The dimensionality of politics

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 11:44 AM | #

First, John, calling me a “leftist” doesn’t bother me at all. How about this: I AM A LEFTIST!!!

Does that satisfy you?  Realize that superficial labels are of importance only to superficial people.

To me, ideas are what are important, not the labels people give to the ideas.

With respect to John’s claims that “this is how the data fall out”, he needs to get back to the “real world” and realize that the establishment influences the herd, as I’ve stated:

“Imagine a person who, in the entire adult luife, only had the choice of Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola to drink.  To them, the differences between the two colas would be magnified to a great extent, and taste tests designed to distinguish between these two sodas would be of great efficicacy.  Indeed, based on such tests, it would seem that a test that is built around distinguishing Coke/Pepsi would be considered “good”, and any “freak” (or “boring potato”) who comes along and says they like water, milk, or orange juice would be, I assume, considered an unimportant “outlier”. Indeed, to our person of interest, the flavors of other beverages would be irrelevant, and those beverages would be outside the scope of the taste test.

If however, we wish to determine the full range of beverage flavors and, indeed, hope that by doing so we can get people to consider that beverages other than coke/pepsi exist, then the Coke/Pepsi taste test would be, obviously, inadequate, no matter how well it measures people who only know cola.”

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 11:50 AM | #

Remarkable that a so-called conservative thinks it more important to ascertain the political “thought” of a “random population”, rather than accurately measuring the political profiles of elite thinkers and serious-minded people of interest to the agenda of saving the West.

John and I are so different (and the fact that we are both on this blog, ostensibly interested in majority rights is evidence for the real complexity of political thought), that he just cannot, or will not, understand my comments.

I’ll say it again: I am NOT interested in a purely descriptive determination of what the herd “thinks.”  I am not interested in absurd questions like those here.

Not a single one - not a single one! - dealing with real ultimate interests, and only the one on busing with any relation to topics of true demographic interests.

What would be the questions for 2006? - about the Iraq war, or capital gains tax cuts? So the answers cluster - so what?

Let me say again - what I’m interested in are evaluations that cover the full spectrum of political thought.  If you are so interested in the “real world” John, you may also recognize polling data (such as that described by Sailer) that show that the average American is a complete ignoramous, easily influenced by the media and manipulative politicians.  A significant fraction of Americans still think that Saddam had WMD and was the mastermind of 9/11.  Many do not know who their own senators are.  If asked to discuss crucial topics they sputter like imbeciles.  All Bush-Rove needed to do to defuse public anger about their spying program was to call it a “terrorist surveillance” program - just changing the label of the program (labels, sound familiar?) was sufficient.  Since none of the media “talking heads” brings up the hypocrisy of talking about “the need for security” while leaving the border with Mexico open, the thought of course never occurs to the herd.  The herd does not think.  They mirror what the establishment wants them to mirror, a one party system with two imaginary “right” and “left” wings.  Imagine a school that brainwashes its students to be pro-black liberals, and then you measure their attitudes and conclude that they are liberals.  So very informative!

In Europe, people can be put on trial for expressing their views (Griffin) and all one has to do is remember John Rocker to understand the limitations in America.  Americans are constantly being subjected to establishment propaganda.  All these real world facts are dismissed by JJR, who thinks that the fact that certain “conservative” opinions cluster in the herd, makes them important.

No, the interest of serious minded, politically oriented people is not to simply register the fact that the average “westerner” is a political retard, who knows nothing other than what comes out of the mouth of Jorge Bush or the evening news anchorman.

Social (pseudo) scientists may care to register the obvious,  but I do not.  I DO care about the real spectrum of political thought.  Yes, in the real world of 1970s USSR, non-communist ideologies were “outliers” and polling the Russian populace (who were propagandized no more than the American of today; Eastern European immigrants tell me how shocked they are by the intellectual regimentation of modern American society), would show that only Marxist ideas would “cluster.”  Citing the odd dissident would be a “fallacious argument by example.”  Today, however, the Russian electorate has a far wider political choice than the American, and the “fallacious examples” of the past are now important players on the current political scene.

For us to understand what our options are, we absolutely must get an accurate view of real political thought, not a fossilized-in-amber citation of the current herd-“thought.”

Any political testing that cannot accurately measure the real and full spectrum of political ideology is WORTHLESS from a view of empirically and scientifically understanding the range of political choice available.

John doesn’t want us to have this knowledge.  For him, his interests are served by a childish manichean view of the good conservative Bush vs. evil leftist Kerry and we must be satisfied by this choice; after all, the views of the pro-Bush crowd “cluster.”

Of course they do.  The views of Soviet-age Russians would cluster too.

So what?

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 05, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

I agree with some of what JJR is claiming here.

First, I don’t think the two-dimensional political tests are helpful in categorising political beliefs.

Second, the linear left/right distinction does have its usefulness.

The reason it’s useful is because it arose historically to distinguish the two major variants of liberalism in Western countries.

Let’s face it - the major political options for a long time have been Tory/Labour, Republican/ Democrat, Liberal /Labor.

However, JW Holliday is also right that for those of us who reject both “sides” of these divisions, there is little point trying to situate ourselves within the left/right distinction.

We are not liberals, so why try to decide whether we are left-liberals or right-liberals?

I don’t see how a broader spectrum of political thought can really be captured along some kind of scale, whether one or two dimensional.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 06:43 PM | #

This is the real-life world of the average American moron:-

According to polls taken this year, nearly 65 percent of the public doesn’t know that Congress has banned partial-birth abortion. Seventy percent is unaware that a massive drug benefit has been added to Medicare. At least 58 percent say they have heard “nothing” or “not much” about the Patriot Act, notwithstanding the enormous amount of coverage the controversial law has drawn. 
 
  This is not a new problem. As Cold War tensions bristled in 1964, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 1970, only 24 percent could identify the secretary of state. In 1996, The Washington Post reported that 67 percent of Americans couldn’t name their congressman and 94 percent had no idea that William Rehnquist was the chief justice of the United States. Only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms and 73 percent didn’t know that Medicare costs more than foreign aid.
 
  Gallup found in January 2000 that while 66 percent of the public could name the host of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” only 6 percent knew the name of the speaker of the House. Last year, a Polling Company survey found that 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.
 
  The ignorant can be found in the highest reaches of academe. Of more than 3,100 Ivy Leagues students polled for a University of Pennsylvania study in 1993, 11 percent couldn’t identify the author of the Declaration of Independence, half didn’t know the names of their US senators, and 75 percent were unaware that the classic description of democracy—“government of the people, by the people, and for the people”—comes from the Gettysburg Address.

JJR says that we need only to consider the opinions of these people, and ignore the “outliers” who don’t fit in with the artificial systems.  He thinks a random sample of the highly ignorant is more important than MR’s bloggers.

I think otherwise.  Most of us here (with the exception of JJR and perhaps one or two others) want radical changes - whether it is a return to an anti-liberal traditional conservatism, or white racial nationalism, or ethnic nationalism, or whatever…

These ideas are absolutely fundamental to our entire worldview.  Any political analysis that completely ignores these fundamental ideas that we want to promote is obviously completely useless - to us.

I am not saying to ignore the herd.  I am saying that you should not focus only on the herd and ignore important dissident viewpoints that may well impact the future.  Why can’t we look at both of them?  Why can’t we expand the political analysis to encompass the full range?  What are some people afraid of?  Is it that their entire identity is built upon this narrow “right/left” dichotomy, and they feel threatened by ideas that are neither “right” nor “left?”

Mark, I agree with you that a linear or 2-D system won’t work, which is why I champion a “binning” system, in which a wide range of political ideas are listed, and questions constructed to “bin” people into the category in which they belong, rather than trying to place them on some narrow line.

Why shouldn’t the ideology of MR bloggers, as well as people like Benoist, Faye, Strom, Taylor, Salter, Yockey, etc., be taken seriously?

Let us get all the ideas on the table, and stop the naive placement of everyone JJR disagrees with as “leftists.”

