Great piece. It seems like an academic distinction at first, but the practical applications of this dualism are terrible for the right. It’s like we’re trying to do a home improvement project and conservatives think that the left and right are disagreeing on the best way to construct it. In reality though, the right is trying to build it, while the left is trying to destroy it and sell off the tools. When the conservatives compromise with the left, they think they’re doing so in order to move the project forward, but in reality they are just agreeing to let the left demolish or burn half. Over multiple cycles, not only does the improvement not get constructed, but the original house is destroyed.
As I always say, "all politics is downstream from and individuals' relationship to their father," and those on the "left," hate their father and consequently all authority and hierarchy.
This equality vs. hierarchy definition runs into the problem of practical communism. The soviet version of it. They paid lip service to equality and excelled in the destruction of the traditional family order, but their rule was hyper hierarchic. We see it also in the American left.
Like your general premise but think you overstate your conclusion. Order isn't an unlimited good. It functions within a time and context, an ecological niche if you like, and is functional for as long as that niche persists. It is also limited logistically; perfect and total hierarchical order would require perfect and total information and control from the top down. Absent perfection an overly ordered system is rigid and brittle. A better system delegates as much as possible and leaves much up to individual autonomy.
Leftism as you define it, the motive toward rebellion, is corrosive but necessary in small doses at the right time when established order is no longer functional. Either because the environment in which it operates has changed or because it has become dysfunctionally rigid and brittle.
If we don't accept that external change can happen, or that internal change should happen, we are stuck always defending the existing status quo, no matter how dysfunctional or abhorrent. Which is how you get fake and gay conservatism always only ever arguing in favor of preserving the politics of the day before yesterday.
There is so much to consider here, and I will thank you.
I don't want to push back for the sake of defending any turf but to get deeper.
Isn't what Jordan Peterson pointing to a kind of physiological left/right tool kit from which ideology can emerge/tend towards? Then possibly corrupt?
I feel like he is making an ontological claim first then a teleological claim. I feel like maybe you are doing the opposite order and probably both are very much worth considering.
In Maps of Meaning I understand him to be describing the practical constraints of our physical world which necessitate creativity as a means to problem solve for order. Left brain thinking would be an adaptation of sorts. It has always made sense to me. I have orderly kids and creative kids. It's our job as parents to pull them towards the centre.
My mind is tied to an aristotelian frame where I see creativity on the left hand scale but well before chaos.
I don't see JP's claim as necessarily a moral judgement as it leaves room for corruption.
In my mind there can only be one order, if there is one truth.
However, how we arrive there must be considered separately, on our limited plane.
I think most people see creativity as a means; as a testing ground that can tend to veer off course and away from purpose and when it does it is most certainly creates chaos, but that it can also get us unstuck or around fixed things whose rigidity creates a pileup. That creativity serves to realign us towards order.
If that's the case, creativity seems necessary - by virtue of the limited human condition.
And so can a means to achieve order be evil in and of itself?
And if so, does that say creativity is not necessary?
I am confused by this article. If I understand correctly, dualism is bad, but you clearly divide society into leftists and... god-fearing people? You portray leftists as being anti-authority when the left is the definition of absolute state authority and ownership of all by a small ruling class. The "anarcho-socialist" psyop apparently has been effective. There cannot be leftism without authority. For the left, the state is their god.
"They are fighting against God." I was surprised to see this phrase used in this article. I recently said to myself that I would no longer fight God. I realized that you cannot fight God because God always wins. To fight God is misery and you will be punished for it.
Great piece. It seems like an academic distinction at first, but the practical applications of this dualism are terrible for the right. It’s like we’re trying to do a home improvement project and conservatives think that the left and right are disagreeing on the best way to construct it. In reality though, the right is trying to build it, while the left is trying to destroy it and sell off the tools. When the conservatives compromise with the left, they think they’re doing so in order to move the project forward, but in reality they are just agreeing to let the left demolish or burn half. Over multiple cycles, not only does the improvement not get constructed, but the original house is destroyed.
As I always say, "all politics is downstream from and individuals' relationship to their father," and those on the "left," hate their father and consequently all authority and hierarchy.
Simple as.
The left hate authority? The left is all about absolute authority.
Very true.
I wish EMJ’s books weren’t 1500 pages long - I would have read more than one of them, ha. Nice piece J.
Excellent essay, Mr. Burden.
I see Kruptos registered his approval. He had a great thread concerning meritocracy on X today, which fits in to this deep dive, in my opinion.
We could benefit from you two discussing this.
Another great article Burden. You are the upcoming master of the quick but decisive post!
Really well written. I like your writing style
Thank you, I'm still very much new to this so I appreciate it
Graham Greene's short story, "The Destructors," dramatizes the dynamic you describe. Highly recommend. It can be found online.
The one problem here is that chaos/freedom and structure are dualities which the individual human being and each human institution needs.
That’s not to say that right and left is a dualism to be balanced. I believe you’re right about the destructive, satanic nature of egalitarianism.
But we are a dissident movement in service of order. Rebellion is necessary. Destruction of institutions is necessary to make space for new order.
If we create new institutions that are rigid and do not make space for human flourishing, our brittle inventions will break down.
The last thing our moment needs is more of the “preserve the institutions and existing order” attitude.
How do you synthesize this take with our own need for rebellion and invention?
Great points, I also find the premise of this piece compelling. I would love to see a discussion on this topic.
This equality vs. hierarchy definition runs into the problem of practical communism. The soviet version of it. They paid lip service to equality and excelled in the destruction of the traditional family order, but their rule was hyper hierarchic. We see it also in the American left.
Like your general premise but think you overstate your conclusion. Order isn't an unlimited good. It functions within a time and context, an ecological niche if you like, and is functional for as long as that niche persists. It is also limited logistically; perfect and total hierarchical order would require perfect and total information and control from the top down. Absent perfection an overly ordered system is rigid and brittle. A better system delegates as much as possible and leaves much up to individual autonomy.
Leftism as you define it, the motive toward rebellion, is corrosive but necessary in small doses at the right time when established order is no longer functional. Either because the environment in which it operates has changed or because it has become dysfunctionally rigid and brittle.
If we don't accept that external change can happen, or that internal change should happen, we are stuck always defending the existing status quo, no matter how dysfunctional or abhorrent. Which is how you get fake and gay conservatism always only ever arguing in favor of preserving the politics of the day before yesterday.
There is so much to consider here, and I will thank you.
I don't want to push back for the sake of defending any turf but to get deeper.
Isn't what Jordan Peterson pointing to a kind of physiological left/right tool kit from which ideology can emerge/tend towards? Then possibly corrupt?
I feel like he is making an ontological claim first then a teleological claim. I feel like maybe you are doing the opposite order and probably both are very much worth considering.
In Maps of Meaning I understand him to be describing the practical constraints of our physical world which necessitate creativity as a means to problem solve for order. Left brain thinking would be an adaptation of sorts. It has always made sense to me. I have orderly kids and creative kids. It's our job as parents to pull them towards the centre.
My mind is tied to an aristotelian frame where I see creativity on the left hand scale but well before chaos.
I don't see JP's claim as necessarily a moral judgement as it leaves room for corruption.
In my mind there can only be one order, if there is one truth.
However, how we arrive there must be considered separately, on our limited plane.
I think most people see creativity as a means; as a testing ground that can tend to veer off course and away from purpose and when it does it is most certainly creates chaos, but that it can also get us unstuck or around fixed things whose rigidity creates a pileup. That creativity serves to realign us towards order.
If that's the case, creativity seems necessary - by virtue of the limited human condition.
And so can a means to achieve order be evil in and of itself?
And if so, does that say creativity is not necessary?
And what does that say about evil?
Again thank you.
no one truly didn't believes in "hierarchy", they just want something to be in enteral rebellion towards
I am confused by this article. If I understand correctly, dualism is bad, but you clearly divide society into leftists and... god-fearing people? You portray leftists as being anti-authority when the left is the definition of absolute state authority and ownership of all by a small ruling class. The "anarcho-socialist" psyop apparently has been effective. There cannot be leftism without authority. For the left, the state is their god.
Hahahahaha!
"They are fighting against God." I was surprised to see this phrase used in this article. I recently said to myself that I would no longer fight God. I realized that you cannot fight God because God always wins. To fight God is misery and you will be punished for it.
Your definition of 'Left' and 'Right' is dysfunctional.
The Right is the faction of the non-ruling class that reflexively supports the existing ruling class.
The Left is the faction of the non-ruling class that reflexively opposes the existing ruling class.
In today's environment, the blue-haired trans-ian is on the Right and the working mother who opposes abortion is on the Left.