incapable of actually handling the logistics of production (which is reasonable considering it is actually fairly difficult to both produce goods and services and logistically manage them simultaneously). This opinion strikes me as one that both indicates you as never having actually interacted with lower status laborers, and one that has never needed to manage their productivity in a way which produces stable output.

Capitalism certainly isn't a meritocracy, but hierarchical organization and distribution of labor is significantly older than capitalism and is at the very roots of complex society.

>>The left sees equality as a priority for society.
Not all of them. Marx didn't. For him equality was an abstraction, a value. His goal was the abolition of class society, which is a (somewhat) concrete objective and not absolutely the same as 'equality.'
>>The right sees the rights to private property as a priority for society.
Not all of them. Many on the right, especially the new right and the very old right, oppose liberalism and capitalism.

Is this an intentionally bad post?

Please don't comment on things you don't understand. The Fourth Political theory and Duginism in general is very different from fascism, and you'd know this if you actually read the damn book. It's only 211 pages and while there are many valid points of criticism for Dugin, he's not a fascist in any meaningful way.

But that is essentially what it is. He can call it something different but its literally the same ideas. He, and you by the sound of it, don't fully understand what Fascism was. It was called Third Position because it sought to be neither left nor right, both anti-capitalist and anti-communist, but at the same time unifying all sides of the political spectrum into one unit with a common cause. The reason they chose the symbol of the Roman Fasces is because it's the symbol of unity and authority. Multiple axe shafts bound together into one to be unbreakable.
Dugin makes the common mistake of classifying Fascism as "Far-Right" when it is not. Its socially right, economically left. Its literally the system he is describing, with a few caveats here and there so he can call it his own creation. Its essentially just National-Bolshevism. Which is essentially just watered down Fascism. Its the same idea.
If I'm wrong please explain.

Attached: slayd04.jpg (720x540, 83K)

>The left worships nigger dick (as they have been subtly herded towards doing by their Jewish oligarch overlords).
>The right worships Jewish dick directly and doesn't need the middle man.

Everything else is just "big brained" autism. The only people who have any idea what's actually going on anymore are Jews and Nazis. The rest is basically just bullshit shell games to let you masturbate your intellectual self image. There will never be a working class revolution because leftists don't actually know anything about the working class. There will never be a sexual revolution beyond a steadily increasing marginal expansion of the boundaries of acceptable sexual discourse into further and further antisocial depravity. There will only be a steady creep further and further into clown world until it finally fails under the weight of it's own bloated carcass taking billions of worthless proles, third world consumer serfs, and petty bourgeois with it.

I don't know why you're assuming that getting rid of owners necessarily entails forcing the random "incompetent" labourers to assume managerial positions. You know sales managers and the like are also workers? Getting rid of owners means nothing more than recognising the production process to be a collective effort and not handing over the fruits of the workers' (YES, MANAGERS ARE WORKERS) labour to some oligarch who "deserves" it because he has a slip of paper saying he owns the place.
>Capitalism certainly isn't a meritocracy, but hierarchical organization and distribution of labor is significantly older than capitalism and is at the very roots of complex society.
You can have hierarchy and "distribution of labour" (im assuming you mean division of labour) under socialism. The only difference is that the workers will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour instead of having to hand them over to some "owner" who literally does the least amount of work.

I'll repeat again: owners need workers; workers don't need owners.

Dugin does draw quite a lot of inspiration from National Bolshevism (which is not watered down fascism but the differences on a political theory level don't really actually matter to this discussion to be honest) but he denies the validity of the central organizing concept behind third positionism of "blood and soil". The big distinction to be drawn is actually not really internal organizational structure but rather has to do with his multi-polar geopolitical outlook. Whereas third positionist thinking does allow for geopolitical allegiances, it is understood that the primary moral responsibility of the third positionist government is to the preservation and flourishing of the people (in a concrete genealogical sense) over whatever superficial alliances they may have. While Dugin does place value in the ethnos concept (which he distinguishes from the concept of race in an honestly fairly unconvincing way), it is as a utility to maintain social order within the polar geopolitical framework, not as a primary objective of the political system in and of itself.

