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.
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.
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.
The left reverses traditional 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.
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.
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.
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.
[b]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.[/b]
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.
Y1 = Archy, value of a person within society, and placement within society, contribution to the system (hierarchy and class)
Y2 = Religion, belief of faith in Abrahamic-christian-jewish-muslim institutions, Eastern civilization has its own forms
Y3 = Economics, concentration of wealth, rich/middle/poor
X = left/right, types of freedom, freedom to versus freedom from, “social justice”
The Z-axis should be Progressive/Regressive, with science being “Progressive”.
Maybe Religion should be re-classified as “Regressive” and moved to the Z-axis?
I’m thinking like, there’s three kinds of authoritarianism, discrimination (blue/right), antidiscrimination (green) and reverse discrimination (red/left). Libertarianism (black) is the absence of all 3 and centrism (miscellaneous) is some presence of all 3.
You can apply the above to any domain or sphere.
It’s difficult to reduce every form of discrimination to just three domains or spheres.
There’s what can be called hard discrimination, based on things people can’t change about themselves, like their age, ethnicity, race and sex (well unless you’re a transitionist that is).
Sometimes nationality and religion are included here, even tho you can change them, because they’re usually something you’re brought up with from a very early age.
Then there’s what can be called soft discrimination, based on things people can change about themselves, like their beliefs, behavior and belongings.
Regarding hard discrimination, there’s ethnic, racial, religious or sexual preferentialism, realism (different (but (roughly) equal), specialism (can follow from realism (different but (roughly) equal roles), segregationism, separatism and supremacism.
We transfer social, political and monetary power from some groups to others (socioeconomic and political discrimination).
We also (re)educate, fine, imprison or execute some groups (re)habilitative and punitive discrimination).
Basically we transfer social, political and monetary power from some groups to others on the basis of their immutable or mutable qualities, and we (re)educate, fine, imprison or execute some groups on the basis of their immutable or mutable qualities in an effort to change or get rid of them.
We use common sense street smarts, and book smarts like philosophy, politics, religion and the social sciences to determine who should have what power, and who should be changed or gotten rid of.
(Re)Distributive (anti, reverse or non) discrimination
(Re)Habilitative/Punitive (anti, reverse or non) discrimination
Secular (ideological, philosophical, socioscientific) (anti, reverse or non) discrimination
Religious (anti, reverse or non) discrimination
I know this is a bit more complicated than what you were looking for, but it’s what makes sense to me.
I think this is more refined, how these things are usually organized is sort of crude.
My hypothesis is: race/ethnic group is distinctly tied to specific clusters of political affiliation.
Therefore, if you are East Asian, then you will be more ‘Socialist-Communist-Egalitarian’ due to the severe Homogeneity of the East Asiatic Race.
Race/Ethnic group is primary (Nature). Political affiliation, identity, and location is secondary (Nurture). Humans cannot be “taught out of” or “convinced” of opposing political or racial factions, if innate differences are too large. This hypothesis automatically explains the differing political, commercial, industrial, social, and religious motivations of individuals directly corresponding to their racial and ethnic group clusters. Mixing races and ethnic groups does not remove the progeny from the clusters, it only pushes groups severely “left” or “right” in terms of “social justice”. Mixed-race people, for example, feel alienated and “not belonging” to one group or the other, resulting in political fracturing, which is apparent in the US currently.
I don’t think Asians are egalitarian, in general they’re servile and slavish.
Anarchism, ergatocracy, democracy, timocracy, republicanism and nationalism are all white ideas, blind obedience Asiatic.
It was the fact that whites were freemen, among other facts, that enabled them to conquer nonwhites.
We ought to have a balance of democracy (more security (and liberty) for the majority) and republicanism (liberty (and security) for all), instead we have more security and liberty for minorities, the overclass and women, we may as well have more suffrage for minorities, the overclass and women too.
Which brings me to another way of thinking about these things.
This one is 4 dimensional (X, Y, Z and Temporal).
X/Object Axis: Security or Liberty
And of course there’s different sorts of Security or Liberty, ecological, economic, medical, social and so on.
And Security or Liberty aren’t always opposed, sometimes they’re compatible or complimentary.
XA: Intellectual Security or Liberty
XB: Social Security or Liberty
XC: Economic Security or Liberty
Oftentimes one group can gain Security and Liberty at the loss of another group’s Security and Liberty.
Security and Liberty for all or Security and Liberty for some and Insecurity and Subjugation for others?
YA/Class: (Security, Liberty and Suffrage for) The Poor and/or the Rich
YB/Ethnicity, Nationality and Race: Minorities and/or the Majority
YC/Sex: Women and/or Men
Elitism is discrimination, subjugation.
Egalitarianism is antidiscrimination and reverse-discrimination.
Elitists discriminate in different ways.
Caste, ethnic, national and racial: Serfdom, segregationism, separatism and slavery.
Sexual: Patriarchy.
Socioeconomic: (Re)Distribution, (re)habilitation, restitution and retribution.
Egalitarians block, counter, deflect, parry and reverse these forms of discrimination.
Discrimination or antidiscrimination and reverse discrimination can take place within libertarianism or it can be enforced by the state (security).
A Society (health and safety, morals and values): Hedonism/Asceticism
B Government: Liberty/Security
C Economics: Capitalism/Socialism
X Identity (caste and race, ethnicity and nationality, gender and sex): Inclusivism/Exclusivism
Y Space: Globalism/Localism
Z Time: Progressivism/Regressivism
Note: You can be a globalist by conquest or consent and still be a racist and sexist, likewise you can be a localist and still be an antiracist and antisexist.