A map of the Online Right & the Future of the Right Wing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2024
- Self-explanatory title.
My substack: copybookcourt.substack.com/
My Twitter: / thecourtssense
Timestamps
Libertarians: 3:49
Jonesists: 5:18
Populist Conservatives: 6:55
Conservative Liberals: 8:20
Ethnonationalists: 10:44
Gröipers: 13:37
Intelectual Dark Web: 14:53
Traditionalists: 16:26
RW Historians: 18:36
Neo-Reactionaries: 19:48
Nietzscheans: 22:53
Outliers: 26:18
Interactions: 28:55
My location: 32:50
The future of the Right: 34:15
John Stossel: Yt: @StosselTV
Reason TV Yt: @ReasonTV
Liberty Hangout Yt:@LibertyHangout
Alex Jones Yt: None
Valuetainment Yt: @VALUETAINMENT
Steven Crowder Yt: @StevenCrowder
Tucker Carlson Yt: @TuckerCarlson
Candace Owens Yt: @CandaceOwensPodcast
SFO Yt: @ShortFatOtaku
Dave Rubin Yt: @RubinReport
Keith Woods Yt: @KeithWoods
Richard Spencer Yt: None
Steve Sailer Yt: None
Nick Fuentes Yt: None
Peterson Yt: @JordanBPeterson
Stephen Pinker Yt: None
Bill Maher Yt: @RealTime
Weinsteins Yt: @DarkHorsePod & @EricWeinsteinPhD
John Doyle Yt: @JohnDoyle
Pax Tube Yt: @PaxTubeChannel
Matt Walsh Yt: @MattWalsh
Whatifalthist Yt: @WhatifAltHist
Monsieur Z Yt: @MonsieurDean
CallMeEzekiel Yt: @CallMeEzekiel
Kaiserbauch Yt: @kaiserbauch9092
Curtis Yarvin Yt: None
“The distributist“ Yt: @TheDistributist
“Academic Agent“ Yt: @AcademicAgent
Auron MacIntyre Yt: @AuronMacIntyre
Costin Alamariu Yt: None
Bronze Age Pervert Yt: @bronzeagepervert6323
Survive the Jive Yt: @Survivethejive
Russell Walter Yt: @russellwalter5145
Uberboyo Yt: @uberboyo
Ben Shapiro Yt: @BenShapiro
Elon Musk Yt: None
Carl Benjamin Yt: @ThePodcastoftheLotusEaters
Paul Joseph Yt: @PrisonPlanetLive
Edward Dutton Yt: @TheJollyHeretic
Richard Hanania Yt: @RichardHanania1
Uncle Ted Yt: (Check your mail)
Camille Paglia Yt: None
Where do I sign for the Avant-garde Right? (No irony)
I would love to make an actual group or even online association when my channel has enough reach. But feel free to call yourself that.
@@courtssenseI’d sign up if you made a group like that. This is an excellent channel and I hope it blows up soon.
Also I have started to incorporate the inverted red triangle as the symbol for the Avant-garde Right (AGR).
Feel free to aslo incorporate it if you wish.
Thanks for the shoutout!
Thanks for the comment, I've been a long-time fan.
The nrx friend enemy distinction is probably better described as "the good and currently disempowed elites" who would benefit from a more efficient meritocracy, similiar to a company VS "the bad, current elite" who are in power by disintegrating and taking advantage of an incomplete meritocracy
Correct.
How on Earth is content like this and channels like The Distributist only in the tens of thousands range
That is the choice; quality vs quantity.
I don't think that I can name many popular channels that still hold their quality high.
Can you?
On the online political right? Not really which is a shame given how dissident right content isn't just far more informative than the stuff that rakes in millions but just as (or more) entertaining.@@courtssense
.............uhhhh probably because not that many people hold the same views as this bozo. lmao "whaaat?! why is everyone racist?1" uhhhhhhhhh cause
I think it's because we're at the bottom of the rabbit hole right now and the code did its job and found the good stuff.
For every interest, there's an ocean of super high quality videos on channels with 500 subs. There's just a lot more middling stuff too.
It seems like RUclips has been getting better at recommending high-quality smaller channels.
@@courtssenseMaybe, but Dave the Distributist, the Prudentialist, and you, managed to reach me, aaaaaaall the way across the ocean, and I'm having a blast reading and listening to like-minded people who are nowhere to be found here, in Belgium. Thanks a lot!
Curtis Yarvin said it properly, "You must be the opposite of what the enemy expects you to be".
Some problems:
-Libertarians, Nietzscheans, and Ethnonats are too broad of categories. These are ideas that can exist all over the political spectrum. I understand that you're referring to specific spheres, but there really should be better names for these categories. This is especially a problem for Ethnonats, which is a broad enough category that all the issues you raised (abortion, how to win, sexuality) have no consensus in that group. Likewise, there are very populist Ethnonats (Rockwell), very elitist Ethnonats (Dr Pierce), somwhat moderate Ethnonats (Richard Spencer) and very radical Ethnonats (James Mason)
-Most Nietzscheans are not Bapists, and I dislike the fact that you used them interchangeably on the map. As somebody who somewhat falls into that category, BAP and his lackeys are absolute clowns. BAPists are a clique, not an ideology
-Ethnonats and Groypers generally hate each other
-You place too much emphasis on capturing the elite. Yes, doing so is very important. But the dichotomy between being purely focused on the elite and purely focused on the population-at-large is a false one. A good movement should have both broad appeal and intellectual rigor, as the two play off of each other and strengthen each other
-Most Ethnonats are not purely Ethnonats, most have some other ideology to go along with it. Franco's government was highly traditional, the reason the "intellectuals started wearing jeans" was because Spain was isolated and didn't have the infrastructure to match the rest of the world's (read: mainly America's) cultural output
Good video though
Also get a telegram, I want to talk about this without having to worry about RUclips's all seeing eye watching over me
BAP mentioned!
Thanks for the insightful comment.
To your first point, you are totally right, I did have to simplify to bring it under an hour.
I know that Bap is not the only nietzschean, but I could not really recall other influential online Nietzscheans (other than Uberboyo).
As for the elites, I agree that a movement needs an intellectual wing and a popular wing, but the elite wing is the one that matters most, the curture moves and the crowds follow.
I did not really know that the groypers and the ethnats had beef though.
And if you want to contact me, do so in twitter since I don't really have telegram.
I’m really sorry man but it is all internet cliques, there is no movement. The sooner you understand this the better off you will be on a personal level. It’s entertainment, it should be fun.
