The Horseshoe Theory

[Tree]

Prompted in chat to consider the horseshoe theory for the millionth time, it occurred to me that this meme which I used to share is complete bunk. It touches on something real, which is why it resonates, but it's framing is faulty and obscuring.

The horseshoe phenomenon, when applied to "left/right" politics, more accurately boils down to those who understand power vs those who don't. Specifically, those currently in power ("the regime") -- who due to their nature and status as interlopers, utilize left wing apparatchiks to push their social engineering and are seen as left wing, with their apparatchiks as extreme -- of course understand power. Then there's the unwashed masses, the "sane people" not at the ends of the horseshoe, who are intentionally taught incorrectly about how power works. They believe in mass movements, human rights, freedoms independent of a state, individualism above all, free markets, freedom of speech, and so on. Things you'd have to be an "extremist" not to believe in. Haven't you seen the movies? Anyway, on the other end we come to those who oppose the regime, who, due to also understanding power, are a threat to them. These people are conveniently labeled "far right".

The libertarian-esk interpretation of the horseshoe is that both ends are baddies, but in reality, there is no continuity in the shape of a horseshoe at all. It's just a regime fighting against its potential enemies with young people, and others who buy the lies sold to them about power, off to the side.

But why gripe about this? Because it's potent containment. The regime has the advantage here. Even if you are not on board with the "crazy left" itself, because they are already in power, as long as you see their rivals, who need your support in order to gain power, as also unreasonable extremists, you are politically impotent and not a threat. You can not gain power, let alone achieve justice, without accepting the realities of power. If you are tricked into seeing those realities as "extreme", those already in power can take their time boiling you as nothing you are willing to support will be able to stop them.

That is, the Horseshoe Theory is a bunk idea pushed by the regime towards normies not explicitly on their side to keep them from being mobilized by a rival power structure. The regime, who is in power, does not need the consent of those it governs, so long as it keeps up pretenses which prevent its subjects from organizing around an alternative. They can spin their wheels with cryptocurrency and decentralization and whatever else all they want; none of these things can unseat them unpaired to a rival who is able and willing to exercise power.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The horseshoe theory is just how extreme worldviews always degenerate to the same ideas. Issue is that it only really applies when you have some balance between the political wings, else you have the modern case of one side wanting to fuck kids, and the other side wanting to shoot proclaimed child molestors.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Horseshoe theory has nothing to do with the current political "power" balance (even then, I'd disagree that the far left runs everything). It's rather more the observation that extremists on both sides often take similar forms, and that a society dominated by either extreme would be similarly miserable. Once you're planting pipe bombs (or defending those who do) in order to establish a tyrannical government to kill the (blacks/rich), under which there'll be nothing resembling "human rights," I stop caring what batshit joke of a "philosophy" you follow.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Horseshoe theory is nothing more than the observation that raving ideologues all wind up behaving in the same ways regardless of how much they hate each other or how special snowflake i'm-differnet-from-the-other-girls their ideology is. It's 100% correct.

 

[Tree]

Horseshoe theory has nothing to do with the current political "power" balance (even then, I'd disagree that the far left runs everything). It's rather more the observation that extremists on both sides often take similar forms, and that a society dominated by either extreme would be similarly miserable. Once you're planting pipe bombs (or defending those who do) in order to establish a tyrannical government to kill the (blacks/rich), under which there'll be nothing resembling "human rights," I stop caring what batshit joke of a "philosophy" you follow.

But that's the thing, human rights don't exist, but are a tool of power controlled by the existing regime which they regularly make exceptions to in order to control their political enemies.

As for political violence, a similar situation is the case. The regime sponsors political violence to achieve its goals: left wing violence to intimidate and right wing violence to paint their enemies as deserving aforementioned punitive exceptions, label them as extremists and validate this "horseshoe" idea, including the idea that life under their political enemies would be miserable ("stick with the enemy you know, goy").

Secondly, on genuine political violence, you have to ask yourself: why should an illegitimate state have a monopoly on violence? As well as: How could you expect a state, especially an illegitimate one, to allow you to remove that monopoly from them without a fight? That's not to promote blind lashing out that only serves to justify punitive action.

And you're right, the "far left" doesn't run much of anything; that's a label given to the entropic vehicles the current regime is using at this moment of its control in order to break down the civilizational norms which oppose them. As it can be seen they do embrace inequality and hierarchy, albeit in ways that worship reflections of their own ugly nature and oppose the nature of their civilizational enemies. If it comes to benefit them, they will outright become "right wing", just for themselves.

Horseshoe theory is nothing more than the observation that raving ideologues all wind up behaving in the same ways regardless of how much they hate each other or how special snowflake i'm-differnet-from-the-other-girls their ideology is. It's 100% correct.

Of course people who understand power take similar forms: just as everyone adopts weapons that look similar. However, knowing how to use a gun doesn't make you an extremist, and neither does understanding power. People understood this more before the era of mass propaganda, before they could give every small mind the rhetorical tools to claim that those who understand power, especially those outside the regime, are "extreme". It makes perfect sense how they also try to convince us owning guns is extreme.

And of course they push the idea that any form of political will which brings people closer to holding them to justice is "tyrannical". By necessity, strong leadership is required at least until the opposing force can no longer fight.


Another way of disabusing the horseshoe is to say there are regime stooges, simple people, and those who fight for a new order. Depending on the situation, the order can be bad, or the revolutionaries can be bad. But unlike the fake opposition (conservatives) the regime generates for itself, both will understand and be willing to exercise power. The horseshoe theory, often preached by the fake opposition, tells you that because the two armies use guns, you should support neither side.

I used to be a simple person that just wanted to be left alone, but I was not left alone and came to understand why.

 

[Jewthulhu]

But that's the thing, human rights don't exist, but are a tool of power controlled by the existing regime which they regularly make exceptions to in order to control their political enemies.

It's an easy shorthand for the philosophical ideal. The idea is simply that as a human with consciousness and free will, you should be treated with certain human dignities that are absent in a extremist, tyrannical regime. It may be an ideal that is never lived up to, but I'd rather be able to practice my religion, speak my mind, and defend myself than not.

As for political violence, a similar situation is the case. The regime sponsors political violence to achieve its goals: left wing violence to intimidate and right wing violence to paint their enemies as deserving aforementioned punitive exceptions, label them as extremists and validate this "horseshoe" idea, including the idea that life under their political enemies would be miserable ("stick with the enemy you know, goy").

I think you're misunderstanding Yarvin's point (I'm assuming that's where you got this from, it's almost point by point the argument he puts forward in Grey Mirror). Right wing violence isn't organized or sponsored by the state, it's done by hapless idiots and just happens to play into the established power dynamic, because the people against them are typically the ones setting the narrative. The solution isn't to embrace extremism, it's to disconnect from the political machine altogether.

I'd also point out that outside of it's effect, the intent of violence is the same for both sides, even in an asymmetric conflict. Intimidation to secure power. A pipe bomb intends to intimidate the population into thinking the state cannot protect them, and intimidate the population into siding with the extremist party. A political purge intends to intimidate the population into thinking they cannot fight against the state, and intimidate the population into not plotting against the state.

Secondly, on genuine political violence, you have to ask yourself: why should an illegitimate state have a monopoly on violence? As well as: How could you expect a state, especially an illegitimate one, to allow you to remove that monopoly from them without a fight? That's not to promote blind lashing out that only serves to justify punitive action.

A state is legitimate if the people under it think it's legitimate, which they do. Or, in a more Machiavellian sense, a state is legitimate if it can enforce that legitimacy against rival claimants, which it can. You ask why the state should have a monopoly on violence, I ask why you think you uniquely can fight the state and win? I also ask you why violence? What group was more successful, the Jew's revolts, or the Christian's philosophy of "render unto Caesar?"

 

[Tree]

It's an easy shorthand for the philosophical ideal. The idea is simply that as a human with consciousness and free will, you should be treated with certain human dignities that are absent in a extremist, tyrannical regime. It may be an ideal that is never lived up to, but I'd rather be able to practice my religion, speak my mind, and defend myself than not.

I could repeat myself and be no less right. If it were an ideal, people in power would stick to it (and make exceptions to it) out of principle, not out of self interest. Since they stick to it out of self interest, and make exceptions to it when it's against their interests, it's not an ideal, it's a tool of power. Some say ideals are all fake and gay in this way, and I tend to agree. On top of that, in this regime's case, their stated ideals are not at all in line with what they aim to achieve. They are just lies that they're not even trying to live up to.

Also it should be obvious at this point that you can't speak your mind, defend yourself, or practice a religion in a way that forms a coalition that can realistically oppose the regime's ends. You must remain atomized and powerless, unable to oppose or even slow down their goals or these so called freedoms are curtailed, and your group is marked for dissolution. That you even continue to pedal this increasingly obvious fiction that you're free in these ways in any meaningful sense makes you suspect.

I think you're misunderstanding Yarvin's point

These ideas are developed past Yarvin, but he would likely agree with parts of them. Yarvin gets a lot wrong. I don't misunderstand him, I'm not making his arguments.

Right wing violence isn't organized or sponsored by the state, it's done by hapless idiots and just happens to play into the established power dynamic, because the people against them are typically the ones setting the narrative.

I shouldn't have to spell out something this obvious. Of course there are stupid people they are happy to pick from to paint their enemies as. But you'd have to not be paying attention to not notice they are forced to routinely engineer events for this purpose, because the right is not like they want to make it out to be. Charletsville, Whitmer kidnaping, Jan 6th; these are just the recent ones that are obvious. Again you seem to be running interference.

The solution isn't to embrace extremism, it's to disconnect from the political machine altogether.

That's not his proscription, not that his proscription is right. You can't win without fighting. Best case interpretation this is just stating the obvious that you must choose your political engagements carefully. Regardless you do yourself no favors by misunderstanding the function of liberal idealism, or idealism more broadly.

A state is legitimate if the people under it think it's legitimate, which they do. Or, in a more Machiavellian sense, a state is legitimate if it can enforce that legitimacy against rival claimants, which it can. You ask why the state should have a monopoly on violence, I ask why you think you uniquely can fight the state and win? I also ask you why violence? What group was more successful, the Jew's revolts, or the Christian's philosophy of "render unto Caesar?"

What are you doing here? Are you appealing to the masses for the state's legitimacy? Then you began to be more realistic, only to posit "but you aren't in power yet so why try, why even look for other options, or harbor the idea that the current state is illegitimate?". Are you their chief apologist?

And you again seemingly twist my words to suggest the fact that the use of force is inevitable, thus violence is likely inevitable, to be me advocating for violence. Appealing to the fact that there will be violence if their political rival is allowed to exist is something any lasting regime does to keep the population on their side. It's not the rival that causes the violence any more than the regime. It's two legitimately different worldviews coming into conflict. To think a likelihood of violence is a reason to not right wrongs is prudence at first, but at this point it's cowardice (of people generally) if not outright malice (of the illegitimate leaders).