In 2016 I was going to write a post about John C. Wright’s near incomprehensible scheme for categorising ideologies on two axes (original Wright post archived here). However, vanity and vainglorious aspiration required me to furnish the post with a better graphic. Having laboured on the graphic I realised I had very little to say, leaving the post as little more than my drawing of Wright’s windrose: https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/john-c-wrights-windrose-of-political-heresy/
Now Mr Wright recently reposted his essay on his scheme, and as with his previous essay, there was a graphic to accompany it…which looks more than a little familiar…
Fair enough, though it really needs the demihemisemicardinal points added.
Now a certain kind of person might consider reporting this theft to Wright’s hosting provider…
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Theocracy and Classical Liberalism and in the direction of Pragmatic, Mystic, Ideological and Chivalrous somewhat.”
Urp. I tried to read some of his essay to figure out what the hell any of it means… and I am stalled on him saying first that the right can agree to disagree within itself, then listing all the ways people who aren’t truly balanced members of the Catholic faith exactly as it is are flawed and fall into destruction then nihilism.
Of course, JCW also turns a blind eye to how the right eats its own on a regular basis – especially the extremes of the right, where petty feuds between (for example) factions of neo-Nazis or various Klan groups often turn into murder.
“The real difference is the Right believes that we can agree to disagree. The Left doesn’t agree to that.”
Wow, that’s bollocks to start with. 🙂
(I have come to the conclusion that the proper ideological divisor isn’t any of these things. It’s “bigot or not bigot”. Because you can have people in all of those camps that are bigots and people in all of them who are not. And personally, I tend to think that it’s how an individual sees other people that generally determines my attitude towards them.)
Hazeroth is a demon character from his books, so he’s basically posted a graphic saying “Satan was right.” Poor guy seems to have thought it was made by a fan.
My personal favorite in this line is Daffy Duck’s showstopping show-stopper where he stops BOOK REVUE and launches into a prolonged Daffy Kaye number, which may be Mel Blanc’s most impressive cadenza. The relevant excerpt:
[…] (3) YOU DON’T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WINDROSE. Can it be that John C. Wright thieved a diagram created by Camestros Felapton without giving credit? Survey says – “Bow wow!” However, according to Camestros, “It’s nice to be appreciated”. […]
[Update: JCW has now added a credit to me on the graphic. So it’s all good 🙂 ]
I’m not sure about “all good”. It’s still an illustration of something not too far from an ideological Time Cube.
When JCW rags on monarchs, does he even remember that the Vatican is literally a monarchy?
Say, I wonder if you could create a similar windrose for Timothy? The center; the ideological core of Truth and Orthodoxy and Right Thinking and Ideological Purity, is, of course, Doing What the Cat Wants, Especially Feeding. Deviations from the core are silly and/or degenerate failures to do What the Cat Wants, due to silly and/or degenerate selfish motivations like not owning the Cat, owning a dog or parrot or turtle instead of the Cat, not having the time or money or energy to do what the Cat Wants, having other things to do that are not what the Cat Wants, and so on and so forth. with the outer darkness being the depraved sickness of doing what the Cat Does Not Want.
I’m wondering what the difference between his Catholic Church and Theocracy is. A more plausible spectrum (not progression) is Catholicism -> Theocracy (as the church totalitarianises) -> National Monarchy (as the universal state breaks up) -> Feudalism (as the national states break up). History in the UK went the other direction (if you call the Commonwealth a Theocracy, which is a bit of a stretch).
Perhaps it makes more sense if one reads the accompanying text.
//Perhaps it makes more sense if one reads the accompanying text.//
Surprisingly not. However, the Church at the center is based on a romanticised view of the role of the Pope in pre-reformation Europe. i.e. the rulers of countries weren’t vassals of the pope but still required the pope’s blessing etc.
In Sinclair Lewis’ novel about a hypocritical, lusty, unintelligent evangelical minister, the protagonist (Gantry) lazily plagiarizes his most effective sermon (which he uses in modified form throughout his life) from an essay by the atheist Robert Ingersoll. No one catches on.
Camestros Felapton 
30 responses to “It’s nice to be appreciated”
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Or theft.
And isn’t this a rehashed version of Pournelle’s Axes with demicardinal additions?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s Pournellesque
LikeLike
Fair enough, though it really needs the demihemisemicardinal points added.
Now a certain kind of person might consider reporting this theft to Wright’s hosting provider…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nah, I’m generous. He can borrow it 🙂
LikeLike
In future, encode your pictures so that after two weeks it turns into an advert for your blog. (I don’t suppose they hotlinked it.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Click
LikeLike
John C. Wright deigned to notice you, a lowly liberal. You must feel so seen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anyone else getting Lully’s Ars Magna et Ultima vibes from that diagram? I feel like combinatorial wheels are going to be the next logical step
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was the first thing that came to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Theocracy and Classical Liberalism and in the direction of Pragmatic, Mystic, Ideological and Chivalrous somewhat.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Urp. I tried to read some of his essay to figure out what the hell any of it means… and I am stalled on him saying first that the right can agree to disagree within itself, then listing all the ways people who aren’t truly balanced members of the Catholic faith exactly as it is are flawed and fall into destruction then nihilism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yes, the plagiarism is a nice touch, in that I’m pretty sure that claiming someone else’s work as your own is a sin…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, JCW also turns a blind eye to how the right eats its own on a regular basis – especially the extremes of the right, where petty feuds between (for example) factions of neo-Nazis or various Klan groups often turn into murder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or the few anti-Tr*mp Republicans being forced out of the GQP.
LikeLike
True. The term RINO is clear evidence that JCW’s claim about the right “agreeing to disagree” is pure horseshit.
But then again, almost everything JCW claims is pure horseshit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The real difference is the Right believes that we can agree to disagree. The Left doesn’t agree to that.”
Wow, that’s bollocks to start with. 🙂
(I have come to the conclusion that the proper ideological divisor isn’t any of these things. It’s “bigot or not bigot”. Because you can have people in all of those camps that are bigots and people in all of them who are not. And personally, I tend to think that it’s how an individual sees other people that generally determines my attitude towards them.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
Had something similar happen when Brian borrowed a graphic I made as an (admittedly unfunny) joke back when I had a row with him:
https://brianniemeier.com/2017/07/hazeroth-was-right/
Hazeroth is a demon character from his books, so he’s basically posted a graphic saying “Satan was right.” Poor guy seems to have thought it was made by a fan.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
As Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky said,
I am sure that as a good Roman Catholic, Mr Wright appreciates the biological teleology invoked.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now I’ve got that Tom Lehrer song running through my head. * Also “Tschikowsky (and Other Russians)” ** by Gershwin.
(Actually stumbling, because I don’t know all the lyrics to either. I love patter songs but I’m terrible at them.)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlfXirQF3A
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjmbrSnlIv8
sung by Mandy Patinkin
LikeLike
My personal favorite in this line is Daffy Duck’s showstopping show-stopper where he stops BOOK REVUE and launches into a prolonged Daffy Kaye number, which may be Mel Blanc’s most impressive cadenza. The relevant excerpt:
LikeLiked by 3 people
[…] (3) YOU DON’T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WINDROSE. Can it be that John C. Wright thieved a diagram created by Camestros Felapton without giving credit? Survey says – “Bow wow!” However, according to Camestros, “It’s nice to be appreciated”. […]
LikeLike
Mike, I LOL at Survey says — Bow wow!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure about “all good”. It’s still an illustration of something not too far from an ideological Time Cube.
When JCW rags on monarchs, does he even remember that the Vatican is literally a monarchy?
Say, I wonder if you could create a similar windrose for Timothy? The center; the ideological core of Truth and Orthodoxy and Right Thinking and Ideological Purity, is, of course, Doing What the Cat Wants, Especially Feeding. Deviations from the core are silly and/or degenerate failures to do What the Cat Wants, due to silly and/or degenerate selfish motivations like not owning the Cat, owning a dog or parrot or turtle instead of the Cat, not having the time or money or energy to do what the Cat Wants, having other things to do that are not what the Cat Wants, and so on and so forth. with the outer darkness being the depraved sickness of doing what the Cat Does Not Want.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m wondering what the difference between his Catholic Church and Theocracy is. A more plausible spectrum (not progression) is Catholicism -> Theocracy (as the church totalitarianises) -> National Monarchy (as the universal state breaks up) -> Feudalism (as the national states break up). History in the UK went the other direction (if you call the Commonwealth a Theocracy, which is a bit of a stretch).
Perhaps it makes more sense if one reads the accompanying text.
LikeLike
//Perhaps it makes more sense if one reads the accompanying text.//
Surprisingly not. However, the Church at the center is based on a romanticised view of the role of the Pope in pre-reformation Europe. i.e. the rulers of countries weren’t vassals of the pope but still required the pope’s blessing etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s okay if you’re a
RepublicanTradCath, I guess?But where does the Divine Right of Kings come into that scheme?
LikeLike
In Sinclair Lewis’ novel about a hypocritical, lusty, unintelligent evangelical minister, the protagonist (Gantry) lazily plagiarizes his most effective sermon (which he uses in modified form throughout his life) from an essay by the atheist Robert Ingersoll. No one catches on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I liked that the Internet Archive only snatched it once, the original version without crediting Cam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beg to differ. I’m living proof that classical liberalism and nihilism share a space and are both as far from religion as it is possible to get.
LikeLiked by 1 person