11-19-2023, 11:49 PM
The internet right-wing political noosphere has several factions and goes through several phases identifying some problem and trying to solve it. There is no 'unified right' because the right is simply a reaction to whatever the left is doing; whereas distinctions and differences between leftists are disagreements about methodology rather than goal, distinctions and differences between rightists are disagreements about the goal just as often as they are of methodology. I needn't go into detail about 'neoreactionaries' 'white nationalists' et cetera, because we all know the basic gist of each thing. But what I do feel is important to elaborate is a general theory of 'structural problems', ones that require a modification of a constitution or statecraft in the abstract, and 'personnel problems', which require the right type of person holding power. I write to you, gentle reader, to encourage the use of this terminology in political philosophy or at least cultivate discussion about how we would analyze political ideas wherein problems are central. After all, politics is the application of power by certain methods, in part to posit a new thing over an identified problem.
For instance, I think racism is a fairly simple example of a personnel problem. The argument would go that Liberia has a bad state not because of its constitution, which was modeled on that of the United States, but because formerly enslaved Africans were not up to par within the same paradigm. To find an example of a structural problem, the Federalist Papers argue strongly for drafting the American constitution in a certain way so as to optimize government for a homogenous American nation. Most of the Third Positionist meme is about identifying alleged structural problems within the free market system through the lens of nationalism.
What is interesting is when structural problems create personnel problems and vice versa. One could say that liberals in the Supreme Court legislate from the bench and create new bureaucratic organs for the propagation of libtard. Of course, the counterpoint is that there is some fault within the American system that liberals got to the bench in the first place. But from a reasonable point of view, both can be true and both actually are true, there is a compatibilist option worth elaborating and refining.
We can draw the conclusion that people are the important variable in all rightist systems of thought. As all rightism is a reaction to leftism, and quintessential leftism is the reduction of every perceived injustice to an economic or political structure, it tends to be a common thread through all paradigms called rightist to defend the role of the individual man in choosing his actions. Reactionaries defend the natural talents of aristocrats over commoners to justify the role carved out for them, inherent differences explain outcomes in the race realist view, et cetera. It is not sensible however to say that there is no room for the constraints of legality (structure). At the foundation of legality is the threat of force and psychological tendencies of conformity and vulgar morality within peoples that, while not compelling them per se, allow structural guidelines to be the path of least resistance. Under normal circumstances people are respecting the rules of the game so, in a word, it is possible for rightists to have such a strong focus on the role of races, organizations, or individual actors while still appreciating laws and policies and sometimes generating strong revolutionary tendencies. But now to bring it back into focus.
I am interested in how people feel about these terms I have come up with and applied here. I think there is merit in having clarity about identifying specifically what people are addressing when they come up with some scheme. The point is more about setting up this conceptual framework rather than the specifics of the examples I came up with, so please focus your critiques wisely.
For instance, I think racism is a fairly simple example of a personnel problem. The argument would go that Liberia has a bad state not because of its constitution, which was modeled on that of the United States, but because formerly enslaved Africans were not up to par within the same paradigm. To find an example of a structural problem, the Federalist Papers argue strongly for drafting the American constitution in a certain way so as to optimize government for a homogenous American nation. Most of the Third Positionist meme is about identifying alleged structural problems within the free market system through the lens of nationalism.
What is interesting is when structural problems create personnel problems and vice versa. One could say that liberals in the Supreme Court legislate from the bench and create new bureaucratic organs for the propagation of libtard. Of course, the counterpoint is that there is some fault within the American system that liberals got to the bench in the first place. But from a reasonable point of view, both can be true and both actually are true, there is a compatibilist option worth elaborating and refining.
We can draw the conclusion that people are the important variable in all rightist systems of thought. As all rightism is a reaction to leftism, and quintessential leftism is the reduction of every perceived injustice to an economic or political structure, it tends to be a common thread through all paradigms called rightist to defend the role of the individual man in choosing his actions. Reactionaries defend the natural talents of aristocrats over commoners to justify the role carved out for them, inherent differences explain outcomes in the race realist view, et cetera. It is not sensible however to say that there is no room for the constraints of legality (structure). At the foundation of legality is the threat of force and psychological tendencies of conformity and vulgar morality within peoples that, while not compelling them per se, allow structural guidelines to be the path of least resistance. Under normal circumstances people are respecting the rules of the game so, in a word, it is possible for rightists to have such a strong focus on the role of races, organizations, or individual actors while still appreciating laws and policies and sometimes generating strong revolutionary tendencies. But now to bring it back into focus.
I am interested in how people feel about these terms I have come up with and applied here. I think there is merit in having clarity about identifying specifically what people are addressing when they come up with some scheme. The point is more about setting up this conceptual framework rather than the specifics of the examples I came up with, so please focus your critiques wisely.