The Triangle (TM), or Infinite Horseshoe Theory

The Triangle (TM), or Infinite Horseshoe Theory

I've been working on my long guy to classical liberalism but since I want to make it fairly in-depth and comprehensive this will not be ready for a while in the meantime I thought I'd expand on one of my long-term ideas the triangle or infinite horseshoe theory now although this started life is something of a troll by me I do generally believe that there is something to this unlike in classical horseshoe theory which simply says that at their extreme ends the left and the right converge to the same end point in totalitarianism infinite horseshoe theory states that from the vantage point of any one side the other two sides necessarily look the same hence you will naturally get classical liberals indiscriminately accusing their opponents of being communist totalitarian czar sjw's you will get socialists indiscriminately accusing their opponents of being fascists or at the very least fascist enablers or sympathizers and you will get alt writers or fascists accusing their opponents of being communists or sjw's let me give you the basic idea by running through each side the key thing for classical liberals is Liberty and they see both of the other two sides as trying to control them and tell them what to do hence literally Hitler or literally Stalin the key thing for conservatives or fascists on the other hand is preservation of their homelands and their people they see the Liberals and the Socialists directly threatening that and therefore end up horseshoeing them and finally the Socialists want equality of outcome above all else and see the Liberals and fascists united against that cause and therefore do not distinguish between them now like I said this all started out as a troll I am a classical liberal and so this image here is tilted towards my view of the world but let's actually wipe it to show the underlying values at stake underneath and this is why it becomes infinite horseshoe because in each and every case with each and every value one side will see the other two sides united against their value let's go through some of these so here I put a box around the moral foundations by Jonathan heights in the writers mind you can see that the liberal side values negative Liberty and the certain spirit of fairness above all else the rights meanwhile value authority loyalty and sanctity in various streams without writers you'll hear them complain about the moral degradation of the modern world many of them talk about going you know fat for example which means they abstain from porn and masturbation they complain a loss about degeneracy and naturally they gravitate towards Authority the Socialists or the radicals meanwhile when push comes to shove only really care about care and harm they're pathological empathy overrides all other emotions and you can see how this leads to chain horseshoeing on all sides the liberals complain the wishes of the right or the left impinge on their freedom from being interfered with the right complains that the Liberty your pathological empathy are to accepting and give too much scope to degeneracy and so on and so forth and then we come to the question of equality now here the Liberals want only equality under the law and that safeguard is enough they do not care about outcomes beyond the basic provision of an opportunity the rights meanwhile believe in a kind of natural aristocracy and hierarchy that doesn't mean they necessarily believe in noble birth but rather that some people are just better than others and those wiser people should get more sane the Socialists meanwhile want equality of outcome you can see how this sets off all horseshoes once more each side fundamentally offends the other two moving on to individualism for the liberal a foundational value but the right have a preference for paternalism this is the idea that the wiser people get more say and that they know better and the left of course our collectivist if your sacred value is individualism then the other two sides will both look the same let's move on to the rights love of the home which is threatened by progressivism of the Liberals by that I mean of change with technological change rather than necessarily social change the left meanwhile destiny seemed to love embracing me with weird things picture for example the vegan at the Ethiopian restaurant and the left seemed to be embarrassed by their home country now let's move on to meritocracy you can see here from the liberal perspective the rights preference for order and the less insistence on equality of outcome end up Horsham and likewise meritocracy and equality of outcome both offend the idea of natural order and by the same token hierarchy and meritocracy offend the idea of equality of outcome what are you gonna do when horseshoes run wild on you and so we can keep on going the Liberals believe in empiricism that is the scientific method the Socialists in rationalism that is the idea that one can plan or engineer society from first principles and the right meanwhile reject both of these things preferring instead a kind of belief in the transcendent truth or beauty of things a very romantic notion but one in which it always seems pretentious to want to quantify everything as parent parasitism also rationalize everything like the left-right to do then we come to the rights love of home which I have long believed is the core emotion that leads to nationalism and ultimately to fascism the left just don't share this at all and for some reason its bafflingly spend all their energies trying to welcome foreigners as we've seen in recent negotiations in the USA meanwhile the Liberals just default to individualism here and see everybody on their own merits and the horseshoes just keep running while now I could keep on doing this all day but I think you get the general idea tell me what you think am i wildly off the mark or is there actually something to this I'd especially love to hear from guys who are really far from my view somebody like a millennial woes or one of my old communist Pharisees such as old Cersei Lannister aka meek I like to thank son of Tiamat console delish Tyson Powell ginger bill Charles winsome Edward Dara Blake barrows and Nathan Pullum until next time

38 Replies to “The Triangle (TM), or Infinite Horseshoe Theory”

  1. The triangle corresponds to the r/K/B theory where r-strategists (leftists) exhibit xenophilia and a craving for novel sexual experiences, K-strategists (conservatives) exhibit in-group loyalty and high-investment dual-parenting, and B-strategists (liberalists) are geared for low-density areas where individualism is the best strategy (e.g. you can try to avoid conflict, but if you have to fight then you go weapons in both hands).

