About Political Personalities

Professor Raccoon will explain it all to you.

I am preparing for a series of fairly complicated blog posts about the structure of society and the oligarchy which rules over it. Toward that I am going to have to define what I mean by several concepts.

One of these concepts is the idea of basic political personalities. I am not the first political scientist type around who has had ideas about this. It is about the basic personalities in society as they relate to political movements and power.

Of course, human societies are way more complicated than this. However, to talk about these things you must put people into boxes and give them labels. This is the reality imposed by the limitations of language and cognition.

Obviously, personality types relate to political movements. But it is not the personality types which create political movements, especially extreme ones. Oligarchic interests create political movements and choose types of personalities to build them with.

As I have explained in other blog posts, there are three basic types of political movements, based on the three sided struggle in most societies. There are the financial capitalist interests based on charging rents and interest. There are the industrial capitalist interests based on capturing the surpluses from production and distribution activities.

Then we have the actual public interest, the ‘civil society’. That is, the people and organizations who keep the structure of civilization going. These also require strong political movements to protect them, but these are organized differently, with different personality types involved.

I find six of these personality types, as defined for purposes of explaining political participation and motivation. They divide first of all into ideological and normal people. Then you have the conservative, moderate, and progressive casts of mind.

Normal people do not like politics and political movements. They usually avoid them and for good reason. They become involved when they have to and when there is some frame of action available to them.

Normal people, in the sense I use here, can develop their own understanding of the world around them through observation and reflection. ‘Normal’ does not mean perfectly rational and moral. Normal people can be neurotic, deluded, or intimidated, but there is a limit to how far they can be manipulated.

Only ideological people, always a minority in society, become involved in political movements without good reasons. They are ideological because they are abnormal. They need some external presence to give them an ideology because they are unable to make sense of the world by themselves.

There is a right, center, and left mind form. In themselves, there is nothing wrong with any of these ways of thinking. They all have their uses in a healthy society.

A normal right wing means a conservative. They want security, stability, and predictability in their lives. They tend to protect society from going too far and too fast.

A normal centrist is a moderate. They want to understand why things are the way they are. They want things to make sense. So, they tend to insure that tendencies in societies make sense, are reasonable.

A normal leftist is a progressive, in the correct sense of the term. They want possibilities and potentials expanded and enhanced. Left people are very important in society because all progress comes from them.

A normalized society means one where the normal interests of society are exclusively served. Capitalist, oligarchic political movements are not allowed to operate. Ideological people have no one to give them malign directions, so they withdraw to the fringes of society, where they belong.

In a normalized society, left/progressive people are the natural leaders. They are interested in continual improvement of conditions. They propose things, moderates examine whether they are well enough thought out, conservatives put on the brakes if things are moving to fast. Normal conservatives will eventually accept what normal left people propose.

Now, to now the mind forms effect on ideological people.

The ideological right wing creates the authoritarian personality. I do not like to apply the words ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ loosely to them, because these terms really need to be more carefully defined. Basically, these are people who cannot tolerate, and want to eliminate, any person not just like them, or any thing which does not suit them.

Liberals are the ideological centrists. They are the most aggressively ‘reasonable’ people. Any really objective person who has been involved in public discussion knows that they are the most utterly obnoxious of fanatics. When in government, they are the most dangerous ideology.

Everything has to be perfectly explained and everything put into neat categories. Their defect is that they try to reify these categories, make them into concrete groups rather than abstractions. Everything is about inventing an ideal reality instead of understanding reality.

No one’s feelings must ever be hurt as long as they stay in those categories. All opinions have merit until they contradict the ideal narrative, and then they are totally evil. In the liberal world, truth is relative and ideas do not relate to reality.

In Liberal land, all is beautiful as long as everyone accepts the ideal narrative and their place in it. Otherwise, they are being ‘rude’ and ‘unreasonable’. If they really threaten the narrative, they are evil and must be eliminated. ‘Woke’ism is the ultimate extreme of Liberalism, and is usually channeled through ‘virtue signaling’.

Now to the ideological left. These are the people most accurately called extremists. They demand an extreme level of perfection and purity in everything, which is impossible in reality. They are really dangerous when they get into contests about which of them is the most committed to the purest ideology.

Before getting to the aims of political movements, I need to discuss some of the major ideologies. These are the tools which oligarchs use to activate ideological people to serve their interests. Civil society movements need to avoid ideology as a motivational tool.

