• Attention All Comstar Customers, Due to unexpected interference by suspected Word of Blake operatives, the HPG systems update was *not* successful. No data was lost due to our careful and extensive backups; however, we will need to try again next weekend. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

In the long term, just how utterly buggered are the Left?

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
7,958
Location
England
All sorts of terrible decisions aside, their worldview is literally grounded in catastrophic misunderstandings of the world and the nature of mankind. Their foundations are weak, if not rotted, and cannot survive the storms of history. I partially think the reason they've managed for so long is, A, because the liberal Right had no clue how to argue against or stop them, and B, they had the wealth of a mighty civilisation to burn through.

That aside, I say "managed for so long" when they've only managed to be in ascendance for less than a hundred years and are already tottering. They're burning themselves out and they don't seem to realise that.
 

Zyobot

Just a timeline-hopping robot stranded on Earth.
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,481
Location
Counterfactual University
By "less than a hundred years", I suppose you mean since the end of World War II? After all, the monstrous behavior of "civilized" Germany was more than enough to show that the West wasn't as enlightened or above it all as it believed it was, which (as you've said) really gave the globalistic, "multicultural" Left the opening it needed for the coming Culture War.

That said, I'd argue the overall trend leftwards was well underway before then, what with the Progressive Era and Woodrow Wilson enacting all sorts of reforms that the Right hasn't been able to undo—for better, or for worse. Reagan (and Thatcher, as well) may have pushed the Overton Window back to the Right somewhat, but abolishing progressive taxation? Ending the Federal Reserve? Undoing the New Deal? Yeah, no, especially since Reagan got vilified as a "dangerous right-wing extremist who'd cut Medicare and Social Security" for much less.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,448
Location
Kingdom of Croatia
Left has won long time ago, with the French Revolution. It is that thing that has to be destroyed for the Right to actually win, because as things stand, you have mild Left ("extreme Right"), moderate Left ("Right"), deep Left ("Center"), extreme Left ("moderate Left") and psycho asylum ("extreme Left"). So long as we accept the ideas of the French Revolution, we are in a deep shit.

Liberal Right can never win against the Left because liberal Right are themselves fundamentally leftists. Fact that the Overton Window had done a prisyadka all the way to Karl Marx's psycho asylum doesn't change the fact that the philosophy of the modern Right is based on what are fundamentally leftist ideas.
 

Zyobot

Just a timeline-hopping robot stranded on Earth.
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,481
Location
Counterfactual University
Yeah, I wondered if someone would bring up the French Revolution at some point. Considering the shit-storm that unleashed, I guess I can see why. Too bad it had a shelf life that outlasted Robespierre by over two hundred years now. (Even though, of course, the Progressive Era and PTSD inflicted by the World Wars kicked the trend it initiated into high gear.)
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
7,861
Location
ch'Rihan
Left has won long time ago, with the French Revolution. It is that thing that has to be destroyed for the Right to actually win, because as things stand, you have mild Left ("extreme Right"), moderate Left ("Right"), deep Left ("Center"), extreme Left ("moderate Left") and psycho asylum ("extreme Left"). So long as we accept the ideas of the French Revolution, we are in a deep shit.

Liberal Right can never win against the Left because liberal Right are themselves fundamentally leftists. Fact that the Overton Window had done a prisyadka all the way to Karl Marx's psycho asylum doesn't change the fact that the philosophy of the modern Right is based on what are fundamentally leftist ideas.
As I've pointed out before, outside of mainland Europe the Right does not found its ideology in the French Revolution. In point of fact, the Anglo-American Right wing / Conservative movement is ideologically founded more by Edmund Burke, who systematically rejected the French Revolution, and by the more conservative and religiously founded American Revolution that while, granted, influenced by much more left Thomas Paine, fundamentally rejected his leftist extremism in favor of a much more grounded and realistic understanding of human nature and ideals as outlined in numerous writings from the period.

I showed you before that your misconception that the modern Right doesn't criticize or reject the French Revolution, have you forgotten already or do I need to pull out more examples?
 

Zyobot

Just a timeline-hopping robot stranded on Earth.
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,481
Location
Counterfactual University
As I've pointed out before, outside of mainland Europe the Right does not found its ideology in the French Revolution. In point of fact, the Anglo-American Right wing / Conservative movement is ideologically founded more by Edmund Burke, who systematically rejected the French Revolution, and by the more conservative and religiously founded American Revolution that while, granted, influenced by much more left Thomas Paine, fundamentally rejected his leftist extremism in favor of a much more grounded and realistic understanding of human nature and ideals as outlined in numerous writings from the period.

I showed you before that your misconception that the modern Right doesn't criticize or reject the French Revolution, have you forgotten already or do I need to pull out more examples?
In that case, I suppose we should distinguish between the American Right and the European Right? Because they are, as you point out, two different beasts with different values, what with the US's brand being "ruggedly individualist" and rooted in a republican tradition. (Heck, the Founding Fathers explicitly modeled it off of Rome, what with its hatred of monarchs and check-and-balance system, even though modern "Every man a vote!" democracy wasn't what either of them had in mind.)

Still, that hasn't stopped cross-cultural exchange from "nudging" the Overton Window bit by bit over the years, as shown by the Frankfurt School setting up shop in NYC or Maoist thought seeping into the New Left in the Sixties and Seventies. And thus, forcing American conservatives to "go along for the ride" as cultural institutions keep chipping away at old norms while gradually instantiating new ones.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,448
Location
Kingdom of Croatia
As I've pointed out before, outside of mainland Europe the Right does not found its ideology in the French Revolution. In point of fact, the Anglo-American Right wing / Conservative movement is ideologically founded more by Edmund Burke, who systematically rejected the French Revolution, and by the more conservative and religiously founded American Revolution that while, granted, influenced by much more left Thomas Paine, fundamentally rejected his leftist extremism in favor of a much more grounded and realistic understanding of human nature and ideals as outlined in numerous writings from the period.

I showed you before that your misconception that the modern Right doesn't criticize or reject the French Revolution, have you forgotten already or do I need to pull out more examples?
And I have already pointed out that when I talk about Right, I mean European Right first and foremost, because that is what I am familiar with. When I talk about American Left or Right, I usually tend to explicitly note that, unless context makes it obvious.

As for the American Right, yes, it is true that they are not founded in the French Revolution. But even in the United States, you have the right wing (Paleoconservatives), moderate left (Neoconservatives) and extreme left (Progressives). And from what I have seen from Trump et al., neoconservatives loathe paleoconservatives. So compared to Europe, same pig, different dress.
 

Zyobot

Just a timeline-hopping robot stranded on Earth.
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,481
Location
Counterfactual University
How long of a time span are we talking about?

Because that influences the reply.
Well, I'm not @Lord Sovereign, but judging what he's said about hoping the twenty-first century undoes a lot of the twentieth's "grand experiment" in globalism and evermore powerful nanny-states, I imagine the next hundred years or so is what he's getting at here.

(Of course, I'd expect the societies of 20,022 and beyond to have long stopped caring about the issues we're embroiled in right now, assuming we make it that far and aren't refighting "rehashed" versions of the same ideological wars over and over again. That, and the distant future is too far away for us to worry about, when we have children and grandchildren who'll be born within our lifetimes whose futures are at stake.)
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2021
Reaction score
1,105
We have at least another hundred years of this fuckery to deal with. The current generation, their children, and their grandchildren will be dealing with the fallout of the current political climate. It's going to be at least a hundred years because that's how long it will take for the current crop of leftists to drop dead. This is assuming, of course, that the current leftists aren't replaced by younger leftists. In short. They aren't buggered. At all.
 

King Kravoka

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Reaction score
856
They are immortal. The rogue's gallery of history has only grown, can only grow, all of Your enemies are still around. Manichaeism is making a cult comeback, fascism with English characteristics is the hottest style, and feudalism is regenerating at an inhuman pace. When they "lose", they will still be retrovirally encoded into the foundation of the West, there to stay. There is no victory, only survival.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
7,861
Location
ch'Rihan
And I have already pointed out that when I talk about Right, I mean European Right first and foremost, because that is what I am familiar with. When I talk about American Left or Right, I usually tend to explicitly note that, unless context makes it obvious.

As for the American Right, yes, it is true that they are not founded in the French Revolution. But even in the United States, you have the right wing (Paleoconservatives), moderate left (Neoconservatives) and extreme left (Progressives). And from what I have seen from Trump et al., neoconservatives loathe paleoconservatives. So compared to Europe, same pig, different dress.
And this, this type of thing right here, is why us long term Conservatives are growing really tired of the recent "Dirtbag Right" types coming into the movement. I also saw this on a Lotus Eater Podcast recently. Conflating Fusionist Conservatives and Neoconservatives together, specifically to demonize the Fusionists. Also Paleoconservatives love this too, since they've long been frustrated that Fusionists and not themselves, were seen as the intellectual foundation of the American Conservative movement and so love to demonize Fusionists, even though Fusionists and Paleocons are in agreement on 90% of the issues.

