Physical analogies in the era of the no-limits Left

Politics is often understood by analogy to mechanical equilibrium.  The two sides are like opposing forces.  Their strength depends on the republic’s current policy set, which set can be roughly mapped to a one-dimensional line from “Right” to “Left”.  For one policy location, the forces balance and equilibrium can be maintained.  The equilibrium is assumed to be stable; making policy too intolerable for one side will energize that side and lead to a push back toward equilibrium.  Averaged over election cycles, policy remains close to equilibrium, while drift in the equilibrium point itself due to culture change is assumed to happen but on a timescale long compared to electoral timescales.  Even though equilibrium may drift one way or the other, neither side is able to push all the way to its ideal policy set (the Right or Left terminus).  It is understood in this model that it is as important for a candidate not to mobilize moderates leaning toward the other side as it is for him to mobilize his own side.  Hence, senatorial and presidential candidates will feign moderation before a general election.

This analogy is no longer valid.  I realized this when, defying the usual electoral logic, President Obama endorsed gay marriage while seeking re-election.  As I recall, the President made no feigns to the middle.  He correctly realized he didn’t have to anymore.  Energizing the Right is no longer a danger for a politician.  The age of the no-limits Left had begun.  Once the Left realized this, a host of previously unthinkable things happened overnight.  For a hundred years, “Southern pride” was a fact of life whether one liked it or not.  Then the Left snapped its fingers and removed the Confederate flag from the public.  In an America with a Right strong enough to seriously challenge the Left, liberals would themselves be the biggest proponents of “religious freedom” bills.  Allowing individuals and small businesses to abstain from endorsing gay marriage costs the Democrats’ gay clients very little, and it would be a cheap and effective way to de-energize the Right, to convince conservatives that while the public sphere is definitely lost to them, they will be allowed to retreat to private life unmolested.  In the age of the no-limits Left, such calculations do not arise.  It doesn’t matter how upset or angry one makes people who identify positively with orthodox Christianity or the white race.  These people are powerless, so there’s no need to make allowances so that life remains tolerable to them.

In the new age of the no-limits Left, physical analogies should be not mechanical but thermodynamical.  There is no serious organized resistance to the Left, but we will never achieve the state of total Leftist purity simply because of uncontrolled random variables at the microscopic (individual) scale.  Certain individuals may not be properly indoctrinated because they are stupid or crazy or because of local glitches in the educational system.  (In the late Roman Empire, there were Christians and there were pagans, but when organized paganism was sufficiently vanquished, the categories became educated Christian and uneducated Christian.)  Individuals or small groups might act out in politically incorrect ways simply because, for various psychological or group-dynamical reasons, they wish to violate social propriety.  (The Nazis were once a political party that attracted some of Germany’s finest minds; now they’re an American prison gang.)  A few will accidentally encounter fragments of prior ideological systems and pick them up for reasons good or bad.

A system immersed in a thermal bath will not find all particles in the ground state, even though it is the state of lowest energy.  For such a system, not the energy U but the free energy U – TS will be minimized.  We are no longer a rival force.  We are entropy in the system.


13 Responses

  1. I think you are mistaken. The problem is simply the kind of drifting you are talking about, except that it always goes left.

    In other words, there is still an equilibrium, just a good deal farther left than it used to be. So for example, liberals are still staying that gay marriage won’t lead to polygamy, and they still think that polygamy is bad. In a sense that is just because polygamy is associated with religious conservatives like Muslims and Mormons, so you could still say there is no limit to the leftward movement. But there is: polygamy is in fact not only a conservative phenomena, but there is also polyamory, which is just polygamy by another name, and which is entirely a liberal phenomena.

    The leftward drift is going to legalize polygamy and polyamory, but it hasn’t yet. This shows that there is still an equilibrium, even if it is a bad one.

  2. Right-wing values, like strong families, hard work, and thrift, generate wealth. Left-wing values like divorce, welfare statism, and sexual license, consume wealth. Naturally the nations with the most leftism are those with a fountain of free money to pay for it, e.g. oil (Venezuela), phosphorus (Nauru), sugar and tobacco (Cuba), or central bank printing presses (the USA and Europe)

    Then one day the wealth is all gone, the EBT cards stop working, and life gets very right-wing, very quickly.

  3. @Dave
    Additionally modern technology creates tons of “free money” allowing first world nations (and more affluent parts of third world nations) to defy nature for indefinite periods of time. Technology creates enough wealth that society essentially “buys” manufactured problems via liberalism. Liberalism is a social disease of affluencce

    You don’t see liberalism thriving in poverty stricken places like Yemen simply because they cannot afford it.

  4. @Minion
    Modern technology certainly has given us plenty of food, but EBT cards create other problems, such as well-fed chimps rampaging through what used to be safe neighborhoods. You liberals gave us the food and housing we needed, now lend us your daughters so we can have the sex we need too.

    Yemenis sure love liberalism when it allows them to move to Western countries and collect welfare benefits. Liberals see the vultures circling overhead and exclaim, “look how many followers we’re attracting!”

  5. It is possible that right wing collapse pornography is simply wishful thinking, a fantasy that certain sorts of people find comforting. I make no predictions, but it seems perfectly possible to me for liberalism to continue to dominate for centuries. Today’s reactionaries and conservatives sound just like Roger Waters of Pink Floyd giving interviews in the early seventies, talking about the impending across-the-board collapse of civilization. And their economic theories have about the same amount of contact with reality as Roger’s.

    Liberalism has proven itself remarkably resilient. Our landscape is littered with the decaying remains of people who had themselves fully convinced that apocalypse was imminent.

    But things are really much worse than these folks realize. Liberalism is ultimately a horror for everyone, but betting against its staying power is like playing the lottery as an income strategy.

  6. It is possible that right wing collapse pornography is simply wishful thinking, a fantasy that certain sorts of people find comforting.

    It’s more than possible. The evident relish with which collapse porn is produced and consumed is the tipoff.

    The Roman Empire, both East and West, staggered on for a long, long time after it stopped expanding. Even the USSR went on for decades after almost nobody was doing more than going through the motions. On the other hand, there is clearly weird randomness and threshold-crossing in such collapses, so maybe it will happen tomorrow.

  7. It really seems much too early for pronouncements regarding the disappearance of equilibrium in the past 5 years, especially given the reemergence of nationalism manifested in support for Trump.

  8. There is no serious organized resistance to the Left, but we will never achieve the state of total Leftist purity simply because of uncontrolled random variables at the microscopic (individual) scale.

    There was no serious organized resistance to the Church under Henry VII either. Or even Henry VIII for that matter.

    There are clearly divisions within our evil elite. The Democrat-Republican division is a manifestation of the division between Infotainment and Defenergy. Or, if you prefer, the division between ecclesial and secular aristocracy. These two lobes of the elite clearly do not like one another. If, someday, Defenergy chooses to smash Infotainment, they will reach out into the surrounding culture for an alternative church—you can’t not have an established church.

    As long as we have a strong-president-first-past-the-post election system, we will have, at equilibrium, two roughly 50/50 parties. The parties will talk about whatever issues they need to talk about and in whatever way they need to talk about them to get to the equilibrium. That noise isn’t important, though. It’s the sort of thing political scientists spend their time studying.

    The limits on the left/church are the same as they have always been. “How many divisions has the Pope/David Geffen,” has the same answer it has always had.

    Defenergy has a plumbing problem. How do we pump over some more people to stay near 50/50 as demographics evolve against us? The solution Trump offers is to go after downscale whites, which, obviously, means de-emphasizing the Culture War in favor of economic nationalism. As a side effect, the demographic evolution will be slowed. Defenergy doesn’t seem all that thrilled, overall, with this solution.

    On the other hand, the alternative solution to the plumbing problem—the Jeb/Rubio/etc solution of appealing to those natural conservatives, the Mexicans—is comically stupid, at least in its current form. It could be made into a good solution, but that would require a real confrontation with the church. Mexicans could be appealed to on the basis of “Democrats: party of atheists, Jews, faggots, and blacks. Which are you, Pablo?”

    If they can’t find an acceptable solution to the plumbing problem, then the structure of American elections is the thing which will have to go (well, unless you think that getting rid of Defenergy is feasible). Either way, that would be a coup. Thomas Sowell is already (with plausible deniability) calling for one. Now, that isn’t going to happen. An acceptable solution will be found to the plumbing problem, whether Trump’s or somebody else’s (likely Trump’s).

    Since that solution is unlikely to involve talking about abortion much, you’re right that we won’t hear about abortion all that much.

  9. Better theory:

    Appealing to moderates (people without strong beliefs) to win elections is a fool’s errand. Until recently, everyone has been a fool. Recently the left has started getting over this myth, and with the rise of Trump we can see the right doing the same.

    There is no equilibrium point, social change in one direction only encourages further change in he same direction.

  10. In any mature democracy, there will always be two, and only two, political parties (or coalitions of parties): the friends of corruption and the sowers of sedition; those who hope to profit from existing abuses and those who hope to profit from the disaffection those abuses inevitably excite.

  11. I consider myself a “nazi.”
    I read The Daily Stormer every day.
    I am not in a prison gang, and state with confidence that the number of National Socialists (nazis) is many times greater than the number of “nazis” in prison gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood.
    Search Leon Degrelle.
    And stop believing in the “holocaust.”

  12. Appealing to moderates (people without strong beliefs) to win elections is a fool’s errand. Until recently, everyone has been a fool. Recently the left has started getting over this myth, and with the rise of Trump we can see the right doing the same.

    Alternatively, the left has divided the right by wooing many of them leftwards to become moderates. Following this, they conquered.

  13. […] So, what else happened in 2016?  Somehow, believing that a man who cuts his dick off and puts on a dress does not thereby become a woman passed out of the Overton Window.  Given the magnitude of the Left’s recent victories in the culture wars, this felt much less momentous than it otherwise would have.  We on the Right had gotten spoiled, expecting that it would take a full half-decade between the time the Left invents a crazy idea to the time no one is allowed to disagree.  Now it happens faster.  Welcome to the era of the no-limits Left. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: