Devin and Andrew have been explaining to me (in the comments) a Moldbugian view of the world:
If I understand properly, Leftism is mostly a coherent single entity, pursuing relentlessly the distribution of power. Rightism, on the other hand, is a haphazard collection of folks, all of whom are opposed to leftism, and so have to unite against it, even though some groups (David Duke Racists, Mike Huckabee Compassionate Social Conservatives, Karl Rove neo-cons, and Ron Paul libertarians, to pick 4) would all of them prefer to have nothing to do with the other groups. Problem is that the progressive machine is so big and so horrible that you take the allies you can get.
I hear it. I don't like it much. Ct seems to describe an awful lot of Western history post-1791. It doesn't seem to describe much of anything before 1648. My two big problems:
1. I don't understand why we're accepting (apparently arbitrary, and