Neoconservatives are a VERY SPECIFIC thing. If you think "Neoconservatives" were the more establishment Conservative movement founded by William Buckley and put forward by the National Review, you're wrong. There's no two ways to put it. National Review, Buckley, and those in that intellectual tradition, which includes Reagan, are Fusionist Conservatives. The main differences between Fusionism and Paleoconservatism is that Fusionism is more Internationally Interventionalist than Paleoconservatism and less Trade Protectionist. Bearing in mind that Fusionism developed during the Cold War and in response to the defeatism of the late 60s and early 70s that had set in, the Interventionism was specifically and explicitly anti-Communist and founded in a desire to use the strength and standing of the US as a shield against smaller countries from the dangers and persecution of Communism with ideals founded on defending fellow Christians from persecution by the Communists and others. Fusionist Interventionism was very founded in seeing the US as very much in a "White Knight" roll meant to counter and contain the USSR. It was not interested in expanding American hegemony or even setting up an American Empire.

Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is an ideology that leeched on the success of Fusionism in the Reagan administration. It has never been the foundational ideology of the bulk of the Right, only a small handful of intellectual elites. Where Fusionism was only interested in Intervention to Defend, Neoconservatism was interested in Intervention to Secure. This may sound like a minor difference, but it is a major one. Fusionism only pushed for intervention when Communism was clearly already on the offence, whereas Neocons would use intervention just to implement regime change to get a more favorable government to the US, even if the prior one was not communist or repressive. Also note, for all their bleating about how they're non-interventionalist, during the Cold War Paleocons were just, if not MORE, virulently opposed to Communism than either Fusionists or Neocons, with Paleocons being the ones most likely to see Communists under every rock and tree in the US as well as abroad, and arguably the Paleocons were the most Hawkish when it came to Communists as well. Basically, the idea that Paleocons have always just wanted America to stay nice and cooped up inside our borders and not be out in the world is them whitewashing their own history to instead seem more palatable to modern sensibilities.

Further, it was Neoconservatism that pushed "Free" trade and open borders, as it was inherently a corporatist/elitist ideology in many respects, which is in opposition to Fusionism which pushed for small government, disentanglements between government and corporations, etc. When people talk about the "uniparty" or the elitists in DC seem to be all on the same page, that is mostly due to the Neoconservative influence in the Republican party, which reached its zenith under the W Bush Administration.

Note that Reagan's "morning in America" his beefing up of the military, and other means that collapsed the Soviet Union were pushed by ALL forms of Conservatives, Fusionist, Paleocons, and Neocons. However, Neocons managed to claim all the credit, while Fusionists and Paleocons were pushed out of leadership roles in the Republican party in large part due to their failure in the 90s to counter moves by Bill Clinton and the ousting of major leaders like Newt Gingrich for his own personal failures.

When it comes to the US Supreme Court and the victory that was seen there that was mainly organized by the Fusionists. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party loves taking credit for that, but frankly, they never could have done it without the Fusionists, as it was the Fusionists who built and maintained the alliance with right-libertariansism and Social Conservatism. In point of fact, Fusionism at its very core is the "Fusion" of "Social Conservatism", "Right-Libertarianism", and anti-communism. Which is why it is so much ideologically stronger than Paleoconservatism, as many Paleocons, especially in recent years, have taken to rejecting Classical Burkian Liberalism where Fusionist embraced it.

And yes, Neoconservatives hate Paleocons, but they ALSO hate Fusionists and have been the main force preventing more Fusionist reforms being passed. This is because, despite the name, they're not any form of Conservatism, but rather they are Corporatist Internationalists. This is why so many Neocons have so easily switched to supporting Democrats, their core philosophy has never been based on Lockian principles and Burkian Conservatism, like Paleocons and Fusionists are, but rather on a worship of "Capitalism" (though they hate actual free markets, preferring to use the government to favor their companies and punish others) and the idea of the business elite being those whom are supposed to rule.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,448
Location
Kingdom of Croatia
And this, this type of thing right here, is why us long term Conservatives are growing really tired of the recent "Dirtbag Right" types coming into the movement. I also saw this on a Lotus Eater Podcast recently. Conflating Fusionist Conservatives and Neoconservatives together, specifically to demonize the Fusionists. Also Paleoconservatives love this too, since they've long been frustrated that Fusionists and not themselves, were seen as the intellectual foundation of the American Conservative movement and so love to demonize Fusionists, even though Fusionists and Paleocons are in agreement on 90% of the issues.
I will note that this is the first time I have ever heard of fusionist conservatives, despite having had political science classes at uni.