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 08:16 PM | #

A crucial point - the establishment decides what is, or is not, politically legitimate and the masses follow.  We must legitimize our own views and these views must be discussed and made part of the debate, not ignored because these ideas are “outliers.”

And, please note, the establishment attitude has nothing to do with ‘appealing to the center.’ The establishment has been actively pushing this “center” ever further to the “left” (“left” by racial-cultural standards) for decades, and the media are openly biased.

More to the point, it is only whites who are politically constrained to the center.  In 2004, we had the remarkable spectacle of Al Sharpton not only participating in Democrat Presidential debates, but actually being an honored speaker at the Democrat convention, where white Democrats - ostensibly part of the “random population” we need to defer to - cheered him on.

Perhaps our English, Australian and Canadian friends are not familiar with the great and good “Reverend Al.”  Thus, the following can enlighten:-

http://www.nationalreview.com/20Mar00/nordlinger032000.html

Eight people died in the Freddy’s incident, never mind all the rest of Sharpton’s very fascinating resume, discussed in the link.

Again - Sharpton is a national political figure in America, embraced by the Democrats, and given an international stage on which to speak, and treated with deference.  Centrist?

The establishment is not interested in “centrism”; it is interested in the religion of multiculturalism.  If the Democrats were interested in centrism, they would have sacrificed the black radicals to appeal to the “white center”; and the Republicans, with ostensibly less to lose by criticizing Sharpton, could have at least publicly questioned the Democrats, re: Sharpton.  But no.  The problem is that whites are not allowed to have a politically-relevant racial identity or any racial interests, and are also not allowed to criticize the racial politics practiced by non-whites. 

This is the situation of America - Al ‘Freddy’s’ Sharpton is the mainstream, and a guy like Buchanan denounced as a “fascist.”

Lo and behold! - standard political tests do not include the views of anyone “more extreme” than Buchanan.  Are we to be surprised?

Let us not take too seriously the political views of the brainwashed.  Yes, we need to record them, but not base our understanding of politics on them.

Posted by John J Ray on February 05, 2006, 09:46 PM | #

The holidayman is of course entitled to his interests but if he wants to have any impact on the real world, the first step is to recognize and deal with it as it is.  I try to.

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 06, 2006, 05:03 AM | #

The establishment is not interested in “centrism”; it is interested in the religion of multiculturalism.

Precisely.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 06, 2006, 06:15 AM | #

John: “The holidayman is of course entitled to his interests but if he wants to have any impact on the real world, the first step is to recognize and deal with it as it is.  I try to.”

Incorrect.  John does not “try to deal with the real world.”  The “real world” includes the fact of the political ignorance of the “random population” and the “real world” includes the reality that the opinions of the masses are influenced by the elites in a top-down fashion, not the other way around.

By measuring the opinions of the masses, one measures, essentially, what the elites want the masses to believe.  Why not then look at the opinions of the elites, which includes - as part of the “real world” - the opinions of informed dissidents?

Who is more part of the “real world” - those who recognize the importance of dissidents and try to understands them, or those who ignore facts in an attempt to maintain the validity of an abstract linear political model, the validity of which exists only by ignoring all the data points that fall outside of it?

Posted by James Bowery on February 06, 2006, 05:55 PM | #

Cluster analysis is more appropriate.  For cluster analysis to work you need a higher dimensional space constructed from social inclusion rules.  These social inclusion rules are expressed in terms of both positive (inclusion) and negative (exclusion) set expressions.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 06, 2006, 09:04 PM | #

Here’s a review of Hitler’s Table Talks which makes some good points on Hitler’s economic policies:

If you are reading these reviews, then you probably have at least some curiosity about history and politics. Let us therefore dismiss those among the reviewers who need to get their pro/anti-Hitler angst off their chests.

What upsets me about this book is to see just how much propaganda swirls through our own school systems. What? A drooling, raving, lunatic overpowers a whole nation with a small gang of thugs? A fool with an IQ of 16 tricks the whole German population? Any intelligent person will ask: “Is this possible?”

Quote: “The other parties had practically no paying members. We, with our two and a half million members, banked two and a half million marks every month.”

Hitler employed rough methods in his rise to power, but when he was alone in prison, he persuaded most of the prison staff to his cause. He developed massive grass-roots support. How? Why?

Time for a mini-education. The term ‘right wing’ is often applied to libertarians. This always amazes me. Hitler was ‘right wing’ - he believed in AUTARKY (and autarchy) - the OPPOSITE of free-market liberalism. He sought to make ‘Greater Germany’ self-sufficient - to terminate imports, to break away from the international trading system, to get rid of the ‘thieving capitalists’, to get more agricultural land and coal fields and iron ore mines and rivers (hydro power) and oil wells and forests. Hitler wanted to construct ‘Island Europe’ - a European Union - to challenge the British Empire and the United States of America (which he considered a corrupt and morally degenerate trade-bloc). He wanted Europe (an Anglo/Nordic/Germanic Europe) to be the dominant power in the world.

His party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. He was a nationalist and a socialist and a big supporter of the working man. If he were alive today, he would have LED the ‘Battle of Seattle’. His motto was ‘fair-trade’ not free trade and ‘our people first’. He hated international capitalism. Get it?

This was not such a strange idea during the Great Depression (and concomitant international trade war). The Japanese wanted a similar autarky (the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere); the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also constructed an autarky. There were many in America who thought (and still think) that America would be much better off without international trade links. Remember the Japan-bashing of the 1980s? Well, in 1933 the whole Liberal International tradition was in bad shape. Millions were unemployed. Autarky and socialism looked like a great solution.

Even so, not just anybody can organize a political party. Not just anybody can marshal the political currents to his advantage. How many ‘men of the hour’ blew it when their time came? No, Hitler was no imbecile. He was no ragamuffin or fifth-rate politician. He was smart and popular and he worked very, very hard to accomplish his goals.

This book, then, contains his thoughts and reflections. He speaks candidly on almost every subject under the sun.

Whoever reads this book will instantly recognize how many of Hitler’s ideas are alive and well in Europe and America today. He was a fervent anti-smoking, vegetarian, healthy lifestyle, clean-living, moralistic, environmentalist kind of guy. Much of the film “Triumph of the Will” is about men washing and doing exercises in the open air. Hitler passionately sought to construct a ‘better society’ - a fit and healthy society with high moral values. He was deeply concerned about the nations’ health - physical, moral, economic, and spiritual. He was out to ‘do good’ for the people - and save them from ‘foreigners’, ‘international capitalists’, and ‘terrorists’ (within and without).

No, he was no lunatic. In fact, he was charming and sincere. He cleverly manipulated people’s tribal instincts and their desire for health, safety, and security. To many at the time, he was a hero.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2006, 10:29 AM | #

That’s a bit of a hijack, Friedrich.  The forum remains the place for disassociated topics.

James, if you have an advantageous biaxial base for a triaxial scheme (the vertical being EGI-related?) I hope you will share it in-group.

Posted by Ali on June 29, 2007, 12:38 PM | #

my, my, my what a sad bunch of losers, topics are interesting but its obvious the claws are out and you aren’t even cats!

Posted by James Bowery on June 29, 2007, 02:48 PM | #

So when the government betrays the overwhelming majority opinion of the natives and lets people like you into our territories, we’re “losers” eh?

What about when we kill you all?  Are we “losers” then?  Oh, I see, the terms of the debate then shift from “winners” vs “losers” to “moral” vs “immoral”, right?

Posted by James Bowery on June 29, 2007, 03:22 PM | #

And a belated response to GW’s request is in my more recent posting titled: Why “The Political Compass” Is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It.

It, by he way, provids the justification for killing people like “Ali” so regardless of whether the debate is phrased in moral or pure Darwinian/Malthusian terms, men like “Ali” have forfeited their humanity and hence “right” to live.

Posted by Jaydee on July 22, 2011, 02:46 PM | #

Stay with this guys, you’re helping a lot of poeple.