Basically, they may look similar externally at any given particular instance but their objectives are totally different

How are large-scale decisions made? Like when to build new plants or modernize shop technologies? Serious question.

>#nolabels
I am ascended.

>left
>morality should be law
>right
>morality is a spook

Committees.

I really don't understand why this is parroted so much on Yea Forums. 'The right are the true libertines!' But in reality they want to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, certain types of porn (in the UK), complain constantly about immigrants destroying the moral fabric of society, embrace traditional values, etc. I guess it's all just postmodern 4dchess though, right?

Ok, so you disavow the globally accepted meaning of left and right which is basically violent socialist revolution against the maintenance of capitalism, in favor of some dumbass nomenclature that is specific to every instance of conflict? What's the point?

How do i upvote shit

Game theory, read non-zero.

I would like there to be a red-brown alliance but I don't know if one is possible between Western communists and fascists, because of the taint of liberalism that runs through both factions and obscures their commonalities. When you have nominal communists cheering transnational corporations and nominal fascists cheering CIA-backed dictators something has gone horribly wrong.

"Something has gone horribly wrong" is pretty much the theme of the West from 1945 onwards desu

Attached: f44e8b32d08077e291916847ca4f689a-imagepng.png (630x1714, 847K)

Duginism is metaphysical anti-Angloism, this is the easiest way to understand it

Where is the distinction you can draw between owners and workers? Are the liberal couple that own the local coffee shop and make $80k a year workers or owners in your view? Where does the regional manager of R&D who makes 250k + stock options fit? Is he an owner or a worker? Your definition is a completely dysfunctional abstraction that cannot be realized. You said to that other guy who responded to you that committees (presumably of workers who collectively own the means of production) will make major logistical decisions, but how is this fundamentally different than a middle manager at Walmart with stock options? While yes, there is a lot of parasitism involved in finance capitalism, your conceptual paradigm is primarily a misunderstanding of how the current industrial sector operates rather than some challenge to finance capitalism in some serious way. I fail to see how one would even coherently define the difference between a manager who functions as a worker, and a manager who functions as an owner, let alone actually seek to implement "collective ownership of the means of production" (as if it fundamentally functions in a different capacity than a more well regulated stock market).

This is due to American dominance. In the US "the left" is a theocratic movement and "the right" is libertarian/quasi-anarchistic. It makes no sense historically but it's wholly due to the peculiarities of the US especially postwar.

It's not a peculiarity in the slightest. It was the massive influence of finance capitalism at all levels of society that allowed America to become the head of the empire, taking over where England had left off not much earlier. Finance capitalism wants both "morality" (ie practices that are conducive to individualism and stable consumerism) written into law, and a strong concept of individual property ownership to create both paranoia at the thought of having ones scarce goods taken, and a culture/social organization based around conspicuous consumption rather than innate tribal differences (as was generally the practice prior to WW2). I don't generally like to be the guy who blames the Jews, because they often do get blamed for things that are not their fault, but the post-WW2 American political paradigm basically is their doing.

>Where is the distinction you can draw between owners and workers?
Owners own the means of production and workers sell their labour power to the owners to produce profit which the owners keep.
>Are the liberal couple that own the local coffee shop and make $80k a year workers or owners in your view? Where does the regional manager of R&D who makes 250k + stock options fit? Is he an owner or a worker?
Why is this even relevant? The system which allows for these people to exist is one that is fundamentally oppressive.
>Your definition is a completely dysfunctional abstraction that cannot be realized.
How does one even 'realise' a definition? Socialism is the abolition of private property and collective ownership of the means of production. That's all that needs to be realised.
>You said to that other guy who responded to you that committees (presumably of workers who collectively own the means of production) will make major logistical decisions
Of workers, yes. I'm not as dumb as to say that every single worker will have equal say in this committee. Obviously the builders and engineers and people specialised in this field will be the main voices in a committee deciding whether to build a plant in some location.
>but how is this fundamentally different than a middle manager at Walmart with stock options?
because every worker has equal shares in the company. there is no class hierarchy.
>I fail to see how one would even coherently define the difference between a manager who functions as a worker, and a manager who functions as an owner
Again, why do you need to define this difference? There are workers who hold shares in the company they work for. Those people are simultaneously workers and owners. Why does this matter?
> let alone actually seek to implement "collective ownership of the means of production"
Political change. Very simple.

You know multiple worker-owned cooperatives exist even today under capitalism? It's not some unattainable goal.

>Social psychology > groundless political meta-theory

But both are useful desu

Attached: 71K1WY2mCwL.jpg (1521x2339, 208K)

I mostly view the US as an extension of Britain in practice so really I blame the eternal Anglo

>"neutrality"
Lmao yeah, of course

Family -> clan -> kingdom -> ethnic nation -> civic nation -> supranational conglomerate? We're looking at a process of economic rationalization and levelling which seeks to integrate every last member of these entities into participation. There are enormous problems involved with this. So in the west the left for example managed to marginalize the right. But if you followed my original post this means nothing other than that our society has blinded itself and is now stumbling towards an abyss, we have begun the attempt to integrate actors who threaten the overall stability of the system. Currently the right-wing antibodies are tyring to react but the left is holding course. Some systems are already doomed to collapse into more primitive arrangements.

Your question of why the distinction matters demonstrates just how little you've actually meditated on how such a system would work. If you cannot actually pinpoint in a real functional sense which aspects of the existing paradigm separate the worker from the owner outside of some vague posturing towards corporations, your system is doomed to failure. Your conception of socialism is pure ideology in much the same fashion as autistic anarcho-capitalists or randian objectivists.

Just as there will never be a "free market" in that the market will always be governed by collective interests of those who operate as market leadership, and will always be controlled by the social/political powers which set the standards for commerce, there will never be a "worker owned means of production" because as soon as you designate leadership for logistical reasons, you have effectively just created a new type of ownership class rather than actually implementing any real heterarchical classless paradigm. Your anthropological assumptions about human civilizational organizations are deeply flawed, and that you cannot even articulate what separates a worker from an owner outside of an ambiguous tautology, belies how unserious you are about actually challenging the status quo. You don't even understand the status quo, yet you are arrogant enough to believe you can replace it.

Can someone help me? I genuinely cannot comprehend what a non left-right dichotomy even means functionally. Like whats the other dimension?

Third wave bs was new for its time, doesn't make it more accurate.

Usually when people say they have some belief system that "transcends left and right", it usually means they have some set of moral convictions that is actually primarily associated with either leftism or the right, but that they believe a synthesis of the specific mechanics of particular leftist and right wing political movements to achieve those ends. The biggest problem that people who aren't actually really serious about the pursuit of political truth run into is that while the actual difference between left and right is primarily one of morality, not particular political mechanism, people get caught up in the particular political movements that have been put in place as if they are representative of what it means to be leftist or right wing.

You see this quite often with both low information leftists who say that "Capitalism is a fundamentally right wing economic system" or that "Nazis were leftist" because they provided a significant social safety net and direct subsidization for participation in nationalized social institutions. These autistic arguments over specific mechanisms that have belonged to either leftism or right wing thinking completely misses that the distinction is one of fundamental question of who ones morality and moral considerations are relative to.

The right is fundamentally about a traditional and tribal orientation of morality, as an expression of a particular people whose goal is fundamentally to promote the flourishing of that particular people. This is evident even in people on the more conventional right who advocate for "objective morality" which leftists are correct to object is actually just an imposition or the moral intuitions and tendencies of the particular ethnos/group in power upon those who are not.
The left fundamentally sees morality as something that needs to be universal to be consistent, and while things have moved so far left that many mainstream "conservative" parties are fundamentally just classical liberals, this tendency towards universalism is the fundamental tendency of leftist thought even if it manifests itself in sometimes convoluted ways like post-structuralism (which insists that the morality of all peoples is fundamentally valid in some universal way).

This can be a difficult distinction to be made sometimes, so feel free to try and challenge this distinction but I've found it to be fairly strong.

left/right is still the most accurate political definition we have

say "based"

I've only read 'fourth political theory', but apparently dugin wants to consider neither the individual (as in liberalism), class (as in communism), the state (as in italian fascism) or race (as in national socialism) to be the subject of history, but an abstract entity of Being (Dasein). By rejecting the former entities as acting subjects he claims to create something entirely new, that allows him to steal from all the other political theories whatever serves his interest. he takes fascist organizing but strictly rules out any racism because he attributes racism to an inherent western (meaning liberal/enlightenment (benoist goes even farther and attributes it to christian monotehism)) system of thought that cannot stand any system besides it and must 'enrich' every other culture on earth. he carefully ignores that even destinctly non-western ideologies like islam have that intolerance as well. he then proceeds to add in a lot of weird stuff from structuralists and poststructuralists just to piss of liberals and conservatives.
>While Dugin does place value in the ethnos concept (which he distinguishes from the concept of race in an honestly fairly unconvincing way), it is as a utility to maintain social order within the polar geopolitical framework
that was my view as well, what is stopping any political entity that assumed technological and/or military supremacy over other cultures/nomoses/whatever to just go full imperium and expand mercilessly? why should that entity refrain from increasing it's power? his dasein as entity just seems like ideological slight of hand to me

Robert Michels was even more right in saying how the very structure of any organization opens the way for the development of oligarchy by the necessary specialization of the labour involved in maintaining it.

I am currently writing something on this. I won't give you the answer, but can share some notes and introductory remarks. First, a number of problems should be clarified concerning the left/right demarcation: it is itself a mobile point, which assumes that all of the world and its history kneels before progress, and that other forms of organisation are subordinate to the political; that which was right-wing no longer is, and the Left consistently subsumes the territory held by the Right; there are edges of time along which there are no longer distinguishing characterics of left/right/center; schisms and historical irruptions can cause one group to consume another in a state of exception; in periods of war, especially, the traits of each loyal opposition are either dissolved or intensified and the spectral alliance of one nation may have to engage in battle with its political brothers in another, a situation in which "God with us" reveals another front; time, the great harvester of space, betrays all of our loyalties, as the right-wing in one era sets out to destroy its own traditions in another; in the schismogenesis of war each class faces opposing pressures, to which one may be forced to abandon his political ideals while another intensifies them and creates all new weapons; in peace such stratification may wither away; and each man is composed of a number of metals and alloys in his soul, an armour which may rust and weather or patina beneath the blood of passing time, the wandering of humanity may even reveal to him his weaknesses, a gift of light upon his soul - or he may defeat a powerful foe and peel the great armour from its rotting corpse.
Here the political automaton is revealed, and the necessity of decision reformed: our position is in no way under threat, until it is. Once an enemy appears before us or we catch a glimpse of ourselves within an opposing territory the mobilising nature of politics grasps us within its power - our ideals are often so only in conditions of peace, a dominion of security to which our individual values are simple diversions. Otherwise, we might make wholly other decisions. Within this landscape one sees that he has, up until this point, followed the liberal law of indecisiveness before war; or even taken up the Puritan theology of a two-front war without ever being prepared.

If you are interested, I can share something of a myth or parable of what this political map inclusive of time and war would look like.

The Harlem Globetrotters Theory of Government.

Absolutely fantastic posts, anons.