Further, it was Neoconservatism that pushed "Free" trade and open borders, as it was inherently a corporatist/elitist ideology in many respects, which is in opposition to Fusionism which pushed for small government, disentanglements between government and corporations, etc. When people talk about the "uniparty" or the elitists in DC seem to be all on the same page, that is mostly due to the Neoconservative influence in the Republican party, which reached its zenith under the W Bush Administration.
Yeah, I knew that. That is why I say that neoconservativism is nothing but leftism under conservative guise.

And yes, Neoconservatives hate Paleocons, but they ALSO hate Fusionists and have been the main force preventing more Fusionist reforms being passed. This is because, despite the name, they're not any form of Conservatism, but rather they are Corporatist Internationalists. This is why so many Neocons have so easily switched to supporting Democrats, their core philosophy has never been based on Lockian principles and Burkian Conservatism, like Paleocons and Fusionists are, but rather on a worship of "Capitalism" (though they hate actual free markets, preferring to use the government to favor their companies and punish others) and the idea of the business elite being those whom are supposed to rule.
Thanks.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
37,783
They are immortal. The rogue's gallery of history has only grown, can only grow, all of Your enemies are still around. Manichaeism is making a cult comeback, fascism with English characteristics is the hottest style, and feudalism is regenerating at an inhuman pace. When they "lose", they will still be retrovirally encoded into the foundation of the West, there to stay. There is no victory, only survival.
Nothing is immortal.

Nothing last forever, its true that this is a period of extremism. Thats because modern periods are periods where a civilization experiements and tries to find new ways of doing things new ways to live. But the thing is with experiements is that sooner or later they end and you have to tabluate all of the data.

This process is starting to end, this is why the so called reformers of our age have become more manic more insane more cultlike. Deep down we feel that our civilization is starting to take its final form. This is the emo teen phase of western civilization and it will be ugly and it will be painful and when this age dies it will scar us all so deeply that any talk of social justice will have a multi racial mob with rope ready to hand you with.

Thing is a civilization has to do everything before it limps back to tradition. So our lives will be shit, but this will not last forever.

Well, I'm not @Lord Sovereign, but judging what he's said about hoping the twenty-first century undoes a lot of the twentieth's "grand experiment" in globalism and evermore powerful nanny-states, I imagine the next hundred years or so is what he's getting at here.

(Of course, I'd expect the societies of 20,022 and beyond to have long stopped caring about the issues we're embroiled in right now, assuming we make it that far and aren't refighting "rehashed" versions of the same ideological wars over and over again. That, and the distant future is too far away for us to worry about, when we have children and grandchildren who'll be born within our lifetimes whose futures are at stake.)
In the near run? I think the left is going to retain a lot of power through intertia, I see this as a generational problem.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
7,861
Location
ch'Rihan
I will note that this is the first time I have ever heard of fusionist conservatives, despite having had political science classes at uni.
If you ever did a study on "American Conservatism" you likely studied Fusionism, as for years it was the assumed default meaning of "Conservatism" in the American sense. It is only in recent years as Paleocons and newcomers to the American Right have begun also being put under the heading of "Conservative" that Fusionists have had to dust off that old term to distinguish between their specific set of ideals and those of others. That said, you also may not of studied specifically Fusionism, but instead the weird mash up of policies that the Republican party operated under which were various positions from Social Conservatives, Fusionists, Right-Libertarians, and Neo-conservatives all mashed together with none of those ideologies being the primary basis of the party. Which might seem weird to a European, but due to the US two-party system the political party are Big Tent parties then rarely end up in actual ideological lockstep but rather pick and choose based on the interests of parts of the party.

For example, much to their modern consternation, through the 80s, 90s, and 00s the Neocons in the Republican party pretty much let the Fusionists (who were the face for the combined SocCons and Right-Libs) set the agenda when it came to court appointees (for the most part, occasionally the Neocons wwould encourage a "moderate" candidate to keep the uniparty happy) and tax code. Meanwhile Neocons got to set foreign policy and often supplied bureaucrats for those areas where the other parts of the party didn't have interests. Paleocons were functionally told to be happy getting what SocCon policies the Fusionists could work out and the Right-Libs likewise were told to be happy with the taxes and regulation limitations the Fusionists could squeeze out.

