Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
I am now sure Trump is in the yellow sector.
Trump's views are inconsistent, but his greatest inspiration is Steve Bannon, who is a follower of Mencius Moldbug's neoreactionary philosophy. So let's analyze neoreaction, since Trumpism is merely a watered down form able to function within a democracy. The main claim of Moldbug is that government should be run like a business. He also imagines a patchwork of city-states operating like joint stock companies. Every such state would have a different culture, according to market demands. Sounds like pure Yellow.
Most followers of Trumpism don't have time for the patchwork idea and definitely prefer the nation state. So there is some nationalism, but libertarianism is still dominant. The reason Trump supporters (ones I discussed with) oppose immigration is not so much racial purity but the notion that immigrants disrupt the free market. Many of them have a strong nostalgia for the 1990s, a time when free market was really free. The "Cathedral" of left-wing intellectual elites are opposed because they promote "woke cancel culture" which again interferes with capitalist freedoms, such as the freedom to pay for watching violent porn or publish racist memes on social media. Many Trumpists are quite sexist, and the traits they attribute to a "real man" are precisely traits of a successful market player: emotionless, self-interested, ambitious.
European national-populists are a different kettle of fish and I'm inclined to put them in the Brown sector, for hey value national identity for its own sake. They are more influenced by Putin and his "intellectual guide" Alexander Dugin, like Isoko on this site. Poland's PIS has origin in the Solidarity movement, and still has a proletarianist approach to economic issues and exhibits strong anti-Russian sentiment. Both sympathize with Trump as an ally wishing to tear down the globalist "Cathedral" system.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-15-2021, 02:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2021, 06:50 AM by Captain Genet.)
Some more corrections:
-Blake. He called for free expression of individuality, including sexual impulses. He disliked organized Catholic Church and absolute monarchies like those of Charlemagne and Frederick, according to him all those were tools of the evil goddess Rahab. (I don't know if he used the pagan characters metaphorically, or believed in them, though probably it was the former) He also called Greeko-Roman civilization "slaves of the sword". He sympathized with plight of the working class, but did not emphasize class conflict or economic equality. Verdict: Inclusivist. However, unlike post-WW2 Inclusivists he did not idealize nature, but distinguished spiritual self, which ought to be expressed and liberated, from the natural self serving another evil goddess Tirzah.
-Roddenberry. The Federation mostly stands for rational political and economic organization and its most important feature in the original series is elimination of the market. There is very little Bohemian cultural individualism. The characters wear identical clothes and say little about their personal lives. So I'm moving him to the Proletarianist sector, though some degree of multiculturalism and commitment to non-violence make him closer to Inclusivism than to Nationalism. IM Banks "Culture" is racier and less bureaucratic, it should be moved to the same place I put Chomsky. It's also willing to kill fellow creatures to impose its version of "freedom" on the Cosmos.
- Stapledon. He is the thinker who has shaped my worldview since 2011 or so, but many times I misread him, due to influence of Orion's Arm. He primarily advocated for communitarian values, which make him a centrist. But of which flavour? He had a lot of sympathy for the working class, which requires moving him closer to Proletarianism, but he also condemned Marxist class warfare. He was sceptical of personal God, but advocated for a spirituality defined as awareness of a "flavour of creativity pervading the Cosmos". He mostly supported Christian ethics and viewed human beings as morally underdeveloped, which looks a lot like more scientific version of the original sin doctrine. However, he never wanted power for any organized church, so he cannot be a theocrat or close. His final civilization in "Last and First Men" features group marriage, which is a quite Bohemian idea, but he never advocated it for here-and-now humans. He also wouldn't agree with Purples' idea that self-expression is a core value, since he put development of mankind as a whole first.
So, have a look at the perfected version of the diagram:
![[Image: compass.gif]](https://i.postimg.cc/LH6cWD56/compass.gif)
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
Needless to say, "cultural Marxism" theory is crap.
Inclusivism wants to protect minorities from real or alleged persecution by majority. Marxism is a form of populism which thinks the majority is oppressed by a minority. Marxism has more similarities with national-populism, which also posits oppression of the majority by some elite.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(06-15-2021, 04:12 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Needless to say, "cultural Marxism" theory is crap.
Inclusivism wants to protect minorities from real or alleged persecution by majority. Marxism is a form of populism which thinks the majority is oppressed by a minority. Marxism has more similarities with national-populism, which also posits oppression of the majority by some elite.
Marxism, at least as practiced to date, is certainly national-populism in its purest sense. Trump and Lenin would get along just fine, except for the confiscatory part of course.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
The really-dangerous "cultural Marxism" was the infamous "socialist realism". Just avoid that.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
(06-15-2021, 02:05 PM)David Horn Wrote: (06-15-2021, 04:12 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Needless to say, "cultural Marxism" theory is crap.
Inclusivism wants to protect minorities from real or alleged persecution by majority. Marxism is a form of populism which thinks the majority is oppressed by a minority. Marxism has more similarities with national-populism, which also posits oppression of the majority by some elite.
Marxism, at least as practiced to date, is certainly national-populism in its purest sense. Trump and Lenin would get along just fine, except for the confiscatory part of course.
It's weird how Trump and Putin got along fine, and how many Trumpkins adore Putin. Trumpkins say Marxism sucks, yet Putin used to be an agent of communist secret service. Trumpkins say Islam sucks and hint at white supremacy, yet Putin appeases Iran and cracks down on anti-Islam and white supremacist movements in Russia to prevent another wave of Chechen insurgency. Of course Putin also cracks down on Wahhabism, which is "true blue" variety of Islam.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-16-2021, 01:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2021, 01:23 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-16-2021, 03:00 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: (06-15-2021, 02:05 PM)David Horn Wrote: (06-15-2021, 04:12 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Needless to say, "cultural Marxism" theory is crap.
Inclusivism wants to protect minorities from real or alleged persecution by majority. Marxism is a form of populism which thinks the majority is oppressed by a minority. Marxism has more similarities with national-populism, which also posits oppression of the majority by some elite.
Marxism, at least as practiced to date, is certainly national-populism in its purest sense. Trump and Lenin would get along just fine, except for the confiscatory part of course.
It's weird how Trump and Putin got along fine, and how many Trumpkins adore Putin. Trumpkins say Marxism sucks, yet Putin used to be an agent of communist secret service. Trumpkins say Islam sucks and hint at white supremacy, yet Putin appeases Iran and cracks down on anti-Islam and white supremacist movements in Russia to prevent another wave of Chechen insurgency. Of course Putin also cracks down on Wahhabism, which is "true blue" variety of Islam.
I had not heard that Putin cracked down on white supremacy, or Wahabi-ism, in Russia. I guess those are feathers in his cap, if so. Any sources for this?
I don't see Putin as any kind of Marxist populist, whatever government he worked for decades ago.
I don't see nationalism as positing oppression of the majority by some elite. Nationalists see themselves as the elite that should have power over other nations or races. It's "Make (whatever nation) Great Again." Same slogan that Mussolini used. Putin and Trump have their nationalism in common.
Marxism and Fascism, though bitter natural enemies, have some things in common. To the extent that Marxism leans toward totalitarianism (which it doesn't, necessarily), it has that in common with Fascism. Also the materialism that is often at the core of their ideologies. For Fascism, that's social or racial darwinism. For Marxism, it's class darwinism, or dialectical materialism. At their totalitarian extremes, they posit that people are objects to be controlled, as if the state is a machine (like the universe is), and people are just cogs in it to be used for state purposes. Everything is subordinate to the state. As totalitarian ideologies, they also posit devotion to a leader as essential, rather than rule of law. Constant war (fascism) or revolution (marxism) is a necessary function in order to keep the people loyal and devoted.
Under Stalin, the USSR was put under a regime of "socialism in one country." That sounds like national socialism, but it was only a temporary measure until the socialism in Russia was ready for export.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
On your diagram, Captain, Mandela should be over with the other coolest dudes between purple and red.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(06-16-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On your diagram, Captain, Mandela should be over with the other coolest dudes between purple and red.
Definitely "inclusionist", and not particularly nationalist. A nationalist would be more tribal in any part of sub-Saharan Africa (and under white supremacy in South Africa, Namibia, and Rhodesia, white people aligned with white power were highly tribal).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
Putin's crackdown on Wahhabis:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-cr...dus-to-is/
On neo-Nazis:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/02/21/kr...-suggests/
Putin is a nationalist who fears more extreme nationalists.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-17-2021, 02:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021, 03:43 AM by Captain Genet.)
(06-17-2021, 08:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (06-16-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On your diagram, Captain, Mandela should be over with the other coolest dudes between purple and red.
