I’m new here, and I think this video is about to blow tf up. Maybe not in the next day, but definitely in the coming weeks. Bravo on even thinking and publishing a more sober and relatable idea towards how humans should view the political spectrum.
If you want this to go viral like Meyer Briggs did a decade ago, you have to include a list of real world examples (both recognizable movements and famous individuals) representative of each of the 16 possible outcome. Maybe a Part II of this video.
There is a lot more I could have said and maybe the scheme needs extensive revision or even tearing up completely and starting again. The main point may not be anything I said but just the idea that a new political vocabulary is needed.
Well, left, in Latin, means literally the _sinister side._ The same, to be right-minded means to be sound-minded, to _uphold_ moral virtues. In other words, there is such thing as an _absolute_ left, an _absolute_ right. Right-ness itself. Left-ness itself. Catch more than a hint of this from a study of the Kabbalah. Think of Darth Vader. He turned to the dark side of the Force! The Force has two sides. The circle of infinity divided in half. Like day and night. See, in addition, Pythagoras' Table Of Contraries, given in Aristotle.
Commendable and instantly applicable work. The reason of course that it takes a 'Dark Age Theorist' to sit down and do it is that the simplistic dichotomy of 'Left' and 'Right' is a useful paradigm for the Career Politician to use in his own interest; a simple, easily manipulated set of abstract ideas that are so low in resolution, that they are and are designed to be in effect, meaningless. Delving into your Table and its own dichotomies should confront the reader with the fundamental conundrum; that we are only 'Black' OR 'White' at an Ego level. Trying to pick one paradigm or the other in each criteria should pose its own set of problems to the thoughtful reader; "well, i agree with that but i see its flaws and also see the merit of its 'opposite' position." Here lies the key; we are all both Individual and Collective in nature. In Jung's 'Approaching the Unconscious ' he writes of the nature of Society in terms of it comprising of individuals. If those individuals are divided within themselves, they produce a divided Society that will be weakened and susceptible to Collective Pathologies, just as the psychically weakened Individual is susceptible to mental illness. This of course exposes both the Individual and the Collective to Predatory behaviour by those in Political power. What must be overcome is the limited paradigm of the dichotomy itself at the Individual level in order to produce a Society of 'wholeness' rather than one of division which is so easily manipulated. We are Black AND White and must recognize and embrace this to overcome the inner division which creates outer division. We should be aiming to put Politicians out of a job. They are doing untold harm to Civilization precisely becsuse we, in our weakened state, allow them to. Great work as ever Mr Widdowson.
Great video & discussion topic! I like to think of everyone (including myself) as sovereign beings. I like the voluntarist model.. building & maintaining a thriving & creative society…
Thank you for your research and efforts in presenting a different reframing of political styles. Your explanations were clear and the structural topology, however open to revision, nevertheless aids in understanding the depth and breadth of political thought, from CVNA to IBNT. Would be interesting to see the distribution of styles over time particularly with changing demographics, resource constraints, climate change, etc. Personally much to favor critical nuance over blind zeal under the luxury and privilege of civil discourse.
We’re playing it real fast and loose w the terms economic producer. As far as I’m concerned, the workers are the economic producers (that have not reaped the enormous growth in productivity/worker by the suppressive hands of the boomer managerial class) and the shareholders are a rentier class of unearned income. So what one calls unfair redistribution another will call just. Additionally the reaganite free market is anything but free, it is a policy purchased by the corporate oligarchy that enforces little regulation on itself and tremendous regulation on its competitors
These are always very interesting and intellectually accessible to a humble vagabond philosopher. I might add, for your consideration, that re"public" and "demo-(people)-cracy" are also "people" oriented labels of governmental styles. So even the gov styles we are oriented to are based on "people." Cheers.
Generalization. All these makes it simple to polarize, expose to stupidity, involve emotion... hunt for mistake. "Thinking is ignorance." - Socrates "Ideology is blinding." - Plato "All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George E. P. Box Know your bias. Get experienced in your way instead of competing in 'rats race city'. Mind the matter, for information is thing. PS. When you get into a deep end, it (logos) sums up to 8 variations/combinations. Note, isms are merely One.
I think that some people may well be very ambigous in their profile as you may try to lay it out. I find that some people who are thought to be very individualistic actually conform very much to a group think and group action.That is to say that much of their successes much is due to their conformity to state and "public" goals and they are very much helped along their way, while they may uphold the illusion of being so clever, fantastic, inventive, selfmade and driven by themselves.
Interesting video man, and such a helpful scheme too. But according to that, someone like me will be in Individualist-Private-Intrinsic-Ambi category, which is just quite weird IMO 😅
That sounds like the best category. I have to admit I veer rather too much to the Public side of things and (not proud) haven't helped many blind people across the road. Otherwise, I'm with you.
I too am all in on every single category you mentioned.. however it is not “weird “ as far as I am concerned. The insanity and absurdity of the other options, and also recognizing them in society today and for the last several decades of my life has continued to bring about concern for the overall state of Western civilization in my estimation.. the recipe on the others side is that of suffering and atrocities.. unnecessary risks, and suicide.
@@DarkAgeTheorist Hello sir, and good day to you. I mean, it's just a bit uncanny that my political orientation could be labeled as humanist (in an interesting, surprising way of course). Because, outside of the political stuff, the truth is that I'm just your average nihilistic, sigma-male memes enjoyer, blackpilled doomer; thus certainly far from such rugged, competent, freedom-loving individual and such 😬 But I guess it is interesting to have a case where someone's political orientation, which in this case calls for at least above average life competency, is quite at odds with his incongruous daily life as a low status, economically precarious guy... 🤔
@@kevinlawler3252 Maybe that humanist orientation is normal for a more competent person, but not quite so for a blackpill overdosed, low status, doomer guy like me man 😅. Plus, I'm from one of the so-called global south countries thus that kind of political orientation is definitely quite uncommon among the general populus. Collectivist and extrinsic strands are generally the dominant ones, I guess, at least for the boomers. But the young folks that I know can be evently split among private/public axis. And the external/internal thing is, more often than not, seemed to be influenced by the socio-economic class of their families and their ethnic backgrounds IMO. And what I think interesting is that some certain ethnic groups in this country definitely hold internal values, eventough those folks are stereotyped as the less prosperous people than the others... 🤔
@kingofnone8565 For sure. It’s all just a damn nightmare… all of it is just a communist caste system. I recognized as a child how ignorant most people were, and even as a child I knew there would be repercussions for such idiocy.. and I was right. Take care out there.
YES, Myers-Briggs! It's funny how everyone says the Big Five is more scientific, but the CIA uses Myers-Briggs to evaluate personalities and people. Glad to see another Myers-Briggs enjoyer.
Imagine thinking the CIA haven't used narrative control, psy ops & weaponized culture creation since WWII to portray an image of knowing what they're doing...
@BuceGar Imagine writing a comment here talking about the theatrical thespian & acting roles the C Eye A routinely engages in only to come back & find it's deleted Illuminate confirm N W O strikes back Flak over the target
Glad to see somebody is coming up with much needed clarity and terminology of current political leanings. The left and right divide is long overdue to be put into the trashcan of history.
Agreed, but I don't think a new conceptual framework for political leanings is at all helpful, there's just liberalism and we can only hope for a fourth political theory to emerge in full, as it stands there's nothing _outside_ this ideological monolith even if individual concerns vary within it.
Really like this idea. Unfortunately, it takes more than a minute of thought, so im not sure it will catch on😑 Id recommend going to Latin or Esperanto for ideas regarding abbreviations. Also, (as someone else said) historical examples would make things much more digestible for those outside of political study/theory
Nice thoughts and work, I think you're on the right track. I'll have to think about whether my critical reactions are due to my political style or actually finding better dichotomies. One thought is that, in Myersbriggs, my understanding is that each pair of letters is a continuum such that you can be 60% extroverted, 90% sensing, and so on. This might assuage the last objection you mentioned.
Nice video and paradigm. I enjoyed you decor as well. One note: the political compass test (the originator of the model that yours aime to replace) has a major issue, which is that the writing of the questions and criteria reveals the bias of the writers, such that almost everyone who takes the test ends up in the lib-left quadrant. A similar yet opposite bias is apparent in your work such that a contemporary communist would likely have a hard time identifying with Collectivist or Extrinsic as written
The history of how things came into being is contentious. Take former MP Andy Wightman's history of Scotland, for example, as described in his books Who Owns Scotland and The Poor Did Not Have Lawyers. He tries to trace the origin of many of the huge land holdings in Scotland, going back as far as he can.
Nice video. I have another thought. People who want equality might know they would prosper under freedom aswell, if they also took evil decisions. So they choose to work for public well being because they are good people, who could succeed if they had no empathy.
It seems to me a key issue today that the adoption of a new culture is the key to rule by an oligarchy spread across the government, bureaucracy and commercial organisations too. Families and early schooling, for instance, provide certain values (and a diversity of ethnic and religious tenets therein), but elevation into a university/college caste produces a homogeneity of moral and political culture that matches the path requires to enter the echelons managing and directing the societies. I think this is a more powerful evolution of traditional class structures than returning to a taxonomy of types. It is still a little Gramscian on the other hand, though I believe in the modern period Bourdieu was most precise.
04:05 The Historical dichotomy of left and right was between hierarchy and equality, not between conservative and progress. You say "have come to mean" but a moment's reflection (For example, on abortion rights in America) discovers that 'right-wing' people can demand change, and are thus 'progressive', whereas the left-wing can want to keep things more equal are conservative. One may equivocate and call abortion bans 'regressive' but the point is that progressive means CHANGING what exists and conservative means PRESERVING what exists, this is independent from equality and hierarchy.
When talking of a historical dichotomy, why do you mention current politics? The historical dichotomy, originating from the French Revolution, is between progress and conservation of progress already achieved, between advancing the revolution and maintaining the success already advanced. There is no capacity within this framework for changes in a rightward direction, aside from those that secure changes already achieved by the left-wing. For example, in the French Revolution those who sat on the left of the Assembly wanted a republic while those who sat on the right of the chamber wanted a constitutional monarchy. While those on the right did want to have some form of change, it was only to lock-in the change that had already been achieved, and not for the sake of the specific change itself. Following the Bourbon Restoration, there emerged a faction of those who wished to return to a more traditional conception of France - the ultra-royalists, called such as they were more royalist than the king - but these are beyond the left-right paradigm. This example you present here is an example of how the old dichotomy is breaking down and is now less relevant.
@@whitehawk4099 are you responding to me or to the author of the video? In other words; Do you agree (as I think you do,) that the left right dichotomy does not map onto progressive and conservative?
I agree that it is stupid to think of it in terms of desiring change, certainly the most 'right-wing' groups currently want the most systemic and far reaching change, in leadership, policies, and so on. But progress was never change for the sake of it, but rather a question of teleology, so it's only 'progressive' essentially if jewish activists get what they want, while it is 'regressive' for anyone else to get what they want when it doesn't align with this desire. In the past this was more attached to the concerns of wider groups and ideological modernist factions, and in the Anglosphere to, well, Anglos, but over time it's now really just a manner of speaking in terms of people with big schnozers getting what they want.
@@christinecortese9973 I think the point was rather that the 'right', whatever that is, can be opposed to the status quo and demand change, in this case it was the transfer of union decrees to the judgement of states. The 'left' wing of the regime wanted to keep the baby slaughter factories enforced all across America, which was the previous standard.
The situation of parties and unions is the situation of any strongly centralized structure. Robert Michels wrote a book in 1911, "Political Parties", in which he analyzed how any centralized structure turns into a mafia and called this tendency "the iron lawa of oligarchy". For their decentralization, the organizational law should specify that decisions must be taken with the approval of the majority of members, their management only having the role of coming up with proposals to solve various problems. The bad part is that the corrupt parties transfer this corruption to the state administration and therefore the whole state will become corrupt
It's a chart of world history that I bought in France over 20 years ago. The vertical axis is time from 3000 BC to AD 2000, while the horizontal axis is space from America to China, and it shows the civilisation/culture/empire prevailing at each place and time. I'm not at home right now and cannot remember the name of the creator (an internet search doesn't turn it up). I'll edit this comment with the details when I get back.
All big systems at some point become divided by 2 factions. Competition cleans most and force other parties join most popular two. American elections is a good example where 3rd party candidate didnt have any chance and embraced other candidate from one of two remaining parties.
In Germany where we have a multiparty system we always had two big parties and the smaller parties only had a chance as a partner. With Angela Merkel the two biggest parties formed a coalition and now the divide seems to be everyone vs that one new right wing party.
Bravo, it's clever. I think it is pretty much a rhetorical tool to sell the IVNA viewpoint, however, with which I already agree. Maybe the value of the old quadrant diagram is in its existence as a launching point for your dimensions. Or for other individuals to imagine their own.
Sell the IVNA "viewpoint" ?? Forget the "NA", the patient needs to be put on IV just to make it through the night. Who are they selling this stuff to ?
I think you are right that left and right are defunct, and it is a noble cause to come up with a new schema or vocabulary. However I believe that, on the whole, your 4 axes, or at least the first three of them, are basically the same ie individualist versus social. I think another approach that may be fruitful would be to consider issues, such as protection of children, levels of taxation, degree of social control etc etc etc, I suggest starting with around 20 - 30 policy areas and see how they cluster in the minds of electors, to come up with clusters of policy preferences, and then to apply the analysis after discovering the lie of the land rather than starting with the theory and then fitting political movements into it, just a thought. Anyway I am different from the Bushmen because I would have been grateful for the bull he slaughtered for me! Does that make me extrinsic?! Or just gracious?!! Thank you for doing this great video when there are so many establishment videos out there enforcing the ideology that we are trapped in a left-right struggle.
Not bad but I think the political triangle is still the best. Three points based on the three modes of economic activity. Hierarchy, family, and trade.
No, thank you. Theories are tools not truths. I don't want just one tool in my toolbox. The political triangle is neat and I myself have a bias towards 3-dimensional models. But here I tried to emulate the 4-dimensional approach of Myers-Briggs. If you don't get anything from it, that's fine for you, but don't expect me to restrict myself to what satisfies your mind.
@@DarkAgeTheorist I like your content bro. Im simply saying your wrong, not trying to restrict you, im not the government. exactly the same way that you put yourself on the internet, expect to be criticized.
Just last week I was thinking about the Federalist Party and its ability to possibly override the nonsense dividing the parties and the public and get to real issues like rights of individual states, national spending and even regional development. The issues that seem to divide the parties today are almost nonsensical
Interesting but... as I delve deeper into this thought, I can't help thinking that these binary frameworks are the problem that needs solving. Let's not give them the opportunity to divide and conquer.
The model feels like it was made from the perspective of the Telegraph - if that makes sense ? Like, it feels as though you've come up with four axes, each of which has a 'responsible, hardworking' end and then a 'morally weak' end. All I'm saying is that this political model feels biased - which isn't a criticism against you, it's just natural; e.g. I would advocate a central axis of authoritarian-anarchist, solely because that is the political rhetoric I'm most familiar with, and I'm sure a Nazi would advocate something that would align with their belief too !
@@rextopher Point is that supposed materialists are afraid of genetic determination, group selection and hard data regarding that. You can disinherit as many people as you want, inequality will remain.
Oi. If they don’t consider genetics, they aint materialists. If they think that they have a god’s-eye-view based on genetics, they’re full of shit and likely trying to claim intellectual dominance based on science they don’t really understand. No one has yet quantified the degree of influence of nature vs nurture. Just as someone with “tall genes” can have their growth stunted, someone with “smart genes” can have their intellectual development stunted. So tell me, what are these genetics conclusions you have sorted out? Honestly, we all agree that left/right is an oversimplification….. but this seems like an attempt to launder shades of right wing extremism. This guy seems to want to give cover to moderate fascism.
Many Europeans view Left & Right differently. They view Right as pro-government, and Left as against government. I don’t care for this model as one’s stance changes with changes in government.
I am intrinsic (but still believe the system is rigged and decadent and there's a need for a better one), both invidualistic and collectivist (watching for our souls while also honoring the collective identity), certain (without executing or imprisonment, letting opposition carry on to the ideal society) and somewhere between private and public (without libertarian thing of minimum government role) I guess I might be somewhere between radical, fundamentalist, extremist, tribal and perhaps outlaw. In better times I might have just been a nationalist or a patriot, but to me the current system is beyond saving.
No this is such a bad idea in such obvious ways, that this video could serve as the canonical example of it. The only outcome here is that the groups favored by power get to freeze a dynamic process. Left and Right works because it is the minimal set of labels that yields a semantic free relational space. It is actually a good thing that the labels can't be interpreted without the proper historical context. Object semantics are part of the political struggle i.e. the phenomenon to be explained. How do you think it will play out if the observer decides the outcome? The shape of the shadow of their biases cast.That's it, that's the entire report
Lol, but therein lies the seductive allure of the 'canonical example.' It reifies the ephemeral, ossifying the flux of discourse into a static monument. Your 'semantic free relational space' is but a mirage, a fleeting oasis in the desert of signification. Power, dear interlocutor, is not a benevolent observer, but a puppeteer, its strings woven into the very fabric of language. To 'freeze a dynamic process' is to embrace the illusion of control, to deny the inherent mutability of meaning. The 'shape of the shadow' is not cast by bias alone, but by the very act of observation, collapsing the wave function of possibility into a singular, predetermined outcome.
I don't see how it's possible to focus on what affects you privately without shaping things publicly in many circumstances. The example of immigration I think illustrates this point. Using your example, you state roughly that privately, it would be to focus on yourself and assume everyone else is doing the same thing "presumably" for a good, but that is a joke position considering this was something that only really took place under homogenous societies. So of course, today you'd want to shape things publicly and prevent such dramatic demographic change even though the end game would be for a private instance. You also stated they have more modest and realistic goals. At what point does a private view become the modest and realistic goal top shape things publicly or in a public view? In otherwards, you simply cannot stay thinking privately if another group of people show up and start shaking things up. Also, I'm typically against Myer's Briggs as a general idea even though you did explain why you took inspiration from their framework. I prefer newer and far more explanatory ways in neurotyping when looking to personality. Anyways, welcome back.
The left and right paradigm comes BEFORE the French revolution, where the King (today the State) had two consultants, one for conserving the state and another for providing innovation or commending innovation. This paradigm was later copied to the french revolution national assembly. Since I don't remember the text that I read about it (please not mistaken this for any sort of lie; I was a deep reader in my youth), please take it with a grain a salt. Eventually if it is true, it will be located in online libraries or even scanned by an AI.
Yes, politics only make sense within the tribe, the in-group, just as debate and all the rest of it only applies to the interior. The current crop of very iudaic Western regimes do not have any sort of political representation for European, or those of that descent, because organised communities of such are more or less illegal, effectively or formally. Like how every senator in America has a jewish handler but there is no White American representative group looking out for White interests.
This is nicely paired with TIKHistories recent video on the shared origin of the political philosophies fascism & communist totalitarianism They all come from Platonic, Hermetic, gnostic dialectics
I see it as center is conservative family oriented while far right is libertarian and far left is liberal both being extremist views. With the center conservative being focused more on moral and ethical virtues economically and politically.
Fascism and Communism may share aspects of political style, but that is all they share and I'd say such comparisons are irrelevant. Fox is a liberal, as are all of our politicians now and in the last few decades, maybe with the odd exception.
As always, you've made an extremely interesting video here. However, I have a criticism of your approach. I don't think that the four axes you've created are really independent of one another. In other words, you must admit that people with individualist attitudes (as you define them) will have a strong tendency to be private-oriented in their concerns, have an intrinsic attitude to life and to tolerate ambiguity (again, as you define these things) and that those with collectivist attitudes will almost certainly also be public-oriented, have extrinsic responses to how they meet their goals and will demand certainty and not tolerate disagreement or straying from orthodoxy. It would be highly unusual, for example, to find someone who, in your terms, is a private-oriented collectivist who tends to respond to challenges intrinsically but who demands certainty in all things and is dogmatic. Your chart said that such a person would be a religious fundamentalist, but is that really true? Wouldn’t a fundamentalist want to convert others to his religion, making him public-oriented, and wouldn’t such a person insist that his own success depends on the will of God, giving him an extrinsic attitude to his goals? I don’t know that there even are such people as private-oriented collectivists who tend to respond to challenges intrinsically but who demand certainty in all things. These axes' lack of genuine independence from one another indicates that there's some sort of deeper phenomenon or phenomena that underlie them and that you aren't able to get at. I don't think that your classification scheme gets at what the real and most fundamental political differences between people spring from. To be honest with you, I think that the old left/right division - understood as an orientation toward either egalitarianism or hierarchy, respectively - probably does that better than your scheme does.
Not sure that's true. I originally had a discussion of that but in the end I chose not to include it so as not to distract from the basic point. Like I said, this is just an outline.
9:30 defining self interest as significant in politics is so short sighted. A celibate monk isn't self interested. A communist heir to a fortune isn't self interested. We can live outside our own limited perspective and have an understanding.
It doesn't have to be economic self-interest. The Communist heir to a fortune could be holding those views because they get praise for it, or it makes them feel virtuous. That's still self-interest, even if it's not material.
I’m new here, and I think this video is about to blow tf up. Maybe not in the next day, but definitely in the coming weeks. Bravo on even thinking and publishing a more sober and relatable idea towards how humans should view the political spectrum.
Yes! You're back.
Welcome back!
He does quality rather than quantity.
If you want this to go viral like Meyer Briggs did a decade ago, you have to include a list of real world examples (both recognizable movements and famous individuals) representative of each of the 16 possible outcome. Maybe a Part II of this video.
He seems like he wouldn't care to go viral. This is like telling a band, if you want to blow up on TikTok..... That's not everyone's goal.
There is a lot more I could have said and maybe the scheme needs extensive revision or even tearing up completely and starting again. The main point may not be anything I said but just the idea that a new political vocabulary is needed.
@@DarkAgeTheoristreally appreciate your channel and engagement brother, 🙏🏻🙇🏻
@@Jaggerbush I was proposing a way of doing it which I could imagine DAT actually enjoying.
@@jacobshell8612 ummm.. ok
This explains so much of today's events. I appreciate learning from you.
We are moving beyond the old Left v Right paradigm.
Since the end of WW2, once the "Progressive" Not Sees suddenly became "Right-Wing," the term is meaningless.
Well, left, in Latin, means literally the _sinister side._ The same, to be right-minded means to be sound-minded, to _uphold_ moral virtues.
In other words, there is such thing as an _absolute_ left, an _absolute_ right. Right-ness itself. Left-ness itself. Catch more than a hint of this from a study of the Kabbalah.
Think of Darth Vader. He turned to the dark side of the Force! The Force has two sides. The circle of infinity divided in half. Like day and night.
See, in addition, Pythagoras' Table Of Contraries, given in Aristotle.
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858did you forget to take your meds
Jews.
@@marcanton5357Shut it down!
Commendable and instantly applicable work. The reason of course that it takes a 'Dark Age Theorist' to sit down and do it is that the simplistic dichotomy of 'Left' and 'Right' is a useful paradigm for the Career Politician to use in his own interest; a simple, easily manipulated set of abstract ideas that are so low in resolution, that they are and are designed to be in effect, meaningless. Delving into your Table and its own dichotomies should confront the reader with the fundamental conundrum; that we are only 'Black' OR 'White' at an Ego level. Trying to pick one paradigm or the other in each criteria should pose its own set of problems to the thoughtful reader; "well, i agree with that but i see its flaws and also see the merit of its 'opposite' position." Here lies the key; we are all both Individual and Collective in nature. In Jung's 'Approaching the Unconscious ' he writes of the nature of Society in terms of it comprising of individuals. If those individuals are divided within themselves, they produce a divided Society that will be weakened and susceptible to Collective Pathologies, just as the psychically weakened Individual is susceptible to mental illness. This of course exposes both the Individual and the Collective to Predatory behaviour by those in Political power. What must be overcome is the limited paradigm of the dichotomy itself at the Individual level in order to produce a Society of 'wholeness' rather than one of division which is so easily manipulated. We are Black AND White and must recognize and embrace this to overcome the inner division which creates outer division. We should be aiming to put Politicians out of a job. They are doing untold harm to Civilization precisely becsuse we, in our weakened state, allow them to. Great work as ever Mr Widdowson.