People like to claim Trump basically represents a "Populist Right" takeover of the Republicans, but the main thing he did is shatter the Fusionists into two factions (Never!Trump and those who were Not!NeverTrump*), peel away the SocCons from that former alliance, ignored the Right-Libs, ejected the Neocons, and did bring in a group of populist right that do not have a strong ideology besides feeling "something is wrong" and being opposed to mass illegal immigration (note: Paleocons have tried to claim these people are Paleocons, but aside from the immigration issue and trade protectionism, these folks have little in common with Paleocons, as historically Paleocons were against the welfare state and mass government spending while the "Trumpists" are generally for both). He basically worked to change what the Republican Coalition was made up of, ejecting the Neocons in return for Blue Collar Americans, while the Fusionists have effectively been told to "get over their hangups" with Trump and his style, because while Neocon ideals are being ejected from the party, Trump pretty firmly embraced Fusionist ideals while in office and made it clear the Old Guard Fusionist Conservatives were welcome at the table (via both his embrace of the Federalist Society for judges, which maintained the long Republican agreement that the SoCon/Fusionist alliance got to choose judges, as well as his entire policy to cut down on government regulations and passing tax cuts).

--------------------
* Most Fusionists have some dislike of Trump due not to his policies, but rather to his personal failings and style. Bearing in mind Fusionists were the closest the Conservative movement had to an "academic elite" and that some of the most influential Fusionists had been accepted as elites due to their long, LONG term efforts at putting forth coherent and logical ideology, the class conflict that Trump highlighted hit them harder than just about everyone EXCEPT the Neocons.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
7,861
Location
ch'Rihan
@S'task
Who would you consider the Chief persons in the Fusionist camp right now?
Politically or in the pundit sphere?

Politically folks like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, when you actually pay attention to their talk of political philosophy, are still Fusionists. When it comes to pundits, National Review is still the major voice there, but when you dig into places like The Federalist, Red State, etc. that just call themselves "conservative" they're actually Fusionists, just being a bit more in the populist camp. You have Fusionists who are both totally fine with and for Trump, and those who are NeverTrump.

That said, not everyone who calls themselves a "conservative" is a Fusionist. Many, MANY Republican politicians call themselves "conservatives" but they're not ideologically, rather, they're party animals whom espouse what gets them elected and then do what they think is best for themselves and the party. Sometimes this does mean fighting for conservative ideas... and sometimes this means cooperating with the neocons or the media and Dems...
 

Zyobot

Just a timeline-hopping robot stranded on Earth.
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,481
Location
Counterfactual University
Probably relevant here, since whatever replaces the post-Enlightenment paradigm of runaway progress and evermore government is worth noting:

At any rate, I think we’re all on the same page in agreeing that the current system is unsustainable. Between lots of debt spending, rising populism, and an increasingly fearful and desperate elite prepared to pull every underhanded trick in the book to cling onto power for just a bit longer, it’s only a matter of time before something has to give and another crisis period is at hand.

Even if we survive and rebuild from it, we should expect whatever comes next to strongly repudiate what it replaced. Now personally, I have little hope that the European Right of yesteryear will return to prominence in any meaningful way, and any neo-reactionaries who’ve hedged their bets on resurrecting monarchies and Papal supremacy have a lot of money to lose. But the American Right, with its rugged individualism, liberty-mindedness, and ideological foundation in the (early) Enlightenment? Well, given the US’s place in the world and semi-hegemony over the West, as is, I’d say the George Washingtons of the future have a way better shot at establishing the paradigm to come than the Louis XVIs and King George IIIs do.
Basically, even though it's curtains for the European Right, I'd expect a resurgence in tradition anything like what @Lord Sovereign foresees to be of a distinctly American stripe, given the US's semi-hegemonic status and sway—economic, cultural, military, and otherwise—over Western politics. As such, I'd expect the complaints of neo-reactionaries and Medieval people spectating from the afterlife alike to fall on deaf ears as they watch the next George Washington proclaim a restoration of the Old Republic and roll out a new, improved, "totally foolproof" Constitution that (at least, as I envision it) is more akin to a merger of the HRE and Articles of Confederation, rather than a civilization-wide return to 1350 or something like that.
 
Top Bottom