Definitely "inclusionist", and not particularly nationalist. A nationalist would be more tribal in any part of sub-Saharan Africa (and under white supremacy in South Africa, Namibia, and Rhodesia, white people aligned with white power were highly tribal).
Thank you for that. I moved Mandela to the Red sector, and put Mobutu as an example of left-leaning African nationalist, along with Peron as a more moderate Latino nationalist. Mandela did not push for any cultural changes typical for the Purple sector, so I can't put him there. Don't forget he was a Commie when young.
Eric the Green Wrote:I don't see nationalism as positing oppression of the majority by some elite. Nationalists see themselves as the elite that should have power over other nations or races. It's "Make (whatever nation) Great Again." Same slogan that Mussolini used. Putin and Trump have their nationalism in common.
Nationalists often claim that "common people" with their national identity are oppressed by a cosmopolitan elite of businessmen (for left-leaning nationalists) or intellectuals (for right-leaning nationalists). Jacobinism would be another example of left-leaning nationalism, fighting against a cosmopolitan aristocracy.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-17-2021, 02:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021, 03:43 AM by Captain Genet.)
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-18-2021, 01:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021, 01:18 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Captain Genet Wrote: (06-17-2021, 08:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (06-16-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On your diagram, Captain, Mandela should be over with the other coolest dudes between purple and red.
Definitely "inclusionist", and not particularly nationalist. A nationalist would be more tribal in any part of sub-Saharan Africa (and under white supremacy in South Africa, Namibia, and Rhodesia, white people aligned with white power were highly tribal).
Thank you for that. I moved Mandela to the Red sector, and put Mobutu as an example of left-leaning African nationalist, along with Peron as a more moderate Latino nationalist. Mandela did not push for any cultural changes typical for the Purple sector, so I can't put him there. Don't forget he was a Commie when young.
Eric the Green Wrote:I don't see nationalism as opposing oppression of the majority by some elite. Nationalists see themselves as the elite that should have power over other nations or races. It's "Make (whatever nation) Great Again." Same slogan that Mussolini used. Putin and Trump have their nationalism in common.
Nationalists often claim that "common people" with their national identity are oppressed by a cosmopolitan elite of businessmen (for left-leaning nationalists) or intellectuals (for right-leaning nationalists). Jacobinism would be another example of left-leaning nationalism, fighting against a cosmopolitan aristocracy.
Thanks for moving Mandela. I would put him higher in the red sector myself, since his main concern was for basic human rights. But that's a good move you made.
Jacobinism seems dated, in that sense. The French Revolution upheld the nation as a vehicle for greater human rights. Their nation was the people of France as a whole, not their ruling classes. They also wanted to help restore and extend human rights to other nations too, not oppress them. So in that sense it is human rights that is the priority, and so "left nationalists" as you call them belong in the inclusivist sector. "Common people" who are brainwashed by demagogues to believe in their "national identity", which "elite intellectuals" want to dissolve, are just social conservatives, in my view, who as I said want to oppress those of other national identities. "Elite intellectuals" are just exercizing their rational abilities that common people can also choose to use. Common people have just as much potential ability to recognize basic human rights and decency as well-educated people, if they so choose to use that ability. If they do so, they won't be nationalists. Granted, they are less likely to make that choice than educated people, but that just underscores the value of education for all.
In my post I meant to say "opposing" not "positing"
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-18-2021, 01:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021, 01:51 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-09-2021, 03:42 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: I am now sure Trump is in the yellow sector.
Trump's views are inconsistent, but his greatest inspiration is Steve Bannon, who is a follower of Mencius Moldbug's neoreactionary philosophy. So let's analyze neoreaction, since Trumpism is merely a watered down form able to function within a democracy. The main claim of Moldbug is that government should be run like a business. He also imagines a patchwork of city-states operating like joint stock companies. Every such state would have a different culture, according to market demands. Sounds like pure Yellow.
Most followers of Trumpism don't have time for the patchwork idea and definitely prefer the nation state. So there is some nationalism, but libertarianism is still dominant. The reason Trump supporters (ones I discussed with) oppose immigration is not so much racial purity but the notion that immigrants disrupt the free market. Many of them have a strong nostalgia for the 1990s, a time when free market was really free. The "Cathedral" of left-wing intellectual elites are opposed because they promote "woke cancel culture" which again interferes with capitalist freedoms, such as the freedom to pay for watching violent porn or publish racist memes on social media. Many Trumpists are quite sexist, and the traits they attribute to a "real man" are precisely traits of a successful market player: emotionless, self-interested, ambitious.
European national-populists are a different kettle of fish and I'm inclined to put them in the Brown sector, for they value national identity for its own sake. They are more influenced by Putin and his "intellectual guide" Alexander Dugin, like Isoko on this site. Poland's PIS has origin in the Solidarity movement, and still has a proletarianist approach to economic issues and exhibits strong anti-Russian sentiment. Both sympathize with Trump as an ally wishing to tear down the globalist "Cathedral" system.
I agree. Your diagram has two social conservative sectors instead of one, and it's like two levels one on top of the other, really. Without those two levels, you can't put Trump where he belongs, which would be yellow but close to the brown sector.
Although the feminist/woke cancel culture left-wing intellectuals may be opposed to porn for violating women's rights and using them as commodities etc., right-wing Trump followers are also against porn because it violates evangelical religious theological mores. Trump personally doesn't really care about either of those, but he positions himself as a political champion of the religious right, and gets their overwhelming support.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-21-2021, 04:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021, 04:59 AM by Captain Genet.)
(06-18-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree. Your diagram has two social conservative sectors instead of one, and it's like two levels one on top of the other, really. Without those two levels, you can't put Trump where he belongs, which would be yellow but close to the brown sector.
You made it clear you like Nolan's chart more than mine, so why do you comment on this one?
I have made it clear many times that pure theocracy is against nationalism, wanting to make the world one kingdom of God. See Wahhabism or medieval Catholicism. And pure nationalism is against theocracy, e.g. Hitler did not think much of the Vatican, and many SS officers despised the Bible as a Jewish book. In the Arab world nationalists like Saddam are typically quite secular according to the region's standard. At this point it is clear you decided that it doesn't matter for you.
Trumpism makes sense on some other level, though. They just view selfishness as a virtue, both on personal (Yellow) and collective (Brown) level. This is however completely alien to Blue. I cannot imagine Osama bin Laden championing for a "virtue of selfishness".
In a Marxist view, Blue is feudal, Brown and Yellow are both capitalist, Purple is probably also capitalist, and Red is of course the path to glorious communist future.
Quote:Although the feminist/woke cancel culture left-wing intellectuals may be opposed to porn for violating women's rights and using them as commodities etc., right-wing Trump followers are also against porn because it violates evangelical religious theological mores. Trump personally doesn't really care about either of those, but he positions himself as a political champion of the religious right, and gets their overwhelming support.
Randroids despise Evangelicalism and Christianity in general as much as feminism and political correctness. Of course online millennial Trumpkins also can hate feminism and PC for wanting to "cancel" porn, but I agree both put together are less numerous than old Evangelicals.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-21-2021, 11:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2021, 12:44 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-21-2021, 04:38 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: (06-18-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree. Your diagram has two social conservative sectors instead of one, and it's like two levels one on top of the other, really. Without those two levels, you can't put Trump where he belongs, which would be yellow but close to the brown sector.
You made it clear you like Nolan's chart more than mine, so why do you comment on this one?
Why not? The other chart is better. I'm glad you have a chart though. I like charts and the goal of seeing the larger picture of things.
Quote:I have made it clear many times that pure theocracy is against nationalism, wanting to make the world one kingdom of God. See Wahhabism or medieval Catholicism. And pure nationalism is against theocracy, e.g. Hitler did not think much of the Vatican, and many SS officers despised the Bible as a Jewish book. In the Arab world nationalists like Saddam are typically quite secular according to the region's standard. At this point it is clear you decided that it doesn't matter for you.
It is clear that Trump is a cusp between yellow and brown on your diagram. The only way you can make your chart work is to make it three-dimensional in the area of nationalism and theocracy.
But yes, I don't think that matters. The larger issue is social conservatism, and theocracy and nationalism are just two ways in which one social group can claim the right to rule over others. But fascism in many places embraces both, as in Italy and Spain. Hitler just created another version of theocracy by championing his pagan religious roots instead of the Bible and the Vatican. And if Nazis called the Bible Jewish, then it shows Nazis are theocratic bigots who hate those of other religions like Jews. Indeed, since the main tenet of Nazism is anti-semitism, and their main enemy was the Jews, that shows that Hitler and Nazism is a religious doctrine. They were fighting over religion, and the Nazis wanted to impose their Aryan religion on others. All nationalists and all theocrats are alike in wanting to set up one world ruled by their own group.