@@courtssense Do not worry about having your content be less than an hour! The greater the length, the greater the quality.
Something I like about the modern right is that at times it seems to know more about leftist theory than leftists themselfs.
One example is cultural marxism and just cultural subversion in general. A lot of leftists completely miss the shift that took place in their theory about how to achieve their goals. Nobody is advocating to hang your boss anymore because they already tried that and (outside of Russia) failed, the material conditions of the working class grew way too much for revolutionary ideals to win. The solution is the long march through the institutions and destroying traditional culture.
Every time I see a lefty speaking of cultural marxism they think it's just cultural bolshevism because they read the wiki article.
left wing factions map be like:
- academia
- big tech
- media
- woke finance
- state
- deep state
- entertainment industry
list goes on and on...😂😂😂😂
I would love to see a full video on the factions of the left.
@@gabingston3430As a left-of-center gay guy, I can lay the groundwork. The left really would need at least 3 axis. Economy/Identity is the axis that determines whether the ideology leans more towards classical marxist class analysis or postmodern identity politics. Democracy/Vangaurdism determines whether the leftist ideology values free speech and democracy or not (similar to the mainstream/radical axis of the rightist video). The third axis is Local/International, which determines if the focus is on local action or international action, or in-between.
Edit: Despite being a "social democrat" which is part of the left, I also have some sympathy for the right's "intellectual dark web" section.
I see it as:
Bigshot sociopaths
Midwits that are useful idiots
Usefully idiotic idiots
Decent people who get tricked.
@@pointerdogmarketing2197No equivicating rhizomatic positions with cathedralist positions is bad. Better have one axis of Cathedralist-Populist (for Pro-Cathedral who trust the dominant institutions vs the Populists who don't) and Mainstream-'Radical' (for how many layers abstraction are needed/the conventional political spectrum/the difficulty of arriving at the position straightfowardly (difficult to put this spectrum into words), Radical is a bad word but can't think of a better one atm).
Very juicy!
Richard Hannia can be best described as "confused"
You misspelled ''grifter''.
or "controlled op"
i'm not gay
yes you are!
The debate of the century.
I think bronze-ageists is a good term for the Nitzscheans. To include the neopagans.
32:40 I think we can confidently say that trads are going for the long game approach, believing that once progressives stop breeding then the trads will just naturally win the numbers game since they breed.
In this they somewhat share their strategy of distancing themselves from mainstream institutions like the popcons, libertarians and frogists(joneist) who also believe in either secluding themselves or creating parallel institutions.
The thing is that libertarians have intersections with all parts of your map besides maybe the bottom right quadrant. For example I'm an ancap (to be understood as a legal and organizational theory) who's shrugged off the equalitarian assumption in favor of hereditarianism and am quite comfortable with (natural) hierarchy. I do prize beauty, competency, strength, and masculinity, being of the belief that they are being trounced in the modern age, but that doesn't preclude my ability to appreciate some of the genuine beauty we have at our disposal (Across The Spiderverse, Beach House, prog rock, animated math, some gay relationships since I'm gay, WhatIfAltHist, CallMeEzekiel, etc.). But that's not to say everyone needs to get along. Diversity truly is beautiful, but melting pots just water down the genuinely cool customs that various cultures have in favor of the urban monoculture that Malcolm/Simone Collins discuss. Ultimately, I favor a more disjointed society harmonized by markets/trade, impressive elites within each group, and a tolerance to outsiders paired with an expectation that visitors will respect your customs.
Also lots of libertarians are pro-life and very against sexual revolution (like myself). I'm not saying I agee with the video, but to make a map we can't build it 1:1 scale, cause then it would be useless.
Most ancaps are evictionists
@@DavidLopez-dd1hx Most libertarians are not ancaps
Across the spider verse
Great vid. Accurate n super informatibe. It seems ive slipped from a traditional liberal to a conlib and my descent into conservatism finally skidded to a stop in the "libertarian populist" zone, half a step shy of jonesist..... And im ok w that
I love this channel more and more everyday. You're more correct on the issues than anyone I have seen and this breakdown of the online right was perfect. I agree with your solutions here too. I find myself in the middle of NeoReactionaries, Right Wing Historians, Populist Conservatives and Traditionalists. While I fit best into the latter (hence my name), I have major influence from all these groups. I also have minor influence from all the others minus the corners (BAPists, Libertarians and Groypers). So I guess I am quite the centrist even though for mainstream people I am extreme
What I like about the right-wing of the internet is how honest it can be with itself, because we are not concerned with maintaining power. As seen in this comment section and my comment, constructive criticism is all around to hone each person's ideology. But without an actual way to put it into practice, we will remain football fans shouting about how they would've done things better than the coach of their team.
That's where I am a little black pilled like Dutton in how we are witnessing the decline both in the quality of culture and what is within our biology. That's also why I think it is futile in trying to capture the established intelligencia. Their quality has suffered significantly over the past century and it is easier to be left-wing, if you are trying to get status despite not being capable to earn it.
But I am not hopeless. Being right-wing is a natural part of being a man IMO. You don't have to read Nietzsche to know, that he touched something true within our nature. It is a sausage party here, but that's not really a bad thing. The younger generations are turning more "conservative" among the men. Yes, this is a bit of a cope, but an eventual change will happen and then it stands the test of history, if a right-wing ideology will be able to meet its demands.
This video popped up in my feed (I have no idea how), and lets just say as generally left leaning person (social democrat-ish) who is a member of a certain demographic that I feel like everyone on the map probably wants gone from society (interestingly not touched on in the video at all), I found this video genuinely interesting and window to a certain perspective that I haven't really seen before, even if I disagree with some of the points made. Still watched the video to the end, and found it interesting learning about some groups I have never really had any experience with before.
Glad you could take some from the essay.
Exactly the same to me, this video showed me a window to a completely different way of ideology
Same here, though I tend to lean more centrist/liberal. I'd assumed this only popped up for me, because my views have a habit of confusing the algorithm. It is absolutely wild hearing someone call a guy like Alex Jones "moderate". Being in that minority as well, I tend to view someone's radicalism based on how much they'd like me to not exist the way I do, purely for pragmatic reasons. I especially find the style fascinating, as it is eerily reminiscent of the academic style typically adopted by Leftist theory, but follows an inverted sense of ethics. That's not something I often see, coming from The Right, which I appreciate that the video touches on.
Having watched to the end I presume your... demographic... was not mentioned primarily because the author fancies himself an intellectual and deems that particular flavor of hatred to be slop for the populist masses to keep them entertained. Not that far from the truth I suppose, though he and I would disagree as to the utility of said slop.
you mean a woman?
The best video I've seen in a long time. Good work
I appreciate it.
Very good informative and comprehensive video. Congratulations! I recently started writing myself because I wanted to both polish the skill but also gain clarity on what I actually believe. Ironically the topic that first came to mind was increased political divisiveness both within and outside of the left/right dichotomy. Exploring the right (and left for that matter) more closely ties very well into that string of thought. I also agree that quality control is quite necessary. Though as with many things one has to balance such efforts. In particular it's important to offer guidance and feedback otherwise spheres run the risk of becoming too isolated, partly iconoclastic and ultimately become less likely in attracting others.
Excellent analysis!
Great video! Loved the humorous bites at the end!
On this map, ironically, I see myself as a centrist ^^
Centrism is hell.
Komm mal zu den Kaffeehausrunden :)
Interesting video. It was shared with me in a groupchat of bodybuilders. Always glad to see a fellow Mexican in the movement, we will rise in due time.
Keep building
Thanks for the comment.
And also what gives you the idea that I am Mexican?
@@courtssense By the way you pronounced the name of Pareto (which was perfect), your native language is most probably in the romance family of languages.
@@copyright8291 Keen observation and, indeed, I was raised bilingual.
But my pronunciation of Pareto is the result of me speaking Italian which is by far my favorite language.
Amazing video!
That was a really great and insightful video, thank you a lot. Also I laughed out loud a lot at 34:29
Definitely down to see you make a map of the Online Left, with the Mainstream/Radical axis flipped to show Far Left/Moderate Left visually.
You just aligned them by their optics, not their core philosophies. And then concluded the right has to be attractive to people who hate it. Does this say more about you than the right itself?
I just stumbled upon your channel, i am happy i did. Suscribed!
Fascinating, will you be doing the same for the left?
Would be interested in doing so, but I, as of now, do net feel qualified to do so since I do not follow the left enough to get to know them.
But one day I will do it.
@@courtssense I see, well thanks for answering my question.
to be a leftist is to simply embrace whatever 'the current thing' is ....to question or opposite that instantly makes you right-wing
@@ARM1NIUS Leftists say the same thing about the right though too....
In few words, we need more cold headed and smart intellectuals like Yarvin or Mike Anton and less crazy edgy influencers like Fuentes or Alex Jones (without disbanding all the populist energy).
Yeah, sort of. For the populist side people like crowder do a good enough job.
But the real risk, in my opinion, is that the right falls into an edgy circle jerk that will doom the movement to /pol/ instead of becoming an actual counterculture.
check out The Prudentialist.
Candace Owen’s is gonna need some updating lmao
Great video man!
can make a video about southern europe its demographic catastrophe
Somebody gonna make political test for this compass
Hope so!
I'd put myself around where you put Sargon on this chart. Might not be a coincidence, given that I've watched him on and off since 2016.
the power of the intellectual is almost entirely because of the power of the United States, in other words, those who control America control the world, at best your alternative to this is eurasian multipolarity. The examples you gave of people like Franco and Salazar are not examples of the indomitable power of the intellectuals, but of the US exerting influence across the world
You are correct, but I still believe that even in a multipolar world the political class will hold power, If you are interested look at my essay "The kantian difference between Nobles and Peasants".
Also American culture is the theme of my next essay.
This is really great! Is there any way I could start a dialogue with you? I'm interested in adapting some of your theoretical framework for a D&D project I'm working on for creating factions in my campaign. Do you have an source documents you could refer me to?
I'm left-of-center, and would like this as well, since I'm trying to flesh out the right side of my setting's spectrum
I have a name for your triangle: Subsidiarity.
But for it to work I believe the Nietzscheans should abandon some of their shallow preconceptions about Christianity's morality, instead spending their energy in broadening theirs plenty, already existing intersections. Right leaning Christians that are already this far from liberalism and progressivism are quite prone to accept secular hierarchies, given that you'll give to Caesar ONLY what belong to Caesar.
Small point of feedback is that having the labels on the axis throughout the vid would've been helpful but overall the video was great so this is just a nitpick (:
it would be great to watch the categorisation based on countries other than the US only.
It would, but the issue is that what happens politically in the US will spread to the rest of the west.
Right wing populism, Feminism, Political correctness, migration, the Sexual Revolution; you name it.
27:14 Well imagine my shark
very interesting but i think you totally misplaced Candace Owens (she's a borderline trad imho)
?
@@lubormrazek5545 Oh she is borderline alright.
One thing though in the mainstream elitist corner (Hanaia’s zone) idk what exactly to call it but there’s growing organization of upper-middle to upper class liberal technocrats who’ve lost faith in democratic & free-market institutions and have drifted towards an authoritarian developmentalist model like Singapore but with “Western characteristics”. It’s pretty small and disorganized still, but given a lot of the people in that camp tend to have ties to academia, finance & policy wait 10-20 years and they could potentially be punching above their weight class.
Usually don’t watch rightist content but interesting video nonetheless.
keep up the good work man! but pls fix the fonts im about to go blind
As in the color or the typewriter font?
What about Nick Land?
Nick Land views politics as humanist drivel.
Nrx.
18:14
I wouldn't be sure about that, between the rise of home churches and Islam and the fact only the faithful these days seem to be having children at or above replacement rate, I'd say the non-theists don't have much time left before Europe and North America see repeats of the Battle of Tours and Siege of Vienna.
The masses have no real power.
Great video! but I think you should fill the void between nietzsche's followers and the traditionalists with the radical traditionalists; the followers of Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, including followers of other authors like Spengler and Junguer.
They have a small but dedicated circle, who often influence other right-wing camps online, especially in memes and esoteric ideas.
Anyway, congratulations on the work, it has the potential to become one of the best right-wing channels online.
Outstanding video dude. This is the first I have seen of you and this is off the park. I used to lie among the Nrx and Bapists as well as I used to read a lot of Yarvin in like 2017-2018 and read BAP in late 2018. But my true calling is probably something away from this quadrant as I am really passionate about Ecology and Conservation hence I side more with Ted's side (although his ideas on how to get things implemented were pretty dumb and also my views on him have changed over time). Really good video though, I would add that I am surprised that we didnt see a rise of eco-fascism among the online right whatsoever which is where I would say I align with. Great video though subbed and cannot wait to see where you go!
I appreciate it, and I'm not going to lie to you, I also have a little bit of a soft spot in my heart for Good Old Uncle Ted despite the obvious problems in his work I think that he diagnosed many real issues.
You perfectly explained, why the left vs right debate is way oversimplified.
The intelligentsia can be privately, that is, an actor, writer, singer, etc. who does NOT receive money from the state but only from private sources can be considered a member of the intelligentsia ?
In a past essay I went over what I believe to be the intelligentsia.
Here it is if you are interested: ruclips.net/video/dWoiqMXRd9s/видео.htmlsi=DUJRg95zuHM4ipB6
I think a better option for right wing historians would be Apostolic Majesty and his sphere
AM is firmly in the NRx sphere. His work is the most historical and least political of them, but he's in there.
Yeah he is good, but I could only to pick a couple of channels.
Agreed. He is a stand out for his leave of detailed analysis.
I hope people from the movement watch this like Distributist or Sargon. It deserves to be, dare I say it, mainstreamed.
Mentioning Whatifalthist as a "historian" gave me a good chuckle.
Can this chart be projected in to a cone, because i think im not the only libertarian who found him self in NRx and Nietzsche corner to XD
I agree with you up to a point (BTW this was super well spoken and produced. I actually liked it!) I watched this out of an interest and a "know your enemy type vibe" as i had no idea you yourself identified on this map. If you're willing to tolerate my presence (I'm a trans marxist leninist) can i ask you a question?
I agree with you we are at the precipice of something great. The system or status-quo as it were can't sustain itself. You say this is an oppurtunity to convince the masses of the merits of rightwing ideas. But when faced with modern day problems such as government overreach, cost of living etc etc. Isn't it more likely we will see a dictatorship of the proletariat rise instead of shift further rightwing when society has been so far right for so long?
Not trying to attack just interested.
No worries, constructive debate is always good and if not productive at least interesting.
I have argued with communists enough time so that I have had time to think about this question and I think that our misunderstanding comes from labels.
Curtis Yarvin and said in one of his essays that the right wing is nothing in itself, but it's just the opposite of the left wing. And even though I don't like this definition if you want to see my definitions I made an essay about it here (ruclips.net/video/sJ_EpJEOw6k/видео.htmlsi=9IMAj5s8DpE-sutv), but I do believe that you are operating, as most Communists are, under the definition that anything that is not headed towards socialism is inherently counter-revolutionary and therefore right wing.
This would put liberals, Hippies, feudalists, capitalists, and nationalists into the same camp. But I think that this Frame is far too constrained and that although the world is definitely not socialist as of now, that there are many other dimensions to politics than the revolution versus everything else. I think it can be best compared to how many Christians tend to reduce all conflicts as a battle of Christianity versus Satan.
(From my point of view the world is very much not right wing, and I'd be glad to talk about that if you are interested, but it's beside the point.)
I think that it is very that many countries will seek the solutions to our modern problems in socialism, but I am firmly convinced that the biggest problems of our age are not Material but cultural. In my opinion the biggest factor for the coming crisis is the problem of low birth rates. (Would recommend Kaiserbauch for a more in depth explanation)
The issue with this problem is that it can be seen in all sorts of systems all the way from Social Democratic Sweden, to the US to Cuba.
I believe that this problem is everywhere and in almost all systems because it is fundamentally a philosophical problem; in my opinion, the majority of people feel without a purpose as a result of the collapse in religion and as a result most of them turn to short-term hedonism. And I do believe that this is the core of the reason many people feel lost and end up not having kids.
Maybe socialism will be able to help this problem, but I believe that it is way beyond historical materialism. Anyhow thanks for the comment.
Thank you for being open-minded and inquisitive, we need way more of that along the divide. I'd say we're seeing the rise of both right now. The dictatorship of the proletariat imo is the rising tide of leftists who mostly identify with collectivism, voting and shaping our society into something more closely resembling what the Bolsheviks and others wrote about. The rise of right-wing backlash is actually part and parcel with this, as conservatism was mostly dying out up until very recently. It lost its hold when the moral majority of the 80s and early 90s were pushed out and Christianity was rejected in the public sphere for the most part.
The problem many conservatives have with Marxist, leftist etc ideas, isn't the actual "idea" of them per se, it's whether or not that idea will play out successfully. Those on the left tend to believe in a blank slate, Rousseau, utopia being achievable by man on earth, etc. The right tends to believe that man is inherently flawed and has a bad nature that has to be guarded against and accounted for, and that nature cannot be rooted out by man himself, since man himself is the problem.
Leftists tend to see this as a sort of giving up on man and the world, not wanting to try, and a clinging to outdated superstitious views of man's place in the cosmos and God etc. In contrast, those on the right tend to work this intrinsic sin nature into their plans as a sort of necessary evil that must be taken into account and factored in realistically. Conservatives also see the dismal failure of historical Marxist projects as evidence of how much worse things can get when you move forward in denial of this intrinsic nature in man. Changing the society without will not change this nature, at least not in my opinion, and not for most on the right.
I also see a dictatorship of the proletariat as completely unrealistic in practical terms. The reason, in my opinion, that there's always some dictator strongman that ruins these attempts is because it's reacting to a sort of metaphysical law of power filling a vacuum, as well as a manifestation of sin being wilfully ignored and not taken into account.
I’ll echo the author here
The future collapse is going to be birth rates. Collapsing birth rates will mean collapsing civilizations with massive demographic shifts creating power vacuums that will cause similarly massive conflicts.
Secular materialism has done a pretty good job at destroying any drive to raise families. Which can be seen to be growing more and more across the globe. Public policy attempts to reverse this has failed; governments giving benefits, support, or straight up money to new families has had negligible impacts on the birth rates in countries. Likewise, it isn’t a question of not having money or financial security; aside from government programs, birth rates are lower the more wealthy a group is, not the other way around.
Only real successful indicators in groups are when people distance themselves from technology and are religious.
I don’t see how a dictatorship of the proletariat is going to confront the crisis. Communists can righteously list the crimes of capitalism and liberalism, but their promise is to have even more consumer goods, embrace even more technology, and free us from religion to secularism/atheism even more. Things that would only worsen the problem.
I really can't understand one thing in all of this. I'm Greek and in my language nation means έθνος(ethnos). So a nation-state is automatically an "ethno-state" in my mind. In other words Greece is the state of the Greeks , France is for the french etc. My question is what is the difference between ethnonationalism and nationalism and the difference between a nation state and an ethno-state you American people keep talking abou
Unless I misunderstood something, I fall into a Traditionalist Monarchist corner. Likely very small and ignored by everybody else on the Right.
