## [email protected]

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### [email protected]

Let's begin a collaboration to 'measure' every and all political delineations.

I will start with "Liberal-Left" versus "Conservative-Right" as the 'main' political distinction in "The West" today, as of 2020, meaning specifically, within the United States, and then subsequently expanding out into the "Anglo-sphere", which essentially marks the main super political power of "The West", USA, Canada, Great Britain, Western Europe, and then subsidiaries of Latin America and Mexico.

The first division is between liberal-left-democrat versus conservative-right-republican. Both can be considered "WASP".
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

One in five CEOs are psychopaths, new study finds

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/psychopaths-ceos-study-statistics-one-in-five-psychopathic-traits-a7251251.html

World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam

The poorest 10% of Britons are paying a higher effective tax rate than the richest 10% (49% compared with 34%) once taxes on consumption such as VAT are taken into account.

American billionaires paid less in taxes in 2018 than the working class, analysis shows — and it's another sign that one of the biggest problems in the US is only getting worse

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

It is worrisome for a country’s standard of living when we ask a generation to make do with household incomes that flat-lined despite a dramatic increase in adult time devoted to earning. But the reality is bleaker still when we recognize that the primary cost of living – housing – has skyrocketed over the same period. In 1976, the average price for Canadian housing was $192,390, again controlling for inflation and reporting in today’s currency. Today, it is$339,045. That’s an increase of 76%.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/newdealforfamilies/declining-standard-of-living/

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1]
Michels's theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Even now, some of them are hiring and expanding while small companies are getting crushed.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Rather than see things in terms of left and right, I see them more in terms of establishment and antiestablishment.

The establishment are authoritarians, corporatists, globalists, plutocrats, technocrats, misandrists and anti-white.

The antiestablishment is whatever opposes some or all of these policies.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

As for the ethnicity/race of the PTB, I'd say they're Jewish first and mixed white 2nd (mostly German, English, Scottish, Irish, Italian and French, Protestant and Catholic).

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

I see you located the 'Economic' measure first: rich vs poor. Good idea.

I want to counter your proposition. I don't think the rich-wealthy-powerful is "anti-racist". Because they explicitly want and choose 'white' wives and mates for themselves. Rather they have double-standards. They want the underclass to be divided and anti-racist, while themselves, enjoy the benefit of hidden and implied "racism". In other words, the Rich class is "racist", but the rules don't apply to them. The rules are meant for the middle class and poor. The rich want the middle and low classes to be ethnically and racially divided, as it means, easier to control. However most of the rich-wealthy-elite-powerful are, as you said, either jewish banksters and media execs, or, white anglo-saxon protestant industrialists and politicians.

The minorities still pander to racial ties within the Democrat and Republican parties.

Let's begin here then. Good associations so far. Let's literally cover all measures and develop an extensive, updated, relevant political theory for the 21st century. I think we can develop something ahead of any and all public or popularly admitted to.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

So the first two factors of Political Philosophy and discourse are:

1. Economics (how rich or poor are you)
2. Race (how white, black, yellow, or any other combination, are you)
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I see you located the 'Economic' measure first: rich vs poor. Good idea.

I want to counter your proposition. I don't think the rich-wealthy-powerful is "anti-racist". Because they explicitly want and choose 'white' wives and mates for themselves. Rather they have double-standards. They want the underclass to be divided and anti-racist, while themselves, enjoy the benefit of hidden and implied "racism". In other words, the Rich class is "racist", but the rules don't apply to them. The rules are meant for the middle class and poor. The rich want the middle and low classes to be ethnically and racially divided, as it means, easier to control. However most of the rich-wealthy-elite-powerful are, as you said, either jewish banksters and media execs, or, white anglo-saxon protestant industrialists and politicians.

The minorities still pander to racial ties within the Democrat and Republican parties.

Let's begin here then. Good associations so far. Let's literally cover all measures and develop an extensive, updated, relevant political theory for the 21st century. I think we can develop something ahead of any and all public or popularly admitted to.

Good point.
Socialism for the elite, capitalism for the working and middle classes.
Homogeneity for the elite, diversity, and division for the working and middle classes.
Their gated, homogenous communities aren't affected by the diversity and division they sow in ours.
A diverse and divided people are less likely to organize for their interests, less likely to unionize and revolt.
The elite aren't populists, libertarians or even progressives (altho they prefer pseudo-progressivism (more so culturally and socially) to pseudo-libertarianism and pseudo-populism), they're elitists, but they have to feign some form of egalitarian ideology.