Anarchism is the idea that all of civil society is oppression created by capitalism, and needs to be torn down so everyone can live freely. Of course many capitalists would love to see much of the structure of society torn down because it gets in the way of them freely oppressing people.

Marxists/Socialists are really only an ideology when misunderstood in various ways. Old Marx had some good points, including about ‘class war’. It is ridiculous to argue against socialism when it is expressed correctly; as the organization of society to meet human needs.

However, most such groups are heavily infiltrated and controlled by oligarchic agents. Socialism goes right when it is connected to a properly thought out program of change in society. This must be directed by normals.

Pacifism is a useful tool of oligarchy. Of course, getting in the face of some enforcer or vigilante types and announcing you will not fight back is the perfect way to get yourself killed or injured. Many would-be practitioners of non violence have learned this the hard way.

Yet pacifism is one of the best ways to neutralize left/progressive impulses, so the idea is endlessly and massively pushed.

I have said enough about Liberalism and Wokism, but two liberal ideas are deeply dug into public consciousness which need examination; democracy and free speech.

Political democracy and political oligarchy are often confused. People who think democracy is about everyone having their ‘interests’ ‘represented’ are really talking about oligarchy. In a real democracy there is one interest; society’s interest. Otherwise, government will consist of special interest groups destructively fighting to have their interests served, with the most powerful oligarchic groups always winning.

Further to that, in a real democracy there is no such thing as free speech. There are consequences for irresponsible and self interested public speech. Oligarchs use false democracy and free speech as weapons of class war, and to enable use of ideology as instruments of social control.

Neoliberalism is the usual term now used for the idea of a ‘market’ economy. This is really a cover for capitalist exploitation of society. The idea is so deeply dug into public consciousness that everyone assumes that is how economies actually work.

In the real world, markets, in that sense of the term, are seldom used to allocate resources. Rather, economic actors negotiate among themselves for stable and predictable prices, and to secure access to supplies and markets. That is, markets in the better sense of the term, as in consumers of a specific product or service.

Libertarianism is the reverse image of anarchism; the idea that governments and society are just getting in the way of us doing whatever we want. It is rephrased to appeal more to right wing ideology and to connect with neoliberalism. Any time people have gotten government out of their lives, they have also quickly had civilization out of their lives, which then got ‘nasty, brutish, and short’.

Fascism, Antifascism, Zionism, Nationalism, etc, etc. These are generally the most contemptible ideologies, a mess piled up mostly under the ‘right wing’ heading. Note that there is a good deal of crossover in these labels; for example, ‘antifa’ includes many people with right wing personalities who think they are on the left. Many of Hitler’s Nazis started out as communists.

Stalinist communism is a good example of ideological crossover. They were rightist personality types talking leftist ideology.

Most right wing people will reject these labels. They think they are patriots, or just ‘conservatives’. They often look very similar, superficially, but we must look closely at their real actions and the interests they serve.

For example, people tend to use the terms Nazi and Fascist interchangeably. No need for a history lesson here, but these people served different oligarchic interests and were often in conflict with each other. Fascism served industrial capitalism and Naziism served financial capitalism.

Now, to explain how these personalities, ideologies, and interests work together. There is no hard ideological line between the industrial, and the financial or globalist capitalists. They will mix and match ideologies and personalities to create the social and politic forces to defend their perceived interests.

Industrial Capitalists want to work within national states. These create stable borders within which they can have a controlled market and labor force. They want public government kept to a minimum, so it does not take return much of the country’s wealth to the public, or get in the way of maximum exploitation of labor, markets, and resources.

Thus, industrialists favour nationalism and libertarianism, and neoliberalism. They accept government and democracy as long as these serve their needs. They are hostile to any manifestation of public interest or real democracy.

Of course they are very hostile to socialism, but generally do not understand what it actually means. Anything not serving their interests is ‘socialism or ‘communism’. They often think financial capitalists are creating socialism.

Financial Capitalists are often called ‘globalists’ because national governments get in the way of how they accumulate wealth. They organize internationally and work for a world government and a single international trading system. They are accused by industrial capitalists of being behind the ‘Fabians’ and other fake left groups. This is true, but that is not where real socialism comes from.

The globalists are also behind Nazi type groups, as well as the Zionists. Worse, they are behind the loathsome neoMalthusian movement, which wants to reduce the world’s population by various means, but especially by imposing the ridiculous, fake ‘climate crisis’. They are responsible for most modern wars, by trying to destroy any country they cannot control.

The financial globalists are losing power in the world right now. Their system of international finance is not working for them. Many countries are effectively resisting their control. Some of these are being run by industrial capitalists. Some countries are now actually run to serve the interests of their people.

So, Industrial capitalists and to some extent, civil society, are gaining power in the world. However, in the Atlantic countries, what is normally called ‘The West’ or the ‘First world’, civil society is still fairly crushed. Industrial capitalist conservative parties are learning to cooperate with each other across national boundaries, through this new organization; ‘International Democratic Union’, IDU.

The idea that it makes no difference what political party is in power, is stupid. It may be partly true in the United Kingdom, where the Globalists have crushed the industrialists and have control over both main parties. In most English speaking countries the more ‘conservative’ party is controlled by industrialists, the more ‘liberal’ party is controlled by globalists, ‘left’ and civil society movements are suppressed, and which main party gets into office has consequences for the public of these countries and for subnational jurisdictions.

Voting by proportional representation will make no difference. The best organized oligarchic faction will still get control of government. The real left and civil society will still be sharply suppressed.

Liberal, Globalist governments want to deindustrialize countries. They are contemptuous of manufacturing and believe it can be done anywhere, and so should go where labor is cheapest. They believe wealth comes from owning property, natural resources, and public utilities, and charging rent for them.

Conservative, Nationalist, Industrialist governments, believe they can build back industry by driving down labor costs and reducing government. They subscribe to the delusion of infinite growth in a finite world. Such governments are always the biggest disaster for the 80% of people who need work and government programs to survive.

Globalists support continual war and see no down side to it ofr themselves. Countries defying their system must be destroyed. They do not care what it costs.

Nationalists favour war if there is money to be made from it. They want military force used to reserve markets for themselves. They do see potential downsides to war.

Globalists are more sophisticated in their methods of controlling the population. They try to control left, right, and center. Lately, conservative political movements are not letting them control the right side of the balance.

Globalists organize Liberal and Extremist personalities into movements. They seek the votes of moderate and progressive normals.

Industrialist nationalists have no interest in creating fake left groups. They organize Authoritarians into movements, and try to attract otherwise normal people who have become so frustrated that they see hope in the right’s false promises. They seek the votes of normal conservatives and moderates.

Normal people have always been frustrated and disgusted with this kind of political economy. More so, since it is going rotten and starting to fail, and living standards are falling. However, the interests of normal people and the civil societies which serve them, and all left/progressive movements, continue to be suppressed.

Any movement which finally gets going, to create government based on meeting human needs and suppressing oligarchy, will have to rigorously exclude ideological personalities. It will need to include normals of progressive, moderate, and conservative mind sets. However, the left, progressive mindset will inevitably lead this movement and give it direction. First moderates, then conservatives, will see the necessity of it and follow along.

I conclude this piece by making clear the real political divisions in society. Especially, Western, English speaking countries like Canada.

Most people see the important divisions as being between left and right, or else left, right, and centre. Some people like to think they are outside of this paradigm. Some very foolish people talk about their pet issue as being, “not left or right, but forward”.

However, the important divisions are not vertical on my chart. The horizontal line is the important one, between normal and ideological people.

Ideological people are incapable of working together. They are incapable of really running anything or forming any clear direction or goal. But they can be worked on to create political forces which can then be used to suppress normal people.

To solve the serious problems now facing oligarchically run societies, we need governments run by and for normal people. This is not such a difficult concept; ideological people and oligarchs always depend on civil society and the core of intelligent and well trained normals who run it. They keep the oligarch’s systems from collapsing.

What really keeps this unjust arrangement in place is not that oligarchs are capable. We see much evidence that they are arrogant fools. It is that they will do absolutely anything to stay in control.

Normal people just want to live their lives. They can do so perfectly well if left alone. Yet they are often made to feel they have no choice but to go along with idiots who are in control.

Oligarchs have become dependent on living off their wealth and other people’s work. If they lost their wealth and privilege, it would be like death to most of them. They would not know what to do.

Ideological people would also be lost in a normalized society, run by and for normal people. To repeat, they are ideological because they are abnormal. They are incompetent in a basic way.

The sad fact about normal humans, left, right or centre, is that it is hard for them to deal with abnormal people who will do anything for control because they are nothing otherwise. It is time for the human race, of whatever political personalities, to solve this problem.