  2. I mean. In my eyes as an libertarian/ancap it's very logical and obvious. But the issue is in that it's so clear that it's not really needed. It's accurate but almost to accurate to become a thing. If that makes sense.

  3. I mean, this ignores a lot of political groups, and you're probably turning off a lot of leftists by referring to one of the sides as "classical liberalism" (a term generally only used by those who apply it to themselves), but the general idea that political groups tend to conflate and associate their opponents, regardless of actual politics, seems like a good one to me.

  4. A version of family resemblance? All see what they want – not all see the same resemblances.

  5. I'm a radical leftist (favoring liberty above anything else by the way) and eventhough that video was obviosly pretty biased towards what you call classical liberalism, I worry a great deal of that theory actually aplies. I think, however, that things are far more complex than a simple triangle. For a moderate social democrat, for example, hard line socialism seems probably to be pretty similar in Effect to what he might call "unregulated capitalism". To a "non political Person" basically all Ideologies appear the same and to an Anarchist (like myself) everything else, leftist or not, is merely some degree of tyranny.

  6. How can you possibly say that rationalism is believing in the possibility of engineering society? Rationalism is believing knowledge comes first from reason. Ludwig Von Mises was a rationalist, not Marx. Marx rejected rationalism and empiricism in favour of his own "scientific" method in wich he used pragmatism and dialetics.

  7. Fachism is over authorian socialism it is not a right wing ideology and in fact fachist hate capitalism. The "right" ( which I agree doesnt exist) is about freedom and small government so wouldnt right wing extremism be traditional anarchy. No rules every man for them selves. Which totally breaks horseshoe theory. By definition right wing extremist cannot be authoritarian just like left wing extremists cannot be anarchists. I know they try to present ancom as a thing but communist systems cant work without someone making decisions it's just a smaller top down system

  8. The only issue with this is there are only two logical extremes. Less government to the point of Anarchy, and more government to the point of Toltoileranism. Everything else is in the middle. Facism and communinism are both sides of the same socalists theory. Communism theory runs on global class where fascism runs on higharchy of state (the nationstate holds primacy over all other nations). In this sense, the leftist and alt-right are nearly identical but disagree on the means of Utopia and how to get there. Leftists want global Communism and embrace diversity, while alt-right embrace ethnocenticism and the Utopia homogenous socalist nation state. The triangle/horseshoe theory only works when it's placed in a left-right dichonomy but breaks down when you strip that away leaving two distinct groups. Those who want more government and it's power to rule over and those who do not want a overbearing government.

  9. Right-Libertarian here. Fascinating new idea to play with, especially in seeing where my own ideas may be fit.

    Half "liberal" (libertarian), half conservative.

  10. Not kidding – I can up with something like the horseshoe theory when I was a teen…except it was a circle.

  11. Interesting vid. What I understood of it. I believe the Horseshoe analogy is the most accurate looping back around to authoritarianism. The only difference between Communism and Nazism is how both are structured. One is more like a pyramid scheme with a leader and everyone else below you. That seems to give the people an opinion or input as long as you tow the party line. i.e Communism. The other is more so structured like an ants nest. Where you need to have a lot of faith in your leader and he/she has the all the power. White people are victims of their own success and damned by their history. There are those who are so closed minded, that they cannot see that just because Europeans want their own living spaces. Does not mean they subscribe to Nazism. Or any form of Totalitarianism. Which is why I came up with and promote Nativism. To try and act as a circuit breaker to the Lefts narratives. There are some that are just stuck in the past.

  12. Most internet libertarians are NAP guys not Chicago schoolers, so I definitly would call them "rationalists" first princible people.
    Most "conservatives" are empirical, chicago schoolers as well , not the same as the ethno state alt right romanticisim. I guess that would put both close to the top corner of the triangle.

  13. I am far left and I totally agree. My only contention is the "equality of outcome" thing. The disabled vet with frost bight living under a bridge isn't losing a game, he's dieing.

  14. Personally, I think that you're over-complicating things. <Collectivism> ——————————————<Individualism> . All other characteristics stem from these two primitives. Centrism/Fascism, also referred to as 'the third way', exists as a form of statist-equilibrium in the middle.

  15. You should look up and then take the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz ( Then reexamine your triangle theory. The quiz resolves many of the comments pointed out below. The square is a better analogy. Check it out.

  16. I always thought the alt-right were basically the polar opposite of progressives in their moral foundations.

    I think this theory is sound, and certainly more charitable than standard horseshoe theory. Also incorporates the "fishhook theory".

  17. Pretty good theory. My main problem with it though is that it doesn't encompass a wide enough range of political beliefs.

  18. Why is nationalism only considered right wing? Aren't all sides of the triangle capable of being nationalist?At least by historical standards?

  19. I use a similar framework in my class to teach philosophy/theory. I am somewhere between liberals and conservatives. It is a useful framework to break socialist/marxist conditioning in a classroom setting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *