Amerika

Many of us have difficulty finding a “home” in modern politics because the assumption of modern politics, that a herd united by self-interest can govern itself, is ludicrous and fallacious. Any party that makes it to the TV and ballot box is forced to endorse the Big Lie of equality.

That makes them compromises at best, lesser evils for sure, and most likely self-interested groups of careerist bureaucrats who are going to profit by taking away the roles of culture and people and replacing them with faceless agencies draining the lifeblood of the society through taxes.

This means that in the age of freedom, the first freedom we give up is actual choice; we get the options offered to us which have already been pre-filtered in order to maximize their chances in the marketplace of popularity.

They like to say that almost no one is purely Left or Right but this is just the usual “horseshoe theory” nonsense that conflates method (freedom <-> totalitarianism) with goal, where it is clear that conservatives and liberals have different goals entirely:

• Conservatives: order.
• Liberal: individualism.

As the research of Jonathan Haidt tells us, both conservatives and liberals care about the three political directions linked to individualism:

• care/harm
• fairness/cheating
• liberty/oppression

However conservatives balance those with a concern for the whole, which means natural order, civilization, and the divine even if simply represented in a sense of good, beauty, and balance:

• loyalty/betrayal
• authority/subversion
• sanctity/degradation

This means that, as the name implies, liberals are primarily concerned with the freedom and equity of the individual, at the expense of social order, where conservatives balance that with a wider array of concerns and end up a place where order is most important and individuals are assessed on a case-by-case basis relative to their ability to make civilization work.

At heart, many of us are conservatives in that we realize that without order, not much will function and society will regress to its hominid precursor. This does not mean that we buy into the options offered by democracy, but serves as a general philosophy of power.

For those of us who are naturalistic and realistic however, which means that we accept the relativity of human character, political schizophrenia results because we have attributes of both sides.

At our core, we believe in realism, or that results in reality matter more than human judgments. Politicians like Carter and Biden do what the intellectuals and chattering herd think is good, but it ends badly; what ends well is what is most moral.

The Left wants us to think that if someone is impoverished, the only solution is to hand him money. The conservative view tends toward simply reducing his costs and risks, so that he can afford a normal house and not get victimized by crime, ineptitude, corruption, lack of hygiene, and so on.

Knowing humanity, we can see how the Leftist way will always be more popular because it is more immediate. It seems like a strong action that quickly fixes the problem. However, ten years on, the conservative solution will result in better health and happiness, including mental health.

However, as realists we also differ from the means-over-ends type of control that modern societies like. We accept the relativity of human character therefore do not believe in one-size-fits-all solutions; as ends-over-means people, we say society should set goals and reward those who achieve them by whatever means work for them.

For example, although this society demands that everyone “get a job!” the traditional conservative ideal is that everyone apply themselves for the betterment of everyone else, the civilization, nature, and the divine. A lady sweeping the church steps is more useful than someone going through the motions at a job.

In addition, our hippie side comes out because we are ends-over-means. Those that do no harm should be left alone without our judgment of them, their lifestyles, and their choices. Let people be as weird as they want so long as they are not harming others.

It seems like tolerance, but this is something better than tolerance, namely acceptance. We realize that people are different and as long as we are all working toward the same thing, it does not matter whatever freaky aspects people have so long as these are not harmful.

At the same time, those who are harmful, no matter how small or insignificant the damage, are introducing injustice and resentment into our society and must be removed. The sociopaths, parasites, psychopaths, insane, criminal, perverse, or stupid are removed for this reason.

But on the whole, the advantage of this philosophy is that it takes humanity out of babysitter status and lets nature determine what works. We all head in the same direction, we remove the harmful, but otherwise we accept people as they are and if they can make it work, we celebrate them.

This hippie-fascist hybrid will be unrecognizable to most people raised on the punchcard options for power in democracy. Unlike the compromises we know, it stakes out a goal and pursues it by any means necessary, which makes it far more real than this plastic planet can tolerate.

Tags: hippie-fascist, jonathan haidt, left, politics, right