The elite are at war with us, whether we like it or not, whether we're aware of it or not.
First and foremost It's psychological warfare, because we outnumber them thousands to one, and they're weak, and we (use to) have strong democratic traditions here.
The white elite aren't Christians, because Christianity is, at its core, egalitarian, and they know that, they're atheists, deists, occultists, social Darwinists and transhumanists, but the Jewish elite may be religious Jews, because Judaism is, at its core, elitist.
Christianity and egalitarian ideologies are something they put on when in public, and immediately take off when in private.

This is not a strong elite, that rules by the sword or at gunpoint, like the sort of elites that existed in medievaldom, early modernity or some parts of the 3rd world today, it's a cunning, bureaucratic and financial elite that relies on getting us to enslave ourselves and each other under the rubric of liberty, equality and fraternity.
I don't think the war can ever be fully won, altho with modern technology, perhaps it can be fully lost, it's ongoing, sometimes we win some liberty and prosperity, other times we lose some, it's cyclical.

What's happening lately is we elected some politicians that had some genuine libertarian and populist tendencies, altho they were very far from perfect, and the elite couldn't take it, so they've launched this Covid hoax as a counteroffensive, to recover the bit we won and then some.
+ the economy was probably going to collapse soon anyway, which they know would just turn us against them even more.
We are moving from a soft form of tyranny to something more hardcore, unless we can reverse course.

Only time will tell for sure, but things could get brutal, lead to intranational and international wars, where libertarians, populists, fascists, Nazis and others fight the elite (who appear to be going full on communist) and each other for control of the west and the rest of the world.
The last time something like this happened America came out on top in the west and Russia in the east.
This time we can only guess who, if anyone at all, will be the victors.
We had some good times after the war but due to corruption and complacency, it appears we're heading for hard times again.
All this probably won't happen overnight, it'll take decades to unfold.
Last edited by Gloominary on Mon May 11, 2020 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Urwrongx1000 wrote:So the first two factors of Political Philosophy and discourse are:

1. Economics (how rich or poor are you)
2. Race (how white, black, yellow, or any other combination, are you)

The 1st and 2nd dichotomy could be thought of as two components of identity politics (class, age, body positivity, disability, ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, gender, sex).
A 3rd is health, safety and security versus liberty.
The left and right tend to quarrel a bit over what we ought to worry about.
The right is a bit more concerned with drugs, crime and terrorism, the left with climate change, guns and now viruses.
What's the left going to freak out about next, psychoses, neuroses, anxiety, depression?
Are they contagious?
Do your delusions and negativity rub off on others?
Do they lead people to (in)voluntarily harm others?
Are we going to start forcibly re-educating and medicating people for the greater good?

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Basically in left identity politics the overprivileged accept, revere and serve the underprivileged, whereas in right identity politics the unprivileged accept, revere and serve the privileged.

However, the left (or whatever they are, perhaps the establishment is a better term), which usually stands up for the downtrodden (in theory at least), has created a new class of people, the sick.
The sick have less rights than the healthy.
They can be forcibly quarantined (and vaccinated).
And we're all assumed sick until proven well, which's every bit as insane as we're all assumed guilty until proven innocent.
And how they define the sick is absurd, since this virus, like most viruses, is ubiquitous and has little or nothing to do with health.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Basically in right identity politics (and class can be thought of as a part of identity politics, sort of, perhaps more in Europe than in North America and Australia, for even if you manage to pull yourself out of poverty, you're still a yob), the unprivileged serve the privileged, whereas in left identity politics, the overprivileged serve the underprivileged.
The right says it tries to keep us safe by warring on drugs, crime and terror, the left says it tries to keep us safe by warring on guns.
The religious right imposes their religion, the technocratic left imposes their technocracy (carbon taxes, compulsory education/indoctrination, compulsory healthcare).

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Today the technocratic left with their compulsory healthcare is by far and away the biggest threat we face from government, the religious right pales in comparison.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Let's conflate and merge the general divisions thus far, into two dimensions.

Economically, the wealthy and super-rich do not follow the rules of normal society. They are generally white/jewish/WASP. The vast majority of them do not mix race or ethnicity. Rather they impose race and ethnic-mixing among the upper-middle and middle class as a means of "social justice". This is a reward-mechanism, to include foreign races, ethnic groups, and peoples, into the Anglo-Sphere Dominion. It's a means to expanding power, territory, and influence. So the insular, gated-communities remain almost purely 'white' 95-99%, while the 'outside' and 'common' areas can be mixed-race, mixed-ethnic, black, asian, latino, etc. It doesn't matter.

In this way, the 'economic' and 'racial' factors are binded into one. Elitism is Up-and-Down pointing. It is the Y-axis. It includes economics. It includes race/racism.

So what is the label and denomination of the Y-axis? Elitism? Insular-ism? Most political philosophies and sciences do not truly confront "Elitism" because, at the very end of it all, the entire society and nation 'serves' the elite class. It is more than Class. "Class" doesn't define it well enough. It's more about Subordination and Insubordination. The upper, middle, and lower class do not know how to be insubordinate or revolutionary, because, in the minds of the non-elite, the common, the dregs, all the plebian population aspire to be or become them. "Heaven" is within the Elite class. Unlimited money, power, prestige, choice. A lifetime of hedonism awaits. This is what most, if not all, want, when it comes to this Y-axis.

At the top of the Y-axis, a person is valuable, worth the most. And so those at the top, are worth "more than you". While those at the bottom, are cannon-fodder. It's about having a social-value.

It's about having 'intrinsic' value, as a person, as a social being, as a "human", versus having little or none.

If you are born at the top, you have intrinsic-human-value. If you are born at the bottom, you have little or none.

I don't mean this as an imposition of values, but rather, objectively as a political science.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

Here's a political typology I'm sort of developing:

Egalitarian Left:

1. Progressivism (State Socialist (Underclass/Working Class Centered) Globalist, Minoritarian, Matriarchal, Polyamorous and Bio/Ecocentric)

2. Anarchism (Market Socialist)

Egalitarian Right:

3. Populism (Social Corporatist (Working Class/Middle Class Centered) Nationalist, Majoritarian, Patriarchal, Monogamous and Anthropocentric)

4. Libertarianism (Market Capitalist)

Elitist Left:

5. Communism (State Capitalist (Overclass Centered) Globalist, Minoritarian, Matriarchal, Polyamorous and Bio/Ecocentric)

6. Technocracy (Allopathic, Naturopathic, Ayurveda or TCM)

Elitist Right:

7. Fascism/Nazism (Corporatist (Upperclass Centered) Nationalist, Majoritarian, Patriarchal, Monogamous and Anthropocentric)

8. Theocracy (Abrahamic, Pagan, Indic or Sinic)

While we live in a representative democracy or republic in theory, in practice we live in a plutocracy and technocracy, acceleratingly so.
Liberals/dems are progressives and conservatives/republicans are libertarians in theory, in practice they're both corporatists and Cultural Marxists for the lower classes, Cultural Conservatives for the upper classes.
As for populism, it's been verboten for decades, altho it was making a bit of a comeback.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Conservative-Right-Republican = Free-Will, Choice, Autonomy, Responsibility, Morality, Freedom-To

Liberal-Left-Democrat = Determinist, Fate/Chance, Privilege, Blamelessness, Amorality, Freedom-From
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

Let's call the Y-axis "Social Essentialism" and Stateism. Or Political Essentialism.

Because it's about social-value and 'participation' and contribution to society and the political sphere, meaning, simple allegiance and daily-life is also a function of "buying-in" to the system. Almost everybody has some small amount of payment, cost, and reward. By changing money, you participate in the fiat currency. You are, in a way, indirectly, advocating for its use and utility. You are making a statement. You are "voting" with your dollar.

Those at the lowest run of society, the discontents, the unwanted, the expelled, the refuse, the dregs, the slaves, the revolutionaries, the anarchists, are "unessential" or outright combative. Although, at the lowest rung of the Y-axis, even if a group of men and women could rebel against "the system", they would then impose their own social order, and begin a new system/state/government/society.

At the top of Social/Political Essentialism, there are the Archists/Statists/Desirables, at the bottom, there are the Anarchists/Undesirables.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

The Y-axis is "Archism".

Those at the top, are most invested in "The System", The Matrix, the Metanarrative, Western Civilization. Major assets congregate at the top. The "trusted" and "vetted" people guard their investments. They will not allow the system to fall, whatever the means, and will utilize the full might of the military, including nuclear annihilation, if existentially threatened.

Those at the top, are the "Archists". You do not need to be rich and wealthy to be an "Archist", nor do you necessarily need to be an Elitist. What makes one an Archist, is simply put, your social and political "Necessity", whether you invest and put all your value into the system, and retain value as a member.

Those at the bottom, are least invested, or outright rebellious. Revolutionaries, Rebels, "Traitors", Discontents, Filth, Refuse, whatever the case maybe, most of these types are Antagonistic toward "The System" or outright enemies, foreign OR domestic. These are the "Anarchists". Again, to repeat, if "Anarchists" won, even though they lack military might, or a new frontier were opened, the Anarchists would immediately create their own systems, societies, cults, and clans, and become new 'Archists' in small areas. There is few benefits of being Anarchistic, compared to all the (hedonistic) rewards of being Archic.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

We live in an increasingly faux-egalitarian, elitist system.
It's a system where middle and working class white men give a lot to over and upper class Jews and white men, a little to the underclass, minorities and women, and get little or nothing in return.
We can react or respond to this state of affairs in three essential ways.
One, contentment, loyalty (work within the system).
Two, ambivalence, apathy (work around the system).
Three, discontentment, disloyalty (work against the system).

For those who're discontent, disloyal, they can either attempt to reform, or revolt against the system, and they can either attempt to impose a more egalitarian ideology (anarchist, progressive, libertarian, populist), or a different elitist ideology they think they'll flourish under more than the one we have now.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Let's consider Religion as a "Y-2" axis, which runs slightly parallel to the Archic-Y-axis.

In religion, God and the mass-religion serves as "2nd State" or Sub-state, state-within-a-state. Loyalty and subservience are both aspects of both Y-axes. But with religion, rather than 'participation' through fiat-currency, economics, and military, there is Religious-zealotry, Belief, Fanaticism, and Faith. Both 'State' and 'Religion' operate on lies and falsity, but between state and religion, the nature of these lies are distinctly different and categorically separate. In some ways, in some parts of human history, religion is pitted against The State, and vice-versa. Sometimes there is internal conflict between the nature of these two loyalties.

What can be considered "Leftists" (Left-Y) would be Secularism, Agnosticism, and Atheism.

What can be considered "Rightists" (Right-Y) would be considered Abrahamism, Judaeo-Christians, mainline Moral Ethics and Religious Dogma.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Let's consider Religion as a "Y-2" axis, which runs slightly parallel to the Archic-Y-axis.

In religion, God and the mass-religion serves as "2nd State" or Sub-state, state-within-a-state. Loyalty and subservience are both aspects of both Y-axes. But with religion, rather than 'participation' through fiat-currency, economics, and military, there is Religious-zealotry, Belief, Fanaticism, and Faith. Both 'State' and 'Religion' operate on lies and falsity, but between state and religion, the nature of these lies are distinctly different and categorically separate. In some ways, in some parts of human history, religion is pitted against The State, and vice-versa. Sometimes there is internal conflict between the nature of these two loyalties.

What can be considered "Leftists" (Left-Y) would be Secularism, Agnosticism, and Atheism.

What can be considered "Rightists" (Right-Y) would be considered Abrahamism, Judaeo-Christians, mainline Moral Ethics and Religious Dogma.

While archy and authority could be seen as right and anarchy and liberty as left, there is also right archy and authority and left archy and authority.

Left archy is ergatocracy, matriarchy, technocracy, minoritarianism and so on.
Left economic authority is state socialism, social welfare.
Left identity politics: body positivity, feminism, homonormativity, polyamory, white guilt, globalism, liberalism, progressivism and so on.
Or you could say reverse identity politics, reverse ableism, reverse ageism, reverse classism, reverse ethnocentrism, reverse nationalism, reverse racism, reverse religionism, reverse genderism, reverse sexism and so on.

Right archy is plutocracy, patriarchy, theocracy, majoritarianism and so on.
Right economic authority is state capitalism, corporate welfare.
Right identity politics: body negativity, meninism, heteronormativity, monogamy, white supremacy, nationalism, conservatism, populism and so on.
Or could say identity politics: ableism, ageism, classism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, racism, religionism, genderism, sexism and so on.

There's also left anarchism and right minarchism, or left libertarian/market socialism and right anarcho/market capitalism.

There's also amoralism, immoralism, subjectivism or (Stirnerite) egoism, might makes right, which's unideological.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

It seems to me, then, that the X-axis is Left (Matriarchy) versus Right (Patriarchy), female versus male.

Or that "left" values represent Femininity and "right" values represent Masculinity.

The X-axis could also represent "Competition". Left is non-competition, cooperation, while Right is pro-competition, reward through victory.

The Left wants welfare and 'Servile' Market, while Right wants no welfare, and Free Market.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: [email protected]

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It seems to me, then, that the X-axis is Left (Matriarchy) versus Right (Patriarchy), female versus male.

Or that "left" values represent Femininity and "right" values represent Masculinity.

The X-axis could also represent "Competition". Left is non-competition, cooperation, while Right is pro-competition, reward through victory.

The Left wants welfare and 'Servile' Market, while Right wants no welfare, and Free Market.