I wouldn't say that intellectuals dislike (ethno-)nationalists, since there are the Dugin types. It's just populist intellectuals that do.
Watching this and your video on morality have really interested me on taking your darwinian ethical framework to the next level.
Specially talking about social darwinism, i see that its 19th century version is very flawed and out of touch with more modern biological discoveries. Same issue with people who point out IQ for group differences ignoring other factors that are not completely genetic. We need to rethink many of this concepts, what are your thoughts?
One of my main influences is Marcus Aurelius, so I tend to put a lot more emphasis on individual virtue than genetics itself, since I think that character is a much larger factor than mere blood.
For example, historically, the sons of the great leaders of history have been huge failures (Cromwell, the Juleo-claudean line, Marcus Aurelius himself) despite their great genetic potiential their successors were pampered and useless.
@@courtssense Yeah, it's a good point. The thing with genetics Is that they tend to only be really useful when talking about groups and populations. Though i would argue that individual virtue and other characteristics are very dynamic adaptations that emerge in some individuals from groups with adequate qualities and environments. I could be wrong, since there are exceptions of course.
Nietzsche is one of the most "mainstream" modern philosophers, I would place the Bapist further to the left.
How it is applied is a fairly total rejection of the mainstream. Just because edgy kids and people blathering about him in a high school class happens, doesn’t mean they would be accepted in the same way.
Where would you place national socialism and fascism on this map? Are they elitist, populist or host syncretic properties of both; akin to communism?
I would place Nat.Soc. in the radical populist side, they were as radical as it gets, so the only question is how elitist or populist they where.
I would say that they gravitated towards the populist side since the Nazis were most succesful when it came to the mobilization of the population motivated by national symbols, however, we cannot obseve the actual elitism that was the norm in Prussia and in the German Aristocracy. (Indeed the main figures where as far from the aristocracy as you can get; a failed painter, a chicken farmer, a morphine addicted veteran, etc)
Another part of this is that the ideology itself was a bit vague which is common in populist movements where there are main questions without clear answers in order to attract the largest possible (german) crowd.
For example, where they christian, atheistic or pagan? was the movement socialist (Strasser) or italian-style corporatist?
@@courtssense Also you've stated that communism was initially seen as both a populist and elitist (pro-intellectual) ideology during the first few decades since its advent. Has that notion changed specifically regarding the latter throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century? Does the same hold for socialism and Marxism as a whole?
I am a Dutton fan even if I don't know if I could support him.
I call myself a "Non-spiteful mutant."
I mean I love him but he could easily be a bond villain
I actually wouldn’t consider BAPists ethno-nationalists.
Why are Nietscheans called BAPists? Did I miss that?
Oh, Bronze Age Pervert.
Because BAP is the most influential Nietzschean today and "Nietzscheans" is too long to put in the quadrant.
I know that its not super accurate, but it is what it is.
@@courtssense Yup. Excellent video! Very thorough!
@@courtssense I think Bronze Age would be a good term since it would naturally include neopagans
I think its funny that as a MAGA Com I have sympathy for these positions diagonally, I am sympathetic towards 'Liberts', Alex Jones types, PopCons, for being more primitive forms of conciousness that distrusts the ruling institutions (though I have little sympathy for the 'intellectuals' that champion Libertarianism), and I intellectually appreciate Neoreactionary appreciation of Statecraft, the acknowledgement that traditions existed and persisted for a reason by the 'Trads', and the Right-Vitalists' appreciation of life. Simultaneously they are all very inadequate, NRx being much too elitist, R-V being too elitist, metaphysical and attached to Nietsche, and quite demonic in some sectors, and the Trads generally having too Conservative a mentality to inadequate for the revolutionary change necessary, and too metaphysically attached to whatever their tradition is.
Criss cross theory right again!
This is correct, cool.
Somewhere between the BAPists and Trads should run a sliver for the mystic and spiritual cadre in this corner. I would call them the Hyperboreans, the solar initiates, the Mithraites, something in that vein.
Yeah indeed, there are really a lot of gradations and subfactions.
But I really bled editing this video, so I think that it was long enough.
Thanks for the comment.
We must look for people who are in The trades, as being inThe trade that can be our arm
Well made! But the libertarians are not pro status quo, and only a minority is pro abortion, as it hurts the nap and higher morals. Really higher morals, not only small morals. 10 mandaments, not all the enciclicas etc.... I would say that most enterpreuneurs are libertarians, until they become interwined with the tax burocracy (as any other group anyway).
Id say that traditionalism is where I am closest to, I am very religious and Christian but at the same time I find that the ideas of BAP and others in that field aren’t conflicting with my faith at all, I also support a monarchy and as for liberalism? Complete rejection in favor of an absolute state that can ensure the only freedom that actually matters.
Accurate
I can't believe you put SFO and Candace Owens in the same category
Where would you place them?
@@courtssense you put dev in about the right place, candace probably belongs in the populist camp
Thanks for the pointer, the issue is that I don't watch her like ever.
Where have you been? Liberty Hangout is openly monarchist and racist!
Have heard that they are more on the right, but I really do not watch a lot of libertarian stuff nowadays, and I needed an example to put after my boy Stossel
@@courtssense The Libertarians have fragmented into a few strains, many of which are unprincipled actors who just want to get rid of drug and age of consent laws. The major one taking over local parties and to which Liberty Hangout belongs is the so called Mises faction, though it is primarily influenced by Hans-Herman Hoppe and by neoractionaries like Curtis Yarvin and and Nick Land. They subscribe to a counter-marxist view of current and future history as a series of counter-revolutions moving from corporatism to fascism to a neo-feudal anarcho-capitalist dystopia ruled by a philosopher-king and network of totalitarian landlords enforcing a socially conservative, racist and genocidal totalitarian system in which anyone who is not fabulously wealthy is effectively enslaved. This is also an ideological influence on the alt-right.
I understand your aversion to the Ethnonationalists. As a German, I would say they can indeed be very dangerous to themselves and others. However, it is undeniable that ethnic identities are amongst the strongest identities out there and the left has been exploiting that fact to its fullest extent for a long time. In America, 80-90% of Blacks and a strong majority of Browns vote left. In Europe, the left is busy importing as many Arabs and Africans as possible to replicate American circumstances. Saying "ethnic struggle is really distasteful so we should just ignore it" plays right into the hands of the left. They will never abandon ethnic struggle as an electoral strategy out of its perceived tastelessness. If America still had 1980 demographics Trump would win the same landslide victories Reagan won back in the day.
Unless we make explicitely clear that the ethnic composition of a country is important, we are gonna at best end up like South Africa or perhaps even Rhodesia. The beginnings of that development can already be seen in the Banlieus of Paris and Marseilles, Rosengard, Rinkeby, Marxloh etc.
The only alternative to ethnic composition control that I see is just a turn away from liberal democracy to suppress the topic of race for both the left and the right a la Singapore. This is only possible though with heavy censorship of the press and academia, possibly an end to democracy altogether.
Firstly I appreciate the comment, And I do agree with the larger point that ethnic identities are very important. As I send the video I am a nationalist for my respective country and I think that is one of the most powerful forces out there when it comes to politics, but my main critique is that just being really patriotic by itself will not be able to give a lasting Victory to the right wing.
Without a doubt it will be a very important component, but I think that it must form around a larger philosophical and ideological project Beyond mere tribalism.
And you do raise a point that I did not really talk about in the essay which is that this topic is generally distasteful. I think that one can talk about ethnic issues without making a big mess out of it, but the problem with a lot of people on the online right is that their hobby is to talk about race and ethnicity in the most inflammatory language possible to get a big reaction. I think that is quite counterproductive and will bury the more important conversations around group identities.
@@courtssense fair
"The left has been exploiting that fact"
At no point do Conservatives ever listen to Leftists. Ever. Just ignore everything we say and put your own words in our mouths.
Or you're just showing how little you know by calling Liberals Leftists. That's incorrect.
@@WillyShankspeare It doesn't matter what you people say, we can observe with our own eyes *what you do.*
Since your elites are in power, they don't need to be consistent or honest.
You can cope or lie however much you like, the fact is *you are anti-White* and pro-non-White. Explicitly even. In America, Europe, everywhere.
the problem with the historical arguments framing Ethnonationalists as "N*zis" is, that from ca. Napoleon up to WW 2 virtually everyone was an Ethnonationalist in the sense that is denigrated today, i.e. almost all the people who fought against N*zis and also the ones who fought the "old empires" (Austrian, Ottomans) or the colonial powers (incl. today's Lefties favorites like Kurds) were ethnonationalists.
To frame anyone who is not modern globalhomo as ethnonationalist and thus almost NS and bad is a bit like 1980s US Libcons mixing up Swedish social democracy with Soviet style socialims as "socialism".
How is sfo right wing?
Well he is not left wing, and is a liberal centrist who barely made it on the map with the ConLibs. But of course all of these labels are subjective.
Where would you place him?
@@courtssenseReally late reply lol,but id probably place him at the center between libright and libleft
so where am I if I took a loot of Hoppe? (Libertarian and a Monarchist) nvm I just got to that part of the video
Are you saying that you're a libertarian and a monarchist or that Hoppe is? If the latter, that's just plainly false.
Correction: Steve Sailer is not an Ethno-Nationalist he is a Civic-Nationalists. He recognizes the biological differences between groups and wants to prioritize the wellbeing of the citizens curently living within the country.
Excellent video! ... but you forgot to list me in the Nietzschean section 😉
Fuck... yeah I did.
Love your chennel though
@@courtssense Haha appreciate it man! I've just discovered yours curtesy of boyo and look forward to watching the rest of your videos
I think it is wrong using the therm "ethnic nationalist" instead of "fascism" or "national socialism" in the map. Ethnic Nationalism is a typical US therm, like Civic nationalism. In Europe for example, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, before the erosion of society by mass migration, nobody would draw this line. Also, today in the most countries (except the USA, Russia, Western Europe) nationalist would connect the nation directly to ethnicity. It is a good example of the moving Overtone window, that Ethnic Nationalism is already on the radical boarder of the right wing map.
Nationalism is eþnic by default.
Lat. "Natiõ" : birþplace, origin, and þe like.
No.
Fascism is a hybrid of the right/left so its got nothing to do with this map. national socialism is the same.
Because of my family's and my own academic background i am deeply partial to the IDW, even though i see their faults
What about Peter Thiel?
Totally missed him, elitist-center maybe?
I'm not sure i've never read him.
@@courtssense Yes, not far away from Elon Musk, I’d say. So I asked because of his homosexuality, which would put him at crossfire with other groups on the map, even though he's religious. I don't see him in the ConLib corner like Dave Rubin.
NRX
“Quality control” is just another term for “optics” - we’ve had the optics debate for decades, particularly in the last 10 years.
You cannot become presentable to people who wish to degrade, humiliate and eradicate you, so the “quality control” debate is meaningless.
The Right has been losing for over a century, because Liberalism had infected the spirit of a people, when something this catastrophic occurs it can only be changed when the people who hold these nightmarish ideas are extinguished, which is precisely what Liberalism is, an ideology of slow moving degradation and extermination.
Nothing the great HP Lovecraft has written about cults, other worldly, or incomprehensible elder Gods, can rival Liberalism.
Its a propaganda war and the right isn't willing to lie and manipulate as much as the left. Simple as.
Doesn't matter how presentable we become, theres still going to be the massive polarisation because its easy to call people racist and make hating people you view as racist or fascist a hobby and virtue.
Its 100% a propaganda war. My dads pretty wrapped up in the TM current bad man media narrative crap. He watches videos about trump every single day, even in the bath for like 2 hours.
Before the crazy media storm that ramped up in 2020 he was nothing like he is now. Brainwashed.
Its exactly like the 5 minutes of hate in 1984.
as a leftist I want to say this was very well done
I think calling some of these guys Nietzscheans is doing a lot of work here. I heard the other day this uberboyo on a podcast. He was asked about passages on Thus Spoke Zarathustra a few times and he couldn't for once give an answer in context. He instead talked about Jung and Jordan Peterson (lol). I don't think he even read the book. I wonder if he ever read any of Nietzsche's books. I'm not an elitist- no, actually I'm. But not much so, I just think you should have read at least one of Nietzsche's books and felt genuinely touched by it somehow, for you to call yourself Nietzschean. That is not asking too much, I think.
Where are you from? Im courois, because I think everyones politicals ideology is influanced by his homelands history and politics.
It's complicated, my family has moved around and If I were to specify the blend of 1st world and 3rd world countries that I have lived in, I would dox myself.
characterisation of nrx was not as accurate as the rest of these
Was very shallow. Didn’t reference nick land or spandrell or the concept of trichtonomy, also saying they are fundamentally liberal is way off.
@@donniedewitt9878yeah the “culturally liberal” point was very dumb
@@novalegion2280It makes as little sense as Dawkins "Cultural Christian" arguments.
Wish there was a ‘pragmatic’ faction.
nrx
That's impossible.
All of them think they are the pragmatic ones. Pragmatism is kinda like meritocracy... it's so subjective (one based on what is possible and the other on what is meritorious) that it's useless.
An ideology that is focused on astetics, religion, and hierarchy? Sounds a bit like trad-Catholic to me.
Religion doesn't necesarily have to be Judaism for the gentiles. And for Nietzscheans, it definitely does not. Reminder: Liberalism is an outflow of Catholicism.
thats so funny
wait
do you really believe this?
9:42 Heh. I call them Girondists.
Okay I watched the rest of the video. You are not as uninformed as I initially thought but there's still many flaws in your mappening that you could've ironed out if you re-reviewed your script and double checked your claims but overall this is an interesting attempt at framing.
Im a german groyper
@@aldoushuxley5953Buntes Trier 😉
Schwul
@@ares1670 jew
Gross
Jews
Most of the new right is groypers
No, most of the new right is not zoomer Christcucks.
Most have a "groyper phase". A phase of shocking people through inappropriate choice of words. I think that this is an unfortunate part of political development
I don’t think your critique on eth.Nat. is fair.
1. Looking at history it was captivating also for intellectuals
2. Since WW2 there is a extreme propaganda campaign against it, but it still exists.
3. Ignoring genetics and Biology is the main reason for the downfall of the west and the pol. right.
4. It’s the answer to a single certain question. You could easily be at the same time NRx and ethNat, or trad and ethNat, or Nietzsche and ethNat.
I believe the solution could be overcoming the PSYOP neuroticism towards biology and genetics since it’s a fundamental part of reality and orienting the right again on the ground of this reality.
Your comment definitely made me sit and think a bit, so thanks for that. Here is the ensuing ramble:
When will you look at nationalism that has actually captivated the Intelligentsia I think that we are looking at two specific cases that I can think about. The intelligence is since the enlightenment has firmly been on the side of liberalism, but I think that the two points in history where they did support nationalism was in the case of Bonapartism and German romanticism.
Maybe there are more examples, but nothing else comes to mind, in the case of Bonapartism I believe that it received so much intellectual love because Napoleon represented the synthesis of the intellectually popular ideas of the French Revolution with French nationalism.
But I believe that this intellectual support was more the result of the ideas of the French Revolution and not a French nationalism itself especially since French intellectuals have being disinterested in nationalism ever since, instead preferring socialism.
In the case of German (and Italian!) nationalism, I believe that the intellectual Drive was a result of a larger drive towards unification, and they think that we can observe that German nationalism became less intellectually popular once that Germany was United since we can also see that after German unification there are less Wagners and more Brechts.
Without a doubt there have been other movements with intellectual support, such as national socialism but in this case it was a minority of the intelligentsia.
As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause.
The fundamental problem with immigration is not immigration, it's that people have not been having children for 50 years. Perhaps this could have been ameliorated with a stronger national identity, but there are more than enough nationalistic countries that also are terribly infertile.
Finally I do agree with you and I think that you have a good point when it comes that we have to address the questions of genetics, but I think that we must be very careful with it, because it is a very explosive topic and certainly World War II did not make it better. So far I think that Edward Dutton is one of the people who have done most in this endeavour.
Better understandings of genetics and biology, and the inherent instability that system of ethnic/racial discrimination bring about in educated populations are the reasons that the reasons eugenicist conceptions are out of favor, they are wrong and the societies that structure themselves on it are worse off for it
@@truelocomax2804
1. Learn grammar
2. Stop being low IQ
@@courtssense
You seam to have a point of view and understanding of history that is very much effected by US American liberalism.
1. My point is more about ethnic centrisms and less about nationalism.
We still live in the age of nation-states so there is no alternative to nationalism so the discussion is pointless.
2. I don’t think your point against NatSoc is correct since very large parts of German, French, Italian etc. even parts of British intelligentsia supported or arranged themselves with the Axis.
It’s only after the lost war that US and Soviet narratives proclaimed the intellectuals to be anti-germanic.
3. The main problem on immigration is immigration itself. Not having not enough children leads to economic recession. Uncontrolled immigration without enough children leads to extinction. The Japanese can without immigration easily survive as fewer people for some generation without an end to existing as Japanese. Germany with immigration is going extinct.
4. The topic is explosive because it is the lie that works as the fundament for the entire woke/left narrative. They can not keep existing with this lie questioned.
@@courtssense "As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause."
The entire cause for leftism rests on the fantasy that HBD does not exist and hence all inequities are caused by discrimination. This topic is like "The Origin of Species" for the meta-religion of liberalism. Ignorance of it is a cornerstone that brings the whole woke ideology to fall, once it is mended. It is therefore naturally opposed with the most resistance.
The biggest reason why rightists are such failures, is that this isn't hammered home at every point of every debate against leftists. It is also the distinction (in my view at least) between the genuine right, and people belonging to Conservative Inc (most of your map's left hand side), which is just controlled opposition and doesn't want to conserve anything.
Thanks to the popularity of this video of yours the peasants have taken over the comment section.
It is a price you have to pay.
41:34 It's surprising to me that you classify Francoist Spain as ethno-nationalist (or maybe it depends on what you mean by "ethno": if it's about cultural & religious identity, I guess it matches, but if it's about biological lineage, then it wasn't the case). They called themselves Traditionalists & anti-communists. In 1937, Franco & the "sublevated" Generals forcibly merged the ideologically distinct national-syndicalist _Falange_ (Falangism is unconcerned about racial purity) & the _Carlist_ monarchist _(Ancien régime_ lovers) parties into one party under his rule, dubbed _Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx of the Councils of the National-Syndicalist Offensive,_ which became the only legal party in 1939.
+ The "homogeneity" of Spain was mainly because the country wasn't attractive for immigrants during the 19th century & until the 1970s. A lot of Spaniards themselves were migrating to other nations throughout the 1800s & 1900s. It's difficult to be culturally isolationist with big diasporas abroad & a whole continent speaking your language overseas.
+ Also, Franco was more pragmatical than ideological & sought support from various groups throughout his rule. In the light of Cold War tensions & of Spain's strategic location, the USA entered into a trade & military alliance with Franco. Commenced with the visit of Dwight Eisenhower to Spain in 1953, which resulted in the Pact of Madrid. Spain was then admitted to the UN in 1955. American military facilities in Spain were built. So, Spain could not isolate itself at all from the “Free World” & its fashions, ideals & ways of life. When Franco replaced his most nationalists ministers with Church-linked technocrats around that same time, the regime implemented several development policies that included deep economic reforms. After a recession, growth took off from 1959 with an economic boom that lasted until 1974, known as the "Spanish miracle".
45:15 I don't know Salazar's opinion on race, but as far as I know, the guy was more similar to a Christian (Catholic) fundamentalist. PS: He overtly rejected ethnonationalism (the racial part at least) in articles & speeches.
Getting back the 90s sounds amazing ngl.
Not super accurate, but good video anyway. Subscribed!
Thanks for the sub!
And which part do you think is inaccurate?
@@courtssense channelnamegoeshere7355 basically said it all
Lost me when you lumped in Richard Spencer and Keith woods under ethno nationalism. Double lost me when you implied IDW were sophisticated
? Master Race
ethno-nationalism like all nationalism is a product of 19th-century liberalism so I am really curious to know about these pre-modern ethnonationalist socities
Of course tribalism is much older, but modern nationalism in the sense that we understand it is something fairly new. In the past people identified far more with their local regions than with a broader national identity.
Here is a great video by Chapman talking about it ruclips.net/video/ZwScRYptkDI/видео.htmlsi=ctar2XmVurh4B3eW
This is doubly the case for identities like "white" or "black", 200 years ago the idea that Russians and Spaniards were part of the same group would not be accepted.
@@courtssense Are Russians and Spaniards part of the same group? I don't think they are and I have never actually heard of them being referred to as the same group. Russians are Slavs who speak a Slavic language, whereas the Spaniards are Latin who speak a Romance language. These are two completely different people with different cultures, languages, temperaments, and a general understanding of the world.
The fact that they are both white means nothing (and that is if we even accept that Russians are white which is not at all a consensus given that Russia is a Eurasian society. I mean just look at a Russians from Siberia and the Far East, there is nothing white about them but they are all still Russian.) Apart from skin colour, I don't know what else you could be referring to when implying that Russians and Spaniards are today seen as part of the same group.
Nationalism is just the ideology of the nation-state, the idea that a particular state should be rooted in a particular nation, nothing more and nothing less. This is a profoundly modern notion.
Before the French Revolution, you had European feudalism wherein statehood was rooted in familial relations and religion, so the people were loyal to their particular lords and the church far more so than some notion of nation or state, and in the East, you had civilization states/empires like the Ottomans, Russians, Chinese, Mongol, Mughal, etc empires. These were profoundly multicultural land empires whose structure was based on a complex inter-relationship between various ethnic groups. The Turks may have been more prominent in the Ottoman Empire, but the Slavic populations in the Balkans and the Arabs in the Middle East were fully integrated within the empire and were part of all structures of the state. The Ottomans did not care about ethnicity at all they were only focused on religion, Islam was privileged, and Christianity put you at a disadvantage, your ethnic background meant practically nothing. This was pretty much the case with all of those Eastern societies. To stay with the example of the Ottoman Empire nationalism or ethnonationalism in that case was the separatism of the 19thC where Balkan Christians like the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, etc wanted to create their own modern nation-states outside of this "pre-modern" formation which was the Ottoman Empire.
The Greek city-states had nothing to do with nationalism as the name suggests there was no state of the Hellenic nation but a lot of small city-states who were often at war with each other. The Roman Empire was another land-based empire that incorporated many different groups of people within their state who were not Roman like the Gauls.
Nationalism came about as capitalism developed in the West. Feudal societies were extremely regional, one country had millions of different dialects, different forms of education, and even currency. For capitalism to develop you needed stable and reliable markets, you needed to standardize the currency, language, education, culture, etc in order to help facilitate mass trade and the early stages of consumer society. The development of technology helped bring about industrialization which led to the movement from the isolated rural towns into the highly socialized cities which itself further eliminated pre-modern ways of life. Nationalism is the ideology that helped politically lubricate those economic developments.
But as capital grows it needs to expand beyond the national borders and so nationalism becomes something that isn't in vogue anymore. Now you need to standardize not just national markets but whole global markets, and so you need one currency: USD, one language: English, etc and that is what globalism is today.
Nationalism was one stage in the development of liberal capitalism, it now lost its purpose, and globalism is the ideology to follow it.
So I dont see ethnonationalism at all in any pre-modern society, I see quite the opposite, it is a profoundly modern concept.
So ethnonationalists should be in the most liberal and modernist camp you have on your spectrum
Interesting. What do you mean by “product of”? It certainly seems distinct from most liberal currents. Irving Kristol the neocon provides a compelling account of nationalism as a kind of anti-modern force opposed to its age mate, the liberal hegemony, with its concern on tribalism, power, and identity instead of individuals, markets, and freedom. What fundamental connection do you see between the two? Genuinely curious
And i didnt see any group playing with the leftists dialetics. Like, nobody on your groups ever read marx.
Well it's a map of the right.
But I guess that maybe you could find some Strasserists and MAGA communists somewhere here.
At least I have read Marx, but I just found it to be dull. Everything is subordinated to the idea of historical materialism, and it starts from the assumption that such Hegelian fanfictions are irrefutable. So, they do not really try to prove their claims of having finally cracked the code of “scientific” history.
@@courtssense history doesnt matter, their strength is dialetics, they create contradiction on any bit of history, stimulate the weak side and explore the synthesis. It doesn't need to be scientific, it needs to be contradictory, it's pavlovian. They are surrounding America and none of these groups are aware of that, apart some libertarians. I would throw half of your groups to the left (Mussolini was leftist anyway), and only keep the austrians-influenced who understand Value dialetics. You can check marx's "Value, Price and Profit" of 1865, it is the real deal, where theory meets praxis. It precedes Engels (Dialectics of Nature), Trotsky (The Question of the United Front), Erica Marcuse (Emancipation and consciousness : dogmatic and dialectical perspectives in the early Marx), Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed), reagan inflationary taxes and mitterrand's urss absortion. Most on your list actually are under Marx value umbrella, without even knowing. How many on your list support wilsonians, Roosevelt and hamiltonians measures, or mazucatto's analysis? Most of these groups are actually captured by Marx dialetics of Value.