Philosophy Why I can't stand collectivism: AKA the truth behind the horseshoe theory

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So I said I was going to give an explination for why I don't like collectivism and the actual ancestral reasoning behinf it. Well here it is. My family is scotch-Irish Appalachian. From what we can tell, our family moved to America somtime during the industrial revolution, fromed roots in the alps before spreading south to around the Tennessee area and then of course my family has moved around sense then but for the sake of internet saftey I won't get into that. My family is your stereotypical southern America bluegrass loving, stubborn to the core people. To put in normy terms we are what you'd call "Rednecks"

The thing is my people were never well liked. During the industrial revolution we were treated like trash, thought of as unintelligent and backward, and the thing is we are STILL looked at as that. The progressive left tends to look at us as a bunch of racist Sexist Homophobes, and the so called "Alt-Right" tend to look at us as backward unintelligent hicks. On top of that, I'm a crippled. I can't do many of the things that "Proper men" do, and I will ultimately be looked at as having to take more out of the system than I put in regardless of whether it's true or not.

My encounters with both collectivist end up resulting in the same thing. "I'm backwards, I'm weak, I'm unnatural, I have no place in history, and I will be crushed." so yeah forgive if I'm not a fan. History has shown ANYTIME a collectivist regime gains power people like me are always the first on the sacrificial slab. People tend to forget that one of the first people that both hitler AND stalin went after were the elderly and the disabled.

and I'm sorry I look at "Muh ethnostate" in the same way I look at "Not real communism." It's bull. "White unity?" Suuure, because we all know "All Animals are equal......" right? When I did a DNA test It showed I was like 99.7% white. I'm probably white than the biggest majority of white ethno-nationalist and yet my so called "White Privilege" did me no favors in terms of blood or body. What little I have, I've gained IN SPITE of the system and not because of it. And as far as politics are concerned both sides have made it clear they want my kind erased from their perfect world.....So why should I care about them or thier so called cultural preservation. I've been called a fence sitter by all sides. If I'm a fence sitter it's because on the right side is a lava pit and on the left is an acid pool.

People misunderstand when people like me say horseshoe theory. they get this idea that we think both side are secretly the same and once they realize that they will join forces. No they won't. they are essentially two playground bullies fighting over who "really rules the playground."

As far as MY culture goes, they've done their darnedest to destroy it. Progressives have crippled Geek culture beyond all recognition of what it was a decade ago, and it had nothing to do with people's race or gender, they aren't promoting diversity, they are destroying it. and the alt-right doesn't seem to grasp the irony of talking about the evils of multiculturalism to a sour cream redneck, who is watching Japanese anime, while listening to Mongolian folk metal, and looking up videos on Indian dance.

Is a rabbit really going to pick a side in a feud between the wolves and the coyotes when the end result is him going to get eaten? No As far as he's concerned their whole world can burn. Communist and ethnos can fight each other as much as they want. If I have no place in the world as far as they are concerned, then frankly scarlet I don't give a darn.

 

[Cherico]

I think one of the reasons why horse shoe theory is a thing is because of the left/right idea that really doesn't describe things very well.


Essentally there are three core values.

Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity/Stability.


These three core values are mutually exclusive.

In order to get more freedom you have to accept a trade off in Equality and Stability.
In order to get more Stability you have to accept a trade off in Liberty and Equality
In order to get more Equality you have to accept a trade off in Liberty and Stability.


Your core value if Liberty, you look at the other two sides and see them as being exactly alike because both of them want to take away your liberty.

The Alt right guy on the extreme end sees you and the SJW as the same people because both of you are a threat to his ideal of a stable world.

The SJW sees you and the Alt right guy as some one who is in the way of their utopian bullshit.

Ideally we would all be able to sit down and negiotiate but thats not going to happen because these three ideals are core values. Their the things that make you up as a person, the shit that people lay down their lives and die for.

This is not something that will ever go away, core values never do.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think one of the reasons why horse shoe theory is a thing is because of the left/right idea that really doesn't describe things very well.


Essentally there are three core values.

Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity/Stability.


These three core values are mutually exclusive.

In order to get more freedom you have to accept a trade off in Equality and Stability.
In order to get more Stability you have to accept a trade off in Liberty and Equality
In order to get more Equality you have to accept a trade off in Liberty and Stability.


Your core value if Liberty, you look at the other two sides and see them as being exactly alike because both of them want to take away your liberty.

The Alt right guy on the extreme end sees you and the SJW as the same people because both of you are a threat to his ideal of a stable world.

The SJW sees you and the Alt right guy as some one who is in the way of their utopian bullshit.

Ideally we would all be able to sit down and negotiate but that's not going to happen because these three ideals are core values. Their the things that make you up as a person, the shit that people lay down their lives and die for.

This is not something that will ever go away, core values never do.

I think the best way to describe the 3 sides right now is you got three kinds of animals. mule, wolves, and hyenas

I think those that value liberty due so because stability was never an option for them. they were always the the mule or the that the wolf and the hyena vote for dinner. They can't thrive in a society because they are different they look at things differently. They are a true minority. So they have to make it on their own because otherwise certain death or oppression is inevitable, so threaten to take their freedom and they their mind immediately dwells back to that wolves den they fear being shoved back in to. A mule can be led, but only by a farmhand which has gained its trust and one that knows it won't try to strangle it at a moments notice, and even then a sheep will have the urge to flee or wander at the sign of trouble. They fear both the wolf and the hyena because a mule is what's often used as the sacrifice to sate the appetite of either animal

Those that value stability value it because they can't make it on their own they need someone to tell them what to do and how to function otherwise they'll be oppressed by those willing to take advantage of them. Fighting together as a unit and separating their individual sense of self from the conflict. to quote the jungle book. The Strength of the wolf is the pact. While wolf can somewhat learn to be passive and get along with those outside of it's pack, it's got to be at the most stable of condition, and even then there is always going to be an urge to snap at those who are not a fellow wolf. It's not so much that wolves fear mule so much as wolves fear that the passive, carefree, and honestly stubborn nature of the mule allow the hyenas and enemy wolf packs to gain a foothold and scatter or devour them.

hyenas are neither independent nor stable creatures having to survive on scraps from both the mule's pasture and the wolves Den and being satisfied with none. While they have good ideas in theory they lack any kind of practical follow through and when either a mule or a wolf points this out, the hyena feels insecure and lashes out. Expose them in anyway, and their minds seems to dwell on their on shortcomings. hyenas are jealous both of the mule's independent and carefree nature, and the wolves sense of stability and greater cause and as such will try to devour both animals in an effort to feel some semblance of the power or control they feel they lack in their own lives.

there is one thing they all have in common, perhaps it's the ONLY thing they have in common. They all accuse each other of being the death of them.

The mule says to the wolf and the wolves, and hyenas, "You'll devour me once you have the chance."

The wolf says to the mule and the hyenas. "You'd lead my brothers and sisters to scatter and freeze to death if you had the choice.

The hyena says to the wolf and the mule. "You'd let me starve if you could get away with it."

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Nazis are not, and never have been, right wing. The confederates were not right wing, the KKK was not right wing, racism is not right wing.

The horseshoe theory is retarded, because it places literal leftist collectivists (Hitler and Stalin) that preached socialistic policies every day on opposite sides of a scale.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Nazis are not, and never have been, right wing. The confederates were not right wing, the KKK was not right wing, racism is not right wing.

The horseshoe theory is retarded, because it places literal leftist collectivists (Hitler and Stalin) that preached socialistic policies every day on opposite sides of a scale.

I put "Alt-Right" in quotes for a reason. Even then, tell so called Right-Wing people that. People are embracing collectivist ideology left and right center even embracing socialist policies as long as it benefits them. eh hem Family aid policies

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Nazis are not, and never have been, right wing. The confederates were not right wing, the KKK was not right wing, racism is not right wing.

The horseshoe theory is retarded, because it places literal leftist collectivists (Hitler and Stalin) that preached socialistic policies every day on opposite sides of a scale.

Supposedly, “tribalism”, “religion” or “racism” or being loyal to one country/people/area over the rest is “right wing”

Things like “Communism” reject stuff like there being different tribes, cultures, religions etc and say the difference is just between wealth

If you refuse to be a “citizen of the world” or “wider world”, odds are you would prioritize “your people” over everybody else even when it means war

Even “Family” is “right wing” and you’ll be loyal to them more than the “world” no matter what they do

It’s kinda like Ayn Rand’s ANTHEM, one of the worst sins you can do is have family and friends, to hold some people closer to your heart than others. Because that’s “selfish” and will lead you to hurting everybody else somehow




You know what else is “right wing”? Competition and “Hierarchy” both the enforced and competitive/interchangable kind

Slavery is “right wing” because one openly asserts he/she is “superior” to said slave

Just as Capitalism having employees is “right wing” because you’re the boss or officer of an employee and the higher up you go, the more you get paid. Sure an employee can go up but he has to follow orders rather than the equality or elevation being instant

Feudalism is also “right wing” for similar reasons to slavery, with less flexibility to Capitalism, the fact that people can INHERIT wealth gives some an advantage or headstart over others



Being “Left Wing” sort of “rejects” both the competitive and enforced “hierarchies” and insists that everybody be equal, not in rights of what one can do, but what one gets for “free”

All while ironically making a hierarchy of bureacrats and politicians and occasionally some “moderate businessmen” who all end up taking power



You must be loyal to the WORLD, not your country, you must be loyal to the STATE not your family and friends, you must be loyal to the COMMUNITY not your family and friends, you must be loyal to your so-called “FAMILY & FRIENDS” not yourself

If the state, your “family and friends” and “community” or even the “world government” are doing wrong, you are not allowed to be “selfish” and object to what they’re doing

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I put "Alt-Right" in quotes for a reason. Even then, tell so called Right-Wing people that. People are embracing collectivist ideology left and right center even embracing socialist policies as long as it benefits them. eh hem Family aid policies

Similarly to how the vast majority of left wing people have absolutely no idea what the underlying philosophy they're supporting is, the world is full of people too stupid and too lazy to even bother figuring out what they're saying and doing and why.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Supposedly, “tribalism”, “religion” or “racism” or being loyal to one country/people/area over the rest is “right wing”

Things like “Communism” reject stuff like there being different tribes, cultures, religions etc and say the difference is just between wealth

If you refuse to be a “citizen of the world” or “wider world”, odds are you would prioritize “your people” over everybody else even when it means war

Even “Family” is “right wing” and you’ll be loyal to them more than the “world” no matter what they do

It’s kinda like Ayn Rand’s ANTHEM, one of the worst sins you can do is have family and friends, to hold some people closer to your heart than others. Because that’s “selfish” and will lead you to hurting everybody else somehow




You know what else is “right wing”? Competition and “Hierarchy” both the enforced and competitive/interchangable kind

Slavery is “right wing” because one openly asserts he/she is “superior” to said slave

Just as Capitalism having employees is “right wing” because you’re the boss or officer of an employee and the higher up you go, the more you get paid. Sure an employee can go up but he has to follow orders rather than the equality or elevation being instant

Feudalism is also “right wing” for similar reasons to slavery, with less flexibility to Capitalism, the fact that people can INHERIT wealth gives some an advantage or headstart over others



Being “Left Wing” sort of “rejects” both the competitive and enforced “hierarchies” and insists that everybody be equal, not in rights of what one can do, but what one gets for “free”

All while ironically making a hierarchy of bureacrats and politicians and occasionally some “moderate businessmen” who all end up taking power



You must be loyal to the WORLD, not your country, you must be loyal to the STATE not your family and friends, you must be loyal to the COMMUNITY not your family and friends, you must be loyal to your so-called “FAMILY & FRIENDS” not yourself

If the state, your “family and friends” and “community” or even the “world government” are doing wrong, you are not allowed to be “selfish” and object to what they’re doing

Really the whole right-left wing thing is a very weak diconamy in this day and age. I'm very pro-family yet I reject the traditional form of hiarchy in the sense that I think nobody is above the law regardless of what thier bloodline or networth is nor do I think they have the right to just murder a person as they see fit, course granted I see that as a human nature problem not a specifically "Conservative problem"

 

[Cherico]

Really the whole right-left wing thing is a very weak diconamy in this day and age. I'm very pro-family yet I reject the traditional form of hiarchy in the sense that I think nobody is above the law regardless of what thier bloodline or networth is nor do I think they have the right to just murder a person as they see fit, course granted I see that as a human nature problem not a "Conservative problem"

The thing about people who are in favor of 'stability' is that what their into is the stability. If you can prove that X wont create chaos then they will be willing to tolerate it. If you prove that X thing that they thought would create stability instead makes things unstable they will be willing to get rid of it.

Over the years through trial and effort we have found out that rule of law where everyone is beholden to the same rule set creates more stability then royality or nobility so the stability people now really like it.

As much as the stability side of the triangle gets flack their actually more flexible then the equality side of the triangle who has been bashing their head up against the wall trying to make socialism work for over a 100 years now (and failing)

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The thing about people who are in favor of 'stability' is that what their into is the stability. If you can prove that X wont create chaos then they will be willing to tolerate it. If you prove that X thing that they thought would create stability instead makes things unstable they will be willing to get rid of it.

Over the years through trial and effort we have found out that rule of law where everyone is beholden to the same rule set creates more stability then royality or nobility so the stability people now really like it.

As much as the stability side of the triangle gets flack their actually more flexible then the equality side of the triangle who has been bashing their head up against the wall trying to make socialism work for over a 100 years now (and failing)

my problem with "Stability!tm" is I consider it a smoke and mirrors illusion propped up by elaborate holidays and fancy architecture (Not saying these things aren't great mind you. I love it when countries build stuff and throw parties) but I've said it many times before, if the dead could speak and bring every political conspiracy in the open light, most of us would be so afraid of being next on the chopping block we wouldin't leave our bed. Hence why something like the 2nd amendment is so important. Always be ready for the inevitable day the government betrays you.

But where as "Stability!tm" is an illusion "Equality!tm" is a straight up lie and becomes a case of "New boss same as the old boss."

 

[Cherico]

my problem with "Stability!tm" is I consider it a smoke and mirrors illusion propped up by elaborate holidays and fancy architecture (Not saying these things aren't great mind you. I love it when countries build stuff and throw parties) but I've said it many times before, if the dead could speak and bring every political conspiracy in the open light, most of us would be so afraid of being next on the chopping block we wouldin't leave our bed. Hence why something like the 2nd amendment is so important. Always be ready for the inevitable day the government betrays you.

But where as "Stability!tm" is an illusion "Equality!tm" is a straight up lie and becomes a case of "New boss same as the old boss."

Depends on your definition of stability, if you define it as things are not on fire then its a very real state.

As for your statement on the new boss same as the old boss, um no your wrong its new boss is considerably worse then the old boss when the communists take over.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Depends on your definition of stability, if you define it as things are not on fire then its a very real state.

As for your statement on the new boss same as the old boss, um no your wrong its new boss is considerably worse then the old boss when the communists take over

I think you'd be surprised how often things have been on fire. but as the old saying goes "If a tree falls but nobody here's it, did it make a sound?" Violent crime has actually been going down over the years overall.

depends on who your old boss is. Nobody really talks about how the elderly were killed along with the Jews during the holocaust, or how disabled children were murdered during the ancient times because they were "Deformed abominations" or how the scotch-irish were treated like garbage during the industrial revolution. Communism is bad because it shoves anybody who is not of the new ruling class into the same disposable outcast subclass as the demographics I mentioned above. But for some of us who have always been part of one or more of those three demographics, we go "Welcome to our world you must be new here."


Again there is a reason why us apps tend to only be collectivist in the most basic and loosest sense. We don't trust people overall nor have we ever had good reason to. There were reasons ,why family reunions fell out of favor among my own. We quickly learned why we didn't talk to these people regularly or even just every once in a while. We show enough collectivism to help a brother out, but if you think we'll sacrifice ourselves and our family just to help so theoretical no name just because the share the same skin color....uh no, not unless someone we trust will vouch for them.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Really the whole right-left wing thing is a very weak diconamy in this day and age. I'm very pro-family yet I reject the traditional form of hiarchy in the sense that I think nobody is above the law regardless of what thier bloodline or networth is nor do I think they have the right to just murder a person as they see fit, course granted I see that as a human nature problem not a specifically "Conservative problem"

Left right is nothing but Communism vs everything else. The right wing is objectively correct, the only decision that needs to be made is along the axis of patriotism vs individualism.

my problem with "Stability!tm" is I consider it a smoke and mirrors illusion propped up by elaborate holidays and fancy architecture (Not saying these things aren't great mind you. I love it when countries build stuff and throw parties) but I've said it many times before, if the dead could speak and bring every political conspiracy in the open light, most of us would be so afraid of being next on the chopping block we wouldin't leave our bed. Hence why something like the 2nd amendment is so important. Always be ready for the inevitable day the government betrays you.

But where as "Stability!tm" is an illusion "Equality!tm" is a straight up lie and becomes a case of "New boss same as the old boss."

"Stability doesnt exist!" he says from inside a government that has perpetuated itself for hundreds of years, inside a culture that has sustained itself in continuity for nearly a millennium.

You just don't know what the fuck Chaos is.

I think you'd be surprised how often things have been on fire. but as the old saying goes "If a tree falls but nobody here's it, did it make a sound?" Violent crime has actually been going down over the years overall.

If one house per month burns, the city isnt burning. If one tree per month falls, it isn't deforestation. Just because the damage is constant does not make it defining of the situation, because the scale is beneath a critical level.

depends on who your old boss is. Nobody really talks about how the elderly were killed along with the Jews during the holocaust, or how disabled children were murdered during the ancient times because they were "Deformed abominations" or how the scotch-irish were treated like garbage during the industrial revolution.

I do, often.

Communism is bad because it shoves anybody who is not of the new ruling class into the same disposable outcast subclass as the demographics I mentioned above. But for some of us who have always been part of one or more of those three demographics, we go "Welcome to our world you must be new here."

Wrong, communism is bad because it is non-functional, and spirals into mass genocide rapidly, not because "it has outcasts and subclasses" on the face of it.

Frankly I find your comparison to yourself to be a disgusting and arrogant position in a cartoonish extreme, but hey I'm sure you're posting from down town Tijuana and are nursing your third bullet wound of the evening.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Left right is nothing but Communism vs everything else. The right wing is objectively correct, the only decision that needs to be made is along the axis of patriotism vs individualism

which again is why I say the whole Right Wing Dichotomy is a weak one. your correct on the patriotism vs individualism but we are STARTING to see it devolve in the same kind of fighting we see the left participate end.

"Stability doesnt exist!" he says from inside a government that has perpetuated itself for hundreds of years, inside a culture that has sustained itself in continuity for nearly a millennium.

the Tori Persicution, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the American Indian conflicts, the American civil war. Pretty sure the stability of the government or culture meant nothing to those people as they watched their friends and as their families were assaulted or killed and their property was confiscated. Order is great till it decides to kill ya.

If one house per month burns, the city isn't burning. If one tree per month falls, it isn't deforestation. Just because the damage is constant does not make it defining of the situation, because the scale is beneath a critical level

only because it's not reported on or it doesn't hit close enough to home.

Summer of the Shark. In 2001 on the fourth of july weekend 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast was attacked by a shark, this got the attention of the media and was sensationalized to the point it got the name "The summer of the shark" turns out Shark attacks were no greater than they had ever been but, yet people were panicked into a frenzy to the point they were afraid to go on the beach. Granted Jessie still got bit and that obviously sucked, but imagine had people demanded the government closed down the beaches till the end of the summer for "People's safety." It should be pointed out that all the social issues are going on right now are in hyper-progressive areas. Your more conservative/libratarian areas are fuctioning just fine.

You just don't know what the fuck Chaos is

your right I don't, but I have been threatened by many so called alt-righters (Let me make on thing clear I don't consider these guys conservative) and they've given me all sorts of coulorful pictures of what they plan to do with people like me, and the threats match up with what history has shown, so I don't have any desire to give them the power to see those threats through. we've seen how the enemy of my enemy strategy has played out.

I do, often.

good we need more people like you, cause history books sure s heck don't.

Wrong, communism is bad because it is non-functional, and spirals into mass genocide rapidly, not because "it has outcasts and subclasses" on the face of it.

your not wrong, but I think your missing my point. What happens to those sub-classes? genocide property compencation, mass jailing. Communism does the same exact thing as your nationalist fascist does when it comes to the undesirables what makes communism is that more people gets labled as an invalid or an undesirable.

Frankly I find your comparison to yourself to be a disgusting and arrogant position in a cartoonish extreme, but hey I'm sure you're posting from down town Tijuana and are nursing your third bullet wound of the evening.

that's an oddly specific example. May I ask?

 

[King Krávoka]

These three core values are mutually exclusive.

There is no conflict between any of those abstractions and in fact the only reason why people say "we gotta sacrifice that point for that point" is because they're either deliberately edgy, or have calculated that it's a statement which will advance whatever horrible interests they have.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There is no conflict between any of those abstractions and in fact the only reason why people say "we gotta sacrifice that point for that point" is because they're either deliberately edgy, or have calculated that it's a statement which will advance whatever horrible interests they have.

thank you!

look...ultiamtly I'm not against society. We have a society, we have a government. I think it's working pretty well. In fact the cities that are burning are the cities who's mayors are not doing their job and yet I'm seeing people essentially trying to say "We got to throw the house with the bath water either for a commune or a maximum security fortress. For better or worse I question these kinds of peoples motives especially when they say "Either your with me or against me."

 

[Cherico]

There is no conflict between any of those abstractions and in fact the only reason why people say "we gotta sacrifice that point for that point" is because they're either deliberately edgy, or have calculated that it's a statement which will advance whatever horrible interests they have.

No there really is a conflict of interest between those three things they are inherently exclusionary when you hit a certain point.


Take Equality, if you have a stable government what will happen is that society will have a hierarchy, there will be people who are in charge and people with less power, you will get people giving their children inherited wealth giving them an advantage over a period of time.

If people are free then you will also have unequal outcomes because some people will make better decisions in life, some people will value different life styles with different results and people do not have the same inherent talent set which means some people will make more and less money and of course work ethic plays a massive role.

Both Stability and Freedom result in unequal results over the short and long term.

The only way to truly maximize equality is basically make every one equally poor, and have a system that is unstable and vicious where you never know who will be fucked over next. Of course in the long run this creates a whole lot of instability and the whole thing will crash and burn.

Most people thus do not want to maximize equality because holy fuck that goes badly.



Now stability, if you want to maximize stability your going to have to accept a hierarchy, your going to need lots of rules that are enforced with force. The more you maximize it the more oppressive your government has to become and the larger the separation between rich and poor.

This of course will eventally hit a tipping point and explode in rebellion when people see a moment of weakness.


With freedom well if you maximize freedom you get anarchy until some one plays warlord and it comes to and end.


All systems of government make trade offs between these three core values, most try to find some kind of balance that isn't self destructive. The worst thing that can happen in this system of trade offs is a bunch of self righteous assholes who think their way is the only way and they drive society off a cliff.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

No there really is a conflict of interest between those three things they are inherently exclusionary when you hit a certain point.


Take Equality, if you have a stable government what will happen is that society will have a hierarchy, there will be people who are in charge and people with less power, you will get people giving their children inherited wealth giving them an advantage over a period of time.

If people are free then you will also have unequal outcomes because some people will make better decisions in life, some people will value different life styles with different results and people do not have the same inherent talent set which means some people will make more and less money and of course work ethic plays a massive role.

Both Stability and Freedom result in unequal results over the short and long term.

The only way to truly maximize equality is basically make every one equally poor, and have a system that is unstable and vicious where you never know who will be fucked over next. Of course in the long run this creates a whole lot of instability and the whole thing will crash and burn.

Most people thus do not want to maximize equality because holy fuck that goes badly.



Now stability, if you want to maximize stability your going to have to accept a hierarchy, your going to need lots of rules that are enforced with force. The more you maximize it the more oppressive your government has to become and the larger the separation between rich and poor.

This of course will eventually hit a tipping point and explode in rebellion when people see a moment of weakness.


With freedom well if you maximize freedom you get anarchy until some one plays warlord and it comes to and end.


All systems of government make trade offs between these three core values, most try to find some kind of balance that isn't self destructive. The worst thing that can happen in this system of trade offs is a bunch of self righteous assholes who think their way is the only way and they drive society off a cliff.

I get what your saying, (hence the like) but at the same time, isn't that essentially saying that man is will always just self destruct once things play out to their natural conclusion? At that point you might as well just drain the system for all it's worth and then move on to the next one in which case....that's dismal.

Honestly I think it's got less to do with system itself and more to do with scale. People's worlds are limited by what they see, and tend to actomatically assume that people should or need to live like they do. Thing is no two territiories are ever alike and they all have thier different needs and desires. As a territory gets larger so does the rift and impersonation between people. It's always why massive empires inevtiablly fail regardless of their core values, because whether we like it or not, people are not clones, they are not the same. They may share stuff in common, but inevitably everyone needs and wants will be different.

 

[GodIsaSerb]

I'm having a hard time grasping the point of your philosophy. You call it "the truth behind the horseshoe theory" but then barely talk about the horseshoe theory only mentioning it once in passing in your essay. Here is the truth about the horseshoe theory: If you try to plot out political ideologies and it ends up looking like a horseshoe, its because you are either using the wrong metrics or incorrectly categorizing a group.

Your whole essay seems to hinge on the idea that the "Alt-Right" is actually right wing. I totally disagree with that assertion.

The American right-wing has ALWAYS been founded in the ideals of classical liberalism and its intense emphasis on Individualism. The American left is firmly centered around collectivism which is more than abundantly clear in its current fervor for identity politics.

The Alt-Right isn't right wing at all, the term was coined by the low IQ individual Richard Spencer who claims to cherish western civilization but just recently tweeted: "Hagia Sophia is a monument to *eternity*, not a museum to the past. Though I have mixed feelings on the matter, and on President Erdogan, I ultimately support the cathedral's transformation into a mosque and being put into the care of Muslims." The man is an unhinged quack who is just trying to fill any power vacuum he sees and the left wing media is more than happy to run with this name because it gives their base an enemy to fight and its easier than admitting that left wing ideology is once again eating itself alive.

I think the term Alt-Right is throwing you for a loop because you are taking it at face value. The Alt-Right is nothing more than a continuation of the ideology of the collectivist left because it is left wing. There is no horseshoe here. You have two groups of Authoritarian Collectivists who hate each other (Antifa/SJW/BLM vs "Alt-Right"/NeoNazis) and they hate each other because they are trying to occupy the same ground of left wing ideology.

Collectivism = Left-wing, Individualism = Right-wing, it seems you have a problem with the left and left-wing ideology. You're not dealing with a horseshoe you're dealing with a straight line. You're not caught in the middle between wolves and coyotes all your enemies are in one single place. I understand that you don't like collectivists, I don't either, but you aren't in the middle of a horseshoe.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@GodIsaSerb
What about all of these “traditional values” stuff that I’ve seen more “Religious Right” people and “Social Conservatives” online tout?

They really fucking want to have much of entertainment banned and force people into their nuclear family ideal