Whoops, scratch

Go on purple poster
I’m intrigued

You're aware that Haidt's a right-winger, right?

you're literally not saying anything other than "war happens and political opinions shift based on time"

I don't think that's how metaphors work, user.
The tendency of modern history to prefer the Left and subsume the Right, as well as the self-destruction of tradition, cannot be reduced to 'things change.' But if you really believe that's all I said, go ahead and argue against my points and prove they are simply a facade.

>come into the thread being a partisan faggot in a thread about transcending partisan faggotry

this is why nobody likes you

Conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing, despite what an American will tell you

One can imagine a world map in which the established order forms a Leviathanesque archipelago and a great Behemoth along the borders threatening from within the fog of unknown lands. This would situate our thinking as that of a navigator, and the resting soldier temporarily resigned to another's skill. And opposed to the current symbol - appearing as a sun-stone to which the sun itself is subordinate - we would be the tiny object wandering towards the warmth of the horizon and its light. Or, converse to Borges' map, the territory would become so large that we traverse an impossibly dangerous landscape, in which all major sites of orientation are lost.
In this sense, there are no sovereign bodies of ideas, but mere tectonic shifts rising in a faceless geography - a slow and steady crest and fall as our ships follow the tide home. Anarchists in row boats; communists riding a great sea monster to recon in the Behemoth fog; anarcho-capitalists standing upon boulders in the shallows, attempting to sell lichens to the big fish; and fascists raising the pirate flag before they have accumulated a store of weapons, or established trade routes from which they might prevent their own being pirated in turn.
Here, even the liberal is lost to sea. His homeland might remain within the control of his allies, but on this cloudy day the sun-stone reveals little in the way of necessity in the sails. We may be forced to fight at that very moment when we are least prepared. And as the Leviathan territory is devoured by the encroaching behemoth, all local and isolated political difference is wiped away - declarations of loyalty consumed by the monstrous.
Then those unknown hordes of men appear before us - or worse, those spectres, the crestfallen dead, who gallop towards us floating and burying us six feet beneath their chilling wind.
The world finally turns at once widdershins and sunwise, the light of the stone blinding, each house turning as its own center against the impending assault. And in this blindness we come to see figures approaching, head to toe in flesh of alloyed metals; degraded, glowing, and polished. For each we are expected to give a sacrifice, a judgement, and our choice decides the path of our expansion - then the grief that comes along with that inevitable second war. And the glowing metal which shall survive within the souls of the victors.
We are quenched in the brine of the seas, while the metal of our being is buried far inland beneath ancient forests. An impossibly divided world, yet this demands, more than ever, a series of decisive movements - within which we find ourselves fighting upon the most defensible territory. Our walls are forever built upon foundations of ruins of the crestfallen.

Democracy in its grand scope is not perfect, and i get that. But I still have not been even remotely convinced that communist or fascism will or are even made to work effectively. They're both pretty much meme ideologies and nothing more, they don't seem to actually address the issues of government in their thesis (In a realistic way, I mean).

If I'm not mistaken, this is supposed to be regarding how we perceive which groups are left and right, and what causes the binary and map of political division. Not which group is right or wrong.

No he is a political moderate who has voted for the dems his whole life, not that it should make a single ounce of difference when it comes to conducting and reporting research. How about you actually read the book and try to critique the claims made rather than just going for a lazy ad hominem?

Attached: file.png (500x773, 297K)

This is fusionism, which has essentially collapsed as Christians have clued in that Capitalism is just as into deleting traditional ways of living as social liberalism.

What's the best piece of empirical piece evidence or historical or political analysis to support this interesting theory?

Question is for all the political theorists gathered here

They fall apart when you realize certain strands in each don't follow the common generalizations made.

The main liberal works.

the Pleasureman

Dugin

Very good post

Henry George

Alexander Dugin in both Fourth Political Theory and again in an even more intense way in Last War of the World Island.

Thalassocracy vs Tellurocracy my man, infinite recursive Carthage vs Rome

>ctrl f Dugin
>10 results

Attached: 1556699219051.gif (200x200, 3.14M)