What is left/right?
It's a series of socioeconomic and political hierarchies.
It could also be seen as a series of epistemic, metaphysical and ethical hierarchies.

Anarchists, minarchists and libertarians destroy and restrict hierarchies.
Archists, maxarchists and authoritarians create and derestrict hierarchies.
The right preserves traditional (and of course what's traditional varies from people, places and times to people, places and times) hierarchies.
Centrists harmonize left/right.
Extremists sow discord between left/right.
Stirnerite egoists are jokers, opportunists, wild cards.

There isn't just one or a few hierarchies, there's many, countless.
Lumpers lump them into one or a few, splitters split them into many, countless.

Here are some major hierarchies:

Poor/Rich
Female/Male
Minority, Nonhuman, Outgroup/Majority, Human, Ingroup

Here are some minor ones:

Disabled/Abled
Insane/Sane
Unhealthy/Healthy
Drunk/Sober
Fat/Thin
Ugly/Beautiful
Gay/Straight
Black/White

Some hierarchies are a bit tricky.
For example Technocracy vs Theocracy.
On the one hand, Technocracy is seen as a masculine, a rational thing, and so a right thing, on the other it's seen as a progressive thing, and so a left thing.

If you want to come up with a socioeconomic and political typology, there isn't just one way to do it, it's a creative process.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

In America, the economic right means market capitalism (as opposed to corporatism, state capitalism, serfdom or slavery), but America is a relatively new, free country (or at least it was relatively free a few months ago), in old Europe, market capitalism was considered equalitarian, liberal, progressive and the economic left.
In market capitalism, men can go from rags to riches or riches to rags.
The real economic right is either class collaboration, when government makes it hard for both the rich and poor to climb up or fall down the economic ladder, or rightwing class competition, when government makes it hard for the poor to climb, but easy to fall, and easy for the rich to climb, but hard to fall.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Left/Right is sort of like Yin/Yang, it can apply to anything/everything, to epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, morals and values in addition to demographics, politics and socioeconomics.

The left is egalitarian and the right elitist.
The left reverses hierarchies, so the privileged serve the unprivileged, the right preserves hierarchies, so the unprivileged serve the privileged.
There's also a traditional and progressive left and a traditional and progressive right.
The traditional left reverses traditional hierarchies, for example, it privileges nonChristians, whereas the progressive left reverses new hierarchies, for example, it privileges the unhealthy/insane, conversely the traditional right preserves traditional hierarchies, it privileges Christians, the progressive right erects and preserves new hierarchies, it privileges the healthy/sane.
Centrists are more collaborative, compromising and moderate, extremists less.
Anarchists and libertarians don't impose their morals and dogma on others, archists and authoritarians do.
Stirnerite egoists are wild cards.

Here's three important domains left/right can be applied to:

Economy (what you have, for example, do you have a job, car, house?), socialism/capitalism
Identity (who/what you are, for example are you a citizen, white, Christian, male?), inclusivism/exclusivism
Behavior (what you do, for example are you a drug addict, gambler, overweight, slut?), immoralism/moralism

There's also both a libertarian and authoritarian version of each, for example libertarian or authoritarian socialism/libertarian or authoritarian capitalism.
There's also both an archist version of each, for example ergatocracy/plutocracy.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: [email protected]

Science (together with philosophy) created new hierarchies for the new right to uphold and the new left to overturn.

Unscientific/Scientific
Irrationality/Rationality
Illogic/Logic
Common Sense or Street Smarts/Book Smarts
Uneducated/Educated
Infected/Uninfected
Germaphile/Germaphobe
Unvaccinated/Vaccinated
Nonrecycler/Recycler
Polluter/Nonpolluter
Believer or Conspiracy Theorist/Debunker or Skeptic
Naturopath/Allopath
Climate Change Denier/Alarmist
Germ Theory Denier/Alarmist
Humanist/Posthumanist or Transhumanist
Luddite/Technophile

Psychiatrists too created new values:

Insane/Sane
Antisocial, Asocial or Avoidant/Social
Psychopath or Sociopath/Empath
Anxious, Neurotic or Obsessive/Unneurotic
Depressed/Elevated
Bipolar/Unipolar

Philosophers too created new values in part by overturning traditional ones (which's not to say philosophers never upheld traditional values, but those philosophers tend to be marginalized).
After centuries liberal and democratic have established themselves, become the new right, in one sense (in another they're still the old left, because they're egalitarian, at least in theory), consequently illiberal and undemocratic have become the new left.

It's not just professionals or specialists, ideologues, philosophers, psychosocial engineers and scientists that create new values, but values are also created grassroots, by laymen. Values are always shifting.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am