Thank you for another amazing video. Your channel is one of a kind!
Good to see you back in your book-lined lair.
Top Channel
Spot on
Hell, yeah. I love this guy. Super informative!
Great video & discussion topic!
I like to think of everyone (including myself) as sovereign beings. I like the voluntarist model.. building & maintaining a thriving & creative society…
Society is what we decide to make of it
Thank you for your research and efforts in presenting a different reframing of political styles. Your explanations were clear and the structural topology, however open to revision, nevertheless aids in understanding the depth and breadth of political thought, from CVNA to IBNT. Would be interesting to see the distribution of styles over time particularly with changing demographics, resource constraints, climate change, etc. Personally much to favor critical nuance over blind zeal under the luxury and privilege of civil discourse.
I would gladly support this channel financially. Great content, as always.
Always a stimulating conversation when you post sir. Thank you sincerely
Great to see you back.
Will be rewatching! Much needed content ❤thank you
One can really feel the currents of mercury returning. A new political typpology is born.
Jews.
Please make more content if time allows. This channel is easily one of the best on YT.
Thank you, sir.
Excellent break-down.
Your sigma rizz never ceases to amaze me.
Wow! Great stuff… most podcasts focus on an endless list of symptoms. You get right to the root cause.
Your videos are always worth the wait!
We’re playing it real fast and loose w the terms economic producer. As far as I’m concerned, the workers are the economic producers (that have not reaped the enormous growth in productivity/worker by the suppressive hands of the boomer managerial class) and the shareholders are a rentier class of unearned income. So what one calls unfair redistribution another will call just. Additionally the reaganite free market is anything but free, it is a policy purchased by the corporate oligarchy that enforces little regulation on itself and tremendous regulation on its competitors
do you not believe in capital markets? Are all shareholders bad? Should we have the state choose who gets funding for a particular enterprise?
Watching this at nearly 23:00 hrs. It’s the perfect wind down before sleep!!
Well done. Much more thorough way to think about overly-simplistic labels. Thank you.
Brilliant Classification!
Yaaayyy 🎉 always look forward to your videos they are brain rot repellent
These are always very interesting and intellectually accessible to a humble vagabond philosopher. I might add, for your consideration, that re"public" and "demo-(people)-cracy" are also "people" oriented labels of governmental styles. So even the gov styles we are oriented to are based on "people." Cheers.
Finally. Exactly what I needed.
this year is an embarrassment of riches for us dark age bros
Excellent break down. Thanks
This is so good. A real contribution that I will use. Thanks!
Let's put the FUN back in fundamentalism!
Appreciate you providing a framework to help to lift the discussion to a higher bandwidth
Jews.
Generalization. All these makes it simple to polarize, expose to stupidity, involve emotion... hunt for mistake.
"Thinking is ignorance." - Socrates
"Ideology is blinding." - Plato
"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George E. P. Box
Know your bias. Get experienced in your way instead of competing in 'rats race city'.
Mind the matter, for information is thing.
PS.
When you get into a deep end, it (logos) sums up to 8 variations/combinations.
Note, isms are merely One.
Nah
Jews.
Lets hear more about this.
I love your elegant schemas
Amazing breakdown. 💪🙏
Brilliant good to see you back with another great vid
Brilliant. This is the way.
I think that some people may well be very ambigous in their profile as you may try to lay it out. I find that some people who are thought to be very individualistic actually conform very much to a group think and group action.That is to say that much of their successes much is due to their conformity to state and "public" goals and they are very much helped along their way, while they may uphold the illusion of being so clever, fantastic, inventive, selfmade and driven by themselves.
Thanks
Interesting video man, and such a helpful scheme too.
But according to that, someone like me will be in Individualist-Private-Intrinsic-Ambi category, which is just quite weird IMO 😅
That sounds like the best category. I have to admit I veer rather too much to the Public side of things and (not proud) haven't helped many blind people across the road. Otherwise, I'm with you.
I too am all in on every single category you mentioned.. however it is not “weird “ as far as I am concerned.
The insanity and absurdity of the other options, and also recognizing them in society today and for the last several decades of my life has continued to bring about concern for the overall state of Western civilization in my estimation.. the recipe on the others side is that of suffering and atrocities.. unnecessary risks, and suicide.
@@DarkAgeTheorist
Hello sir, and good day to you.
I mean, it's just a bit uncanny that my political orientation could be labeled as humanist (in an interesting, surprising way of course). Because, outside of the political stuff, the truth is that I'm just your average nihilistic, sigma-male memes enjoyer, blackpilled doomer; thus certainly far from such rugged, competent, freedom-loving individual and such 😬
But I guess it is interesting to have a case where someone's political orientation, which in this case calls for at least above average life competency, is quite at odds with his incongruous daily life as a low status, economically precarious guy... 🤔
@@kevinlawler3252 Maybe that humanist orientation is normal for a more competent person, but not quite so for a blackpill overdosed, low status, doomer guy like me man 😅.
Plus, I'm from one of the so-called global south countries thus that kind of political orientation is definitely quite uncommon among the general populus.
Collectivist and extrinsic strands are generally the dominant ones, I guess, at least for the boomers.
But the young folks that I know can be evently split among private/public axis. And the external/internal thing is, more often than not, seemed to be influenced by the socio-economic class of their families and their ethnic backgrounds IMO.
And what I think interesting is that some certain ethnic groups in this country definitely hold internal values, eventough those folks are stereotyped as the less prosperous people than the others... 🤔
@kingofnone8565
For sure.
It’s all just a damn nightmare… all of it is just a communist caste system. I recognized as a child how ignorant most people were, and even as a child I knew there would be repercussions for such idiocy.. and I was right. Take care out there.
YES, Myers-Briggs! It's funny how everyone says the Big Five is more scientific, but the CIA uses Myers-Briggs to evaluate personalities and people. Glad to see another Myers-Briggs enjoyer.
Imagine thinking the CIA know what they're doing.
Imagine thinking the CIA haven't used narrative control, psy ops & weaponized culture creation since WWII to portray an image of knowing what they're doing...
imagine thinking you think you know what the cia is doing
@BuceGar Imagine writing a comment here talking about the theatrical thespian & acting roles the C Eye A routinely engages in only to come back & find it's deleted
Illuminate confirm
N W O strikes back
Flak over the target
@@cymbolic_space1832 Oooooo spoopy
Glad to see somebody is coming up with much needed clarity and terminology of current political leanings. The left and right divide is long overdue to be put into the trashcan of history.
Agreed, but I don't think a new conceptual framework for political leanings is at all helpful, there's just liberalism and we can only hope for a fourth political theory to emerge in full, as it stands there's nothing _outside_ this ideological monolith even if individual concerns vary within it.
Really like this idea. Unfortunately, it takes more than a minute of thought, so im not sure it will catch on😑
Id recommend going to Latin or Esperanto for ideas regarding abbreviations. Also, (as someone else said) historical examples would make things much more digestible for those outside of political study/theory
Nice thoughts and work, I think you're on the right track. I'll have to think about whether my critical reactions are due to my political style or actually finding better dichotomies. One thought is that, in Myersbriggs, my understanding is that each pair of letters is a continuum such that you can be 60% extroverted, 90% sensing, and so on. This might assuage the last objection you mentioned.
Nice video and paradigm. I enjoyed you decor as well. One note: the political compass test (the originator of the model that yours aime to replace) has a major issue, which is that the writing of the questions and criteria reveals the bias of the writers, such that almost everyone who takes the test ends up in the lib-left quadrant. A similar yet opposite bias is apparent in your work such that a contemporary communist would likely have a hard time identifying with Collectivist or Extrinsic as written
The history of how things came into being is contentious. Take former MP Andy Wightman's history of Scotland, for example, as described in his books Who Owns Scotland and The Poor Did Not Have Lawyers. He tries to trace the origin of many of the huge land holdings in Scotland, going back as far as he can.
Nice video. I have another thought. People who want equality might know they would prosper under freedom aswell, if they also took evil decisions. So they choose to work for public well being because they are good people, who could succeed if they had no empathy.
It seems to me a key issue today that the adoption of a new culture is the key to rule by an oligarchy spread across the government, bureaucracy and commercial organisations too. Families and early schooling, for instance, provide certain values (and a diversity of ethnic and religious tenets therein), but elevation into a university/college caste produces a homogeneity of moral and political culture that matches the path requires to enter the echelons managing and directing the societies. I think this is a more powerful evolution of traditional class structures than returning to a taxonomy of types. It is still a little Gramscian on the other hand, though I believe in the modern period Bourdieu was most precise.
04:05 The Historical dichotomy of left and right was between hierarchy and equality, not between conservative and progress. You say "have come to mean" but a moment's reflection (For example, on abortion rights in America) discovers that 'right-wing' people can demand change, and are thus 'progressive', whereas the left-wing can want to keep things more equal are conservative.
One may equivocate and call abortion bans 'regressive' but the point is that progressive means CHANGING what exists and conservative means PRESERVING what exists, this is independent from equality and hierarchy.
When talking of a historical dichotomy, why do you mention current politics?
The historical dichotomy, originating from the French Revolution, is between progress and conservation of progress already achieved, between advancing the revolution and maintaining the success already advanced.
There is no capacity within this framework for changes in a rightward direction, aside from those that secure changes already achieved by the left-wing. For example, in the French Revolution those who sat on the left of the Assembly wanted a republic while those who sat on the right of the chamber wanted a constitutional monarchy. While those on the right did want to have some form of change, it was only to lock-in the change that had already been achieved, and not for the sake of the specific change itself. Following the Bourbon Restoration, there emerged a faction of those who wished to return to a more traditional conception of France - the ultra-royalists, called such as they were more royalist than the king - but these are beyond the left-right paradigm.
This example you present here is an example of how the old dichotomy is breaking down and is now less relevant.
@@whitehawk4099 are you responding to me or to the author of the video? In other words; Do you agree (as I think you do,) that the left right dichotomy does not map onto progressive and conservative?
I agree that it is stupid to think of it in terms of desiring change, certainly the most 'right-wing' groups currently want the most systemic and far reaching change, in leadership, policies, and so on. But progress was never change for the sake of it, but rather a question of teleology, so it's only 'progressive' essentially if jewish activists get what they want, while it is 'regressive' for anyone else to get what they want when it doesn't align with this desire. In the past this was more attached to the concerns of wider groups and ideological modernist factions, and in the Anglosphere to, well, Anglos, but over time it's now really just a manner of speaking in terms of people with big schnozers getting what they want.
Abortions weren’t banned at all, the authority was just changed from Federal to State. Abortions are still widely available.
@@christinecortese9973 I think the point was rather that the 'right', whatever that is, can be opposed to the status quo and demand change, in this case it was the transfer of union decrees to the judgement of states.
The 'left' wing of the regime wanted to keep the baby slaughter factories enforced all across America, which was the previous standard.
Well done.
The situation of parties and unions is the situation of any strongly centralized structure. Robert Michels wrote a book in 1911, "Political Parties", in which he analyzed how any centralized structure turns into a mafia and called this tendency "the iron lawa of oligarchy". For their decentralization, the organizational law should specify that decisions must be taken with the approval of the majority of members, their management only having the role of coming up with proposals to solve various problems.
The bad part is that the corrupt parties transfer this corruption to the state administration and therefore the whole state will become corrupt
Hey @DarkAgeTheorist, can you tell me about the poster on the wall to your right in the video? What does it show and where can I view it? Thanks.
It's a chart of world history that I bought in France over 20 years ago. The vertical axis is time from 3000 BC to AD 2000, while the horizontal axis is space from America to China, and it shows the civilisation/culture/empire prevailing at each place and time. I'm not at home right now and cannot remember the name of the creator (an internet search doesn't turn it up). I'll edit this comment with the details when I get back.
@@DarkAgeTheorist Thanks for the reply, and I liked your video, as I do like your others. Working my way through the library, so to speak.
All big systems at some point become divided by 2 factions. Competition cleans most and force other parties join most popular two. American elections is a good example where 3rd party candidate didnt have any chance and embraced other candidate from one of two remaining parties.
In Germany where we have a multiparty system we always had two big parties and the smaller parties only had a chance as a partner. With Angela Merkel the two biggest parties formed a coalition and now the divide seems to be everyone vs that one new right wing party.
I love your videos but RUclips hides them for some reason.
The emperor has no clothes, what's there to hide.
Bravo, it's clever. I think it is pretty much a rhetorical tool to sell the IVNA viewpoint, however, with which I already agree. Maybe the value of the old quadrant diagram is in its existence as a launching point for your dimensions. Or for other individuals to imagine their own.
Sell the IVNA "viewpoint" ??
Forget the "NA", the patient needs to be put on IV just to make it through the night.
Who are they selling this stuff to ?
Thank you for this great content. Would love for you to provide videos based upon chapters of your textbook, which I purchased and love.
I think you are right that left and right are defunct, and it is a noble cause to come up with a new schema or vocabulary. However I believe that, on the whole, your 4 axes, or at least the first three of them, are basically the same ie individualist versus social. I think another approach that may be fruitful would be to consider issues, such as protection of children, levels of taxation, degree of social control etc etc etc, I suggest starting with around 20 - 30 policy areas and see how they cluster in the minds of electors, to come up with clusters of policy preferences, and then to apply the analysis after discovering the lie of the land rather than starting with the theory and then fitting political movements into it, just a thought.
Anyway I am different from the Bushmen because I would have been grateful for the bull he slaughtered for me! Does that make me extrinsic?! Or just gracious?!!
Thank you for doing this great video when there are so many establishment videos out there enforcing the ideology that we are trapped in a left-right struggle.
A test would be nice! Nice Heuristic model!
You can have an intrinsic attitude and have low low self confidence. Believing that a good diet is healthy doesn't mean you don't eat pizza.
All theories work some of the time, no theory works all of the time. Economics and other things
Not bad but I think the political triangle is still the best. Three points based on the three modes of economic activity. Hierarchy, family, and trade.
Jreg has entered the chat
Glad your back
i may subscribe
No. Use the political triangle, this is way off base. It organizes humans into their primary social value:
1. freedom
2. order
3. equality
No, thank you. Theories are tools not truths. I don't want just one tool in my toolbox. The political triangle is neat and I myself have a bias towards 3-dimensional models. But here I tried to emulate the 4-dimensional approach of Myers-Briggs. If you don't get anything from it, that's fine for you, but don't expect me to restrict myself to what satisfies your mind.
@@DarkAgeTheorist I like your content bro. Im simply saying your wrong, not trying to restrict you, im not the government. exactly the same way that you put yourself on the internet, expect to be criticized.
@@mouthofpower8492 Haha, you're right. Thanks for the reminders.
It's not grand goals it's gaslighting you into thinking they actually care by moving the goal post.
sir would there be any chance I could interview you for my channel? 30 minutes top?
Just last week I was thinking about the Federalist Party and its ability to possibly override the nonsense dividing the parties and the public and get to real issues like rights of individual states, national spending and even regional development.
The issues that seem to divide the parties today are almost nonsensical
How is this new political vocabulary? /pol/ has had a four quadrant system for more than a decade.
Interesting but... as I delve deeper into this thought, I can't help thinking that these binary frameworks are the problem that needs solving. Let's not give them the opportunity to divide and conquer.
Good point. Consider it a provocation.
Jews.
Interesting, so in this new outline, fundamentalists are CVNTs!!! : )
lol
Future video idea:
Using the same method to measure or define culture...
It is very interesting and logical, but I feel the language creates a bias that does not help the analysis.
True. It is not entirely dispassionate and objective and is partly about reframing perceptions.
30:11 ...I watched this far, I might as well finish it.
Lore of Outline of a new political vocabulary momentum 100
The model feels like it was made from the perspective of the Telegraph - if that makes sense ?
Like, it feels as though you've come up with four axes, each of which has a 'responsible, hardworking' end and then a 'morally weak' end.
All I'm saying is that this political model feels biased - which isn't a criticism against you, it's just natural; e.g. I would advocate a central axis of authoritarian-anarchist, solely because that is the political rhetoric I'm most familiar with, and I'm sure a Nazi would advocate something that would align with their belief too !
I just want to put this little factoid here: a huge percentage of wealthy people merely inherited their wealth.
A huge percentage of intelligent people also inherited their IQ. Same goes for crime rates, proclivity for rape, and more.
Good old genetic lead poisoning,
Good old father/son r-pe duos,
Good old nature vs nurture arguments, good old what’s the point again?
@@rextopher Point is that supposed materialists are afraid of genetic determination, group selection and hard data regarding that. You can disinherit as many people as you want, inequality will remain.
Oi. If they don’t consider genetics, they aint materialists. If they think that they have a god’s-eye-view based on genetics, they’re full of shit and likely trying to claim intellectual dominance based on science they don’t really understand.
No one has yet quantified the degree of influence of nature vs nurture. Just as someone with “tall genes” can have their growth stunted, someone with “smart genes” can have their intellectual development stunted.
So tell me, what are these genetics conclusions you have sorted out?
Honestly, we all agree that left/right is an oversimplification….. but this seems like an attempt to launder shades of right wing extremism. This guy seems to want to give cover to moderate fascism.
@@rextopherand he's succeeding too, going by the comments of both 4chan sympathizers and politically ignorant people agreeing
Many Europeans view Left & Right differently. They view Right as pro-government, and Left as against government. I don’t care for this model as one’s stance changes with changes in government.
I am intrinsic (but still believe the system is rigged and decadent and there's a need for a better one), both invidualistic and collectivist (watching for our souls while also honoring the collective identity), certain (without executing or imprisonment, letting opposition carry on to the ideal society) and somewhere between private and public (without libertarian thing of minimum government role) I guess I might be somewhere between radical, fundamentalist, extremist, tribal and perhaps outlaw. In better times I might have just been a nationalist or a patriot, but to me the current system is beyond saving.
No this is such a bad idea in such obvious ways, that this video could serve as the canonical example of it. The only outcome here is that the groups favored by power get to freeze a dynamic process. Left and Right works because it is the minimal set of labels that yields a semantic free relational space. It is actually a good thing that the labels can't be interpreted without the proper historical context. Object semantics are part of the political struggle i.e. the phenomenon to be explained. How do you think it will play out if the observer decides the outcome? The shape of the shadow of their biases cast.That's it, that's the entire report
Lol, but therein lies the seductive allure of the 'canonical example.' It reifies the ephemeral, ossifying the flux of discourse into a static monument. Your 'semantic free relational space' is but a mirage, a fleeting oasis in the desert of signification. Power, dear interlocutor, is not a benevolent observer, but a puppeteer, its strings woven into the very fabric of language. To 'freeze a dynamic process' is to embrace the illusion of control, to deny the inherent mutability of meaning. The 'shape of the shadow' is not cast by bias alone, but by the very act of observation, collapsing the wave function of possibility into a singular, predetermined outcome.
I don't see how it's possible to focus on what affects you privately without shaping things publicly in many circumstances. The example of immigration I think illustrates this point. Using your example, you state roughly that privately, it would be to focus on yourself and assume everyone else is doing the same thing "presumably" for a good, but that is a joke position considering this was something that only really took place under homogenous societies. So of course, today you'd want to shape things publicly and prevent such dramatic demographic change even though the end game would be for a private instance. You also stated they have more modest and realistic goals. At what point does a private view become the modest and realistic goal top shape things publicly or in a public view?
In otherwards, you simply cannot stay thinking privately if another group of people show up and start shaking things up. Also, I'm typically against Myer's Briggs as a general idea even though you did explain why you took inspiration from their framework. I prefer newer and far more explanatory ways in neurotyping when looking to personality. Anyways, welcome back.
Thank you very much. Valid and interesting points.
DO A VIDEO ON SELECTIVE BREEDING AND THE BIRTH OF PHILOSOPHY BY COSTIN ALAMARIU
The left and right paradigm comes BEFORE the French revolution, where the King (today the State) had two consultants, one for conserving the state and another for providing innovation or commending innovation. This paradigm was later copied to the french revolution national assembly. Since I don't remember the text that I read about it (please not mistaken this for any sort of lie; I was a deep reader in my youth), please take it with a grain a salt. Eventually if it is true, it will be located in online libraries or even scanned by an AI.
You only need 2 categories : white / anti-white . Much easier .
Yes, politics only make sense within the tribe, the in-group, just as debate and all the rest of it only applies to the interior. The current crop of very iudaic Western regimes do not have any sort of political representation for European, or those of that descent, because organised communities of such are more or less illegal, effectively or formally. Like how every senator in America has a jewish handler but there is no White American representative group looking out for White interests.
@@kennethruskin2710 well said , and very true
🔥🔥🔥
LOL
This is nicely paired with TIKHistories recent video on the shared origin of the political philosophies fascism & communist totalitarianism
They all come from Platonic, Hermetic, gnostic dialectics
Left and right would be a two dimensional thing not a one dimensional thing like a king
The people that need most to learn from this won't ever watch it.
I watched it, only thing I learned is that early onset dementia effects more people than it has been reported.
I see it as center is conservative family oriented while far right is libertarian and far left is liberal both being extremist views. With the center conservative being focused more on moral and ethical virtues economically and politically.
Schizo take, how is the heart of the big bird which flaps its right and left wings at all family oriented?
Fascism and Communism may share aspects of political style, but that is all they share and I'd say such comparisons are irrelevant.
Fox is a liberal, as are all of our politicians now and in the last few decades, maybe with the odd exception.
As always, you've made an extremely interesting video here. However, I have a criticism of your approach. I don't think that the four axes you've created are really independent of one another. In other words, you must admit that people with individualist attitudes (as you define them) will have a strong tendency to be private-oriented in their concerns, have an intrinsic attitude to life and to tolerate ambiguity (again, as you define these things) and that those with collectivist attitudes will almost certainly also be public-oriented, have extrinsic responses to how they meet their goals and will demand certainty and not tolerate disagreement or straying from orthodoxy. It would be highly unusual, for example, to find someone who, in your terms, is a private-oriented collectivist who tends to respond to challenges intrinsically but who demands certainty in all things and is dogmatic.
Your chart said that such a person would be a religious fundamentalist, but is that really true? Wouldn’t a fundamentalist want to convert others to his religion, making him public-oriented, and wouldn’t such a person insist that his own success depends on the will of God, giving him an extrinsic attitude to his goals? I don’t know that there even are such people as private-oriented collectivists who tend to respond to challenges intrinsically but who demand certainty in all things.
These axes' lack of genuine independence from one another indicates that there's some sort of deeper phenomenon or phenomena that underlie them and that you aren't able to get at. I don't think that your classification scheme gets at what the real and most fundamental political differences between people spring from. To be honest with you, I think that the old left/right division - understood as an orientation toward either egalitarianism or hierarchy, respectively - probably does that better than your scheme does.
Polemic tricks of the crypto-plutocracy corporatism
He is not wrong🫵
>He can't form LGBT with the 4-axis chart
you had one job
Not sure that's true. I originally had a discussion of that but in the end I chose not to include it so as not to distract from the basic point. Like I said, this is just an outline.
🤦🏽
LOL
IVNA
9:30 defining self interest as significant in politics is so short sighted. A celibate monk isn't self interested. A communist heir to a fortune isn't self interested. We can live outside our own limited perspective and have an understanding.
It doesn't have to be economic self-interest. The Communist heir to a fortune could be holding those views because they get praise for it, or it makes them feel virtuous. That's still self-interest, even if it's not material.