Your world view probably influences your larger picture and your diagram. You being a modernist are going to take particular interest in theocracy, because you are basically anti-religion and see it as feudal, whereas nationalism is modern and nations were originally vehicles for the propagation of modernism. You also put a lot more moralism and cultural values in your diagram compared to the Nolan or political compass, which is more strictly political.
My view of spiral dynamics (planetary dynamics) takes account of the historical difference. Are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? Interestingly they also use Blue to designate their "traditional authoritarian meme" which is basically religious and theocratic. For the capitalist democracy orientation they use Orange instead of yellow for their "competitive" meme. In planetary dynamics I use Brown for secular, monarchical statism, which is similar to your use of brown. Spiral Dynamics merges together the socialists and the greens under the color Green, which is similar to your red and purple sectors. They use yellow for the most recent meme, integral, which is also similar to your purple inclusivist sector. More on these ideas here: http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html
I agree Saddam is different from the Wahhabis, the IS, Iran, etc. in that he was using the state for modern purposes like economic development and women's rights. Religion was less important for him and his type. He was a statist. As I see the diagram, statists are not necessarily social conservatives. They are in between the socialist and social conservative areas somewhere, opposite to libertarians. But you are welcome to develop your own view which distinguishes between nationalism and theocracy which makes the point of the difference.
Quote:Trumpism makes sense on some other level, though. They just view selfishness as a virtue, both on personal (Yellow) and collective (Brown) level. This is however completely alien to Blue. I cannot imagine Osama bin Laden championing for a "virtue of selfishness".
That shows you have it right on Trumpism, as I said. It makes sense to put him in the yellow sector, but he should be near your blue border since you can't put him near your brown border. And Trump's biggest supporters are Evangelicals, and he appoints them to the Supreme Court.
Quote:In a Marxist view, Blue is feudal, Brown and Yellow are both capitalist, Purple is probably also capitalist, and Red is of course the path to glorious communist future.
That depends. All Marxists and all socialists are not so fanatic and doctrinaire. The totalitarian and authoritarian reds may be, though.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Again, the pattern that I have suggested of putting the most fanatical and intolerant on the periphery suggests where the potential totalitarian butchers are. If not the thinkers themselves, then certainly the followers. The Paris Commune showed portents, but Marxism-Leninism left no question that Marxism could be interpreted as a rationale for mass killing of 'obsolete' people. Ayn Rand may be the diametric opposite in giving all power to the economic elites, but that could result in economic elites deciding to 'cull' the 'worthless' and 'ungrateful' with mass hunger. She may have seen her plutocratic ideal as the greatest thing possible for human progress, but such progress would come through suffering that millions would resist. The observation that my brother has of recognizing that people who devote the time to reading and absorbing Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead become insufferable a$$holes for at least six months (probably after which time reality sets in) gives some clues on how a society dedicated to principles of Ayn Rand would look if there were some powerful body to guide thought and social life along her principles. See Marxist regimes for how that works.
The centripetal edge for terror and repression may serve as if a dimension.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-22-2021, 03:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2021, 04:21 AM by Captain Genet.)
(06-21-2021, 11:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is clear that Trump is a cusp between yellow and brown on your diagram. The only way you can make your chart work is to make it three-dimensional in the area of nationalism and theocracy.
Impossible in our reality, but the best way would be to make the diagram a pentatope so that any sector borders all others. For example there are some people who combine Inclusivism with lefty civic Nationalism.
Quote:But yes, I don't think that matters. The larger issue is social conservatism, and theocracy and nationalism are just two ways in which one social group can claim the right to rule over others. But fascism in many places embraces both, as in Italy and Spain. Hitler just created another version of theocracy by championing his pagan religious roots instead of the Bible and the Vatican. And if Nazis called the Bible Jewish, then it shows Nazis are theocratic bigots who hate those of other religions like Jews. Indeed, since the main tenet of Nazism is anti-semitism, and their main enemy was the Jews, that shows that Hitler and Nazism is a religious doctrine. They were fighting over religion, and the Nazis wanted to impose their Aryan religion on others. All nationalists and all theocrats are alike in wanting to set up one world ruled by their own group.
In this way you can argue any political doctrine is a theocracy. Ayn Rand wanted to set up a theocracy where people worship money as a god. Antifa wants everybody to embark a religious mission of discovering their true identity and helping others to do the same thing.
I use the word "theocrat" in the sense of "advocating organizing society along the lines of a traditional religious code of conduct". In a way traditional religion and feudalism are more idealistic than capitalism, because they are not based on selfishness. Don't get me wrong, I support a capitalist economy with robust welfare sector, but we must not allow capitalism to rule our hearts and minds. To an extent I find theocratic criticism of modern societies illuminating.
Quote:Your world view probably influences your larger picture and your diagram. You being a modernist are going to take particular interest in theocracy, because you are basically anti-religion and see it as feudal, whereas nationalism is modern and nations were originally vehicles for the propagation of modernism. You also put a lot more moralism and cultural values in your diagram compared to the Nolan or political compass, which is more strictly political.
Broadly correct. Though I'm opposed to the supernatural part of religion, I still value some religion's moral codes. So I find Catholicism or Anglicanism more consistent with my moral ideas than Evangelicalism, and Evangelicalism more than Islam.
Quote:My view of spiral dynamics (planetary dynamics) takes account of the historical difference. Are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? Interestingly they also use Blue to designate their "traditional authoritarian meme" which is basically religious and theocratic. For the capitalist democracy orientation they use Orange instead of yellow for their "competitive" meme. In planetary dynamics I use Brown for secular, monarchical statism, which is similar to your use of brown. Spiral Dynamics merges together the socialists and the greens under the color Green, which is similar to your red and purple sectors. They use yellow for the most recent meme, integral, which is also similar to your purple inclusivist sector. More on these ideas here: http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html
Is communism ever discussed in Planetary Dynamics?
Quote:I agree Saddam is different from the Wahhabis, the IS, Iran, etc. in that he was using the state for modern purposes like economic development and women's rights. Religion was less important for him and his type. He was a statist. As I see the diagram, statists are not necessarily social conservatives. They are in between the socialist and social conservative areas somewhere, opposite to libertarians. But you are welcome to develop your own view which distinguishes between nationalism and theocracy which makes the point of the difference.
Statism is basically civic nationalism. For ethnic nationalists, the nation is the sum of all people descended from a common ancestor (real or imaginary). For civic nationalists, it's the sum of all people living in a specific area. That's why Stalin could talk about the "Soviet nation" and Saddam could make up an "Iraqi nation", putting swarthy Arabs and blue-eyed Curds together.
Posts: 131
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2021
06-22-2021, 11:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2021, 01:35 PM by Captain Genet.)
![[Image: compass.gif]](https://i.postimg.cc/Zq2381jr/compass.gif)
I browsed the old versions and re-added some figures which got lost in the editing process. Some are still missing, because they are more or less doublets for more famous people:
-Steve Pinker is a doublet for Richard Dawkins
-Herbert Marcuse for Abraham Maslow
-Marcel Lefebvre for Pius X (he called his priestly brotherhood after the pope)
-Mencius Moldbug for Donald Trump
-Bernie Sanders for Jeremy Corbyn (a UK-centric view)
-Elizabeth Warren is a slightly more moderate predecessor of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Mandela is a single-issue activist who is otherwise difficult to classify, much like Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-22-2021, 06:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2021, 06:49 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-22-2021, 03:42 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: (06-21-2021, 11:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is clear that Trump is a cusp between yellow and brown on your diagram. The only way you can make your chart work is to make it three-dimensional in the area of nationalism and theocracy.
Impossible in our reality, but the best way would be to make the diagram a pentatope so that any sector borders all others. For example there are some people who combine Inclusivism with lefty civic Nationalism.
No need to make your diagram even worse by doing any of that.
Those who combine other sectors with nationalism, are primarily interested in those other sectors and should be placed there. So the French Jacobins are just reddish inclusivists, and the North Vietnamese in the 1960s were deeper-red socialists.
By the way, Ocasio-Cortez, being a democratic socialist, is closer to red. Virtually identical to Bernie Sanders. No doubt that sector might get a little crowded.
Quote:Quote:But yes, I don't think that matters. The larger issue is social conservatism, and theocracy and nationalism are just two ways in which one social group can claim the right to rule over others. But fascism in many places embraces both, as in Italy and Spain. Hitler just created another version of theocracy by championing his pagan religious roots instead of the Bible and the Vatican. And if Nazis called the Bible Jewish, then it shows Nazis are theocratic bigots who hate those of other religions like Jews. Indeed, since the main tenet of Nazism is anti-semitism, and their main enemy was the Jews, that shows that Hitler and Nazism is a religious doctrine. They were fighting over religion, and the Nazis wanted to impose their Aryan religion on others. All nationalists and all theocrats are alike in wanting to set up one world ruled by their own group.
In this way you can argue any political doctrine is a theocracy. Ayn Rand wanted to set up a theocracy where people worship money as a god. Antifa wants everybody to embark a religious mission of discovering their true identity and helping others to do the same thing.
Social conservatives (your blue and brown) uphold their own traditional social and cultural group as superior to others, with specific cultural mores imposed on all. That's not embarking on a mission to discover your own identity; such conservative identities are seen as given, revered and consequently obeyed. But it's true that the Yellow and Red sectors uphold their own class above others. It is the class struggle. You might inherit your class, but these categories are a bit more mobile through generations than Brown and Blue are, and they apply more to your personal status. The goal is different too; not to revere an historical traditional group for its own sake, but either to become personally rich or preserve your wealth through keeping most others in their poorer place, usually by means of deregulation (your yellow sector), or to make everyone equally relatively-poor or middle class, usually through regulation (your red sector). The difference is that this is an economic scale, with your Yellow and Red sectors directly opposite each other, which is 90 degrees apart from the cultural scale in the Nolan grid and political compass. On the cultural scale, your Blue and Brown are both opposed to Purple Inclusivist. Brown and Blue are both specifically and culturally anti-inclusive.
But the political circle does not take account of history; that's where spiral dynamics comes in. So your circle is really, to be accurate, part of that spiral.
Quote:I use the word "theocrat" in the sense of "advocating organizing society along the lines of a traditional religious code of conduct". In a way traditional religion and feudalism are more idealistic than capitalism, because they are not based on selfishness. Don't get me wrong, I support a capitalist economy with robust welfare sector, but we must not allow capitalism to rule our hearts and minds. To an extent I find theocratic criticism of modern societies illuminating.
It can be, although from too archaic and authoritarian a viewpoint if lacking in the esoteric and mystical aspect, which is at the heart of all religions. Religion is always based on an original revelatory mystical experience by the prophet/avatar.
Quote:Quote:Your world view probably influences your larger picture and your diagram. You being a modernist are going to take particular interest in theocracy, because you are basically anti-religion and see it as feudal, whereas nationalism is modern and nations were originally vehicles for the propagation of modernism. You also put a lot more moralism and cultural values in your diagram compared to the Nolan or political compass, which is more strictly political.
Broadly correct. Though I'm opposed to the supernatural part of religion, I still value some religion's moral codes. So I find Catholicism or Anglicanism more consistent with my moral ideas than Evangelicalism, and Evangelicalism more than Islam.
You can't have religion without what you call the supernatural, because this transmits the moral codes into the personality and enables people to follow them. Just memorizing commandments, as I said, does not work. Real transformation of the individual must take place. In traditional monotheistic western and middle-eastern religion, this happens through revelation and by the adherent giving yourself over to the savior or prophet by faith. In the New Age, and usually in the Orient, this is done through the human potential techniques. To understand religion at all, anyone must understand that "the supernatural is natural." And vice-versa! And today, that means increasingly scientific as well.
Quote:Quote:My view of spiral dynamics (planetary dynamics) takes account of the historical difference. Are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics? Interestingly they also use Blue to designate their "traditional authoritarian meme" which is basically religious and theocratic. For the capitalist democracy orientation they use Orange instead of yellow for their "competitive" meme. In planetary dynamics I use Brown for secular, monarchical statism, which is similar to your use of brown. Spiral Dynamics merges together the socialists and the greens under the color Green, which is similar to your red and purple sectors. They use yellow for the most recent meme, integral, which is also similar to your purple inclusivist sector. More on these ideas here: http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html
Is communism ever discussed in Planetary Dynamics?
Of course. That's called the Lemon color, related to the planetary symbol Neptune, discovered just before The Communist Manifesto was published. More broadly, it is the entire socialist movement. Proletarianist also fits, because the goal of socialism is to elevate the working class, which for socialists means most people. Spiral Dynamics merges it with Green, although it depends on which author's account you accept exactly what Green means.
|
![[Image: compass.gif]](https://i.postimg.cc/D2W0Jg6Y/compass.gif)