‘Coincidentally’ a number of seemingly unrelated social media stimuli have conspired to recall this today:

Political Triangle

Note: “Politics closest to me” comes from the original creator of this diagram (I’m still not sure who that is). The politics closest to me are located in the top right corner of the gray box, where it disappears into the blackness of the Outside.

For the record, these tweets were the principal pincers:

(It took me a while to make the connection.)

There’s a further link — also to Twitter — concerning the accusation that Anarcho-Capitalism and Neocameralism are ‘Utopian’. I won’t reproduce that here, because it was longer, and more involved. The relevant point is that both these ‘positions’ can be construed either as ideals, and therefore indeed vulnerable to criticism for their Utopianism, or as cold analytical frameworks that capture what is in a way that enhances its theoretical tractability. Darwinism is no different, in this respect.

Anybody who is a Cosmic Darwinist is certainly going to be a Social Darwinist, unless they have a cognitive consistency problem. When a Darwinist observes a maladaption it is not seen as a theoretical hole, but rather as the basis for a prediction. Whatever cannot effectively reproduce itself can be reliably expected not to successfully reproduce itself. If adventures in policy recommendation then follow, they are strictly secondly. What is primary is simple. Reality rules.

Outside in is, of course, utterly Social Darwinist in this sense (and probably also in whatever others are available). Variation-selection dynamics are unsurpassable. Whatever seeks to depart from them will fail. Suppression of either variation or selection is intrinsically maladaptive to the cosmos. Maximization of the interlocked functions of experimentation and eradication of error is the only value to which the ultimate nature of things subscribes. Anything that works picks up on that, and goes with its grain. Anything that doesn’t is objectively insane. It’s not especially difficult, except for the fact that it offers us nothing but the (cold) truth.

Does Darwinism define the ultimate (transcendental) Right (in this sense, and this)? Capitalism as Darwinian socio-economics, HBD as Darwinian anthropology, the Gods of the Copybook Headings as Darwinian cultural history …? I cannot even imagine how that might not be so.

February 13, 2015admin 18 Comments »


18 Responses to this entry

  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Within the parlance of Christian thought the concept of ‘The World’ (as use pejoratively) is a false system of incentives or adaption pressures that are designed to try to negate the natural ones – i.e. man fleeing away from death rather than facing it with dignity, men seeking immediate pleasure rather than seeking better pleasures with longer time frames and harder acquisitions, man seeking to optimize his status over his virtue, man hoarding money rather than using it, etc.

    “The World” might be represented as being the luciferian pull towards the left of that chart – towards validation of base human desires and to the creation of a ‘new reality’ that fulfills them.

    The tension is, of course, that “The World” cannot supersede the order on which it is constructed (whether it employs magic, drugs, or Marxian economics) and thus some men must flee to the narrow paths to the right or the whole of humanity and anything humanity might achieve will cease.

    The best revenge would be to give up and let everything slide into ruin, destroying all the knowledge of truth so these swine cannot have it and therefore cannot save themselves from the ruin they have invited. However, doing so would probably also destroy me and the people I care for.

    If only I was a good Buddhist and could properly destroy my ego. But I’m a bad Christian and can’t. There’s no way I’m going to cease existing, even if it requires dying.

    What do you think of this image?

    Personally, I didn’t publish it wider because the dénouement is weak.


    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 4:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Monarchism strikes me as an ideal because it acknowledges caste systems instead of letting them be a function of commerce alone. It also avoids the ideological obedience required for dictatorship.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    This chart also validates that Nationalism is to the left of us Monarchists.


    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 5:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alan J. Perrick Says:

    Mr. Buchanan actually gave Pres. Nixon a posthumous pat-on-the-back for “civil rights” which is code word for White Genocide. The reason, of course, that he is on so many of these lists is because a disproportionate of modern subversives have been papists who bring him up as a meme.




    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 5:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    “Does Darwinism define the ultimate (transcendental) Right?”


    But it is essential avoid the mistake of saying “Darwinism” and thinking “Capitalism”.

    Darwinism refers to “the struggle for life”.

    Xenosystems post from July 3rd, 2014 titled “Conflict” puts the struggle for life in a broader perspective:

    “This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature”

    It goes without saying that this is war by all means; military, economic, political, social.

    And so capitalism is only a facet of the war for survival. Or more accurately, a sort of game or flower war with a limited ruleset, that was embraced for a time to avoid the destructive consequences of real fighting.

    Overspecialization is a leading cause of extinction. Combatants would do well to remember that the game is not the entirety of the war.


    neovictorian23 Reply:

    The readership might be interested in Kampf by mathematician and World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker. I don’t think it has ever been published except in the original German, however…since it’s in the public domain, someone could probably make a few coins selling a translation to NRx people.


    Rasputin Reply:


    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Thanks, I obviously should have looked harder. 🙂

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    This looks exellent, R (but I must buy the PB)….

    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 7:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alia D. Says:

    Interesting how the charts shows less room to move around on the left, and the further to the left you go, the more constricted your scope of thought is.


    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Coldness | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 9:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    I hope some of you are up there in the “City/State – Separatism” area with me. There aren’t any politicians/leaders there now, but there will be soon…


    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 10:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Whatever it is, it doesn’t work as a triangle. Some of the inner regions make no sense — the most egregious example being the orange/brown zone between communism and absolutism, where “China” was very wrongly placed.

    I agree that Darwinism “defines the ultimate (transcendental) Right.” With that in mind, I believe that we could plot this triangle more adequately as a linear continuum. Something probably like:

    [Communism] — [Socialism] — [“Liberal Democracy”] — [Classical Republicanism] — [Confederalism] — [Libertarianism] — [Anarcho-Capitalism] — [Darwinism]

    It simply goes from collectivist on the left, to individualist on the right, with existential individualism (in its most basic and harrowing sense) at the furthest Right end of the spectrum.

    I’d argue that:
    – Mainstream politics, and “progressivism” as such, generally lies between “socialism” and “liberal democracy”.

    – Classical Athenean democracy was too turbulent to plot anywhere, but the Hellenic nation was essentially Confederalist.

    – Monarchist systems, including the feudalism of the Dark Ages and the absolutist forms of Government it later spawned, are essentially Darwinist in nature. What are serfs, if not people who actively trade liberty for security? (It’s true that they often have no other choice but death — however that only strengthens the point. The strong survive and conquer, and the weak are put to the sword.) And how do Kings differ from tribal chieftains? Like Agamemnon, the Emperor in Constantinople was called “Basileus” — which, if we want to be strict about it, can only be translated as chieftain. China’s famously brutal first Emperor got his start by maneuvering his way to the top of his tribal nation, and then using its resources to crush or subdue all of the other tribes and nations who would not submit to his rule. Other examples abound. Monarchy and feudalism are tribalist and Darwinist in nature.


    existoon Reply:

    This map is indeed a triangular Procrustean bed, but that’s what most of the US Right seems to be using. (Very informative for those Outside it). Connecting vertices of the triangle would make it almost workable: Lenin wormhole connecting Communism and Absolutism, Stirner Individual Signularity wormhole connecting *left* Libertarianism (original meaning, symptomatically unmapped here) and Anarchocapitalism (and often Absolutism), There is also this NRx wormhole connecting Individualism and Absolutism and it looks like travellers through it inevitably experience dimensional collapse 😉

    (Of course, there is no Left and Right in outer space, neither Up and Down. These are terms for earthworms)


    Posted on February 13th, 2015 at 10:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Significant Triangles | Poseidon Awoke: Realist Says:

    […] brings me to coldness and this final triangle, the triangle of unknown origin, the Political Triangle that keeps popping […]

    Posted on February 14th, 2015 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • blankmisgivings Says:

    “Variation-selection dynamics are unsurpassable. Whatever seeks to depart from them will fail. Suppression of either variation or selection is intrinsically maladaptive to the cosmos. Maximization of the interlocked functions of experimentation and eradication of error is the only value to which the ultimate nature of things subscribes. Anything that works picks up on that, and goes with its grain. Anything that doesn’t is objectively insane.”

    This statement strikes me as objectively insane, since the writer is claiming to know, a. how, in the last instant (literally) the universe will ‘turn out’ and b. what the metric of ‘success’ and ‘failure’ for the universe as a whole must be, as seen ‘from nowhere and nowhen’. Point b aside (i.e assuming that some metric of success is conceivable) one need only point out that path dependence vitiates any attempt to decide what is maladaptive in the long run. To use a microscopic example – the Japanese government’s restrictions on imports and FDI in the 50’s may have looked ‘maladaptive’ from this cosmic perspective back then – but much less so 30 years later with the rise of the global zaibatsu.


    Posted on February 15th, 2015 at 5:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Some guy Says:

    Hi, I’m the concern troll.

    To be clear, let us say that the “Darwinism” you posit above is an extreme Right political theory concerned with producing the “Best” socio-cultural artifacts to fill the void left whenever the Cathedral exits from power and which has Capitalism, HBD, and “Gods of the Copybook Headings” proverbial wisdom as component parts.

    Because Darwinism is concerned with producing the transcendental (abstract, idealized) best artifacts, it includes in its component selection criterion a consideration of how that component fairs when implemented in the real world – as evidenced from your selection of Capitalism over Communism. Communism sounds awesome, but when implemented it leads to genocide and mass starvation. Capitalism sounds like a lot of drudgery, but leads to iPhones and full bellies.

    Now, if there were a political theory that did a better job at producing the “Best” in the real world, it would be darwinistically fitter than “Darwinism” (confused? Replace “Darwinism” with “My pet political theory”).

    I posit there is just such a political theory, although I’m not fully clear on it myself yet. And my reason is as follows.

    When the Cathedral collapses/is defeated/teleported to Tatooine/whatevs, whatever replaces it still has to govern central North America. Central North America is filled with a rather ornery and peculiar population called Americans. For example, once Capitalism sells off the Statue of Liberty for copper wiring and reinvests the profit in shares of Nestle; or, grinds-down Mount Rushmore for gravel to use in building another Mega Mall; then the Americans would kill Capitalism, taxidermy it, put it on the wall next to the godhood of the Japanese Emperor, and then make jokes about it while drinking PBR and getting no-fault divorces. My point is that Capitalism-with-benevolent-restraint, while seemingly less fit than Darwinism’s pure Capitalism, does not provoke an immune system response from American character. Because Capitalism-with-restraint makes it out of the cradle, something with it as a component is to the Right of Darwinism. With real world Americans, Capitalism-with-restraint beats Capitalism which beats Communism.

    I had this idea when trying to tell real-world friends about NRx. I couldn’t figure out how to do it without provoking that immune response. This means that the thing to the right of Darwinism starts with this non-obvious list:
    no kings, no free exit, capitalism-with-restraint, equal rights for women and minorities, and no mandatory religion.

    I know that designing a sane government for Americans is a harder proposition when starting from that list than NRx’s designing sane government for a “general population”. But, if someone can do it, the thing they build would be to the right of Darwinism and would supplant the Cathedral along with anything that the current iteration of NRx would devise.

    If my logic is off, please let me know.


    Posted on February 16th, 2015 at 2:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Frieza – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on September 16th, 2016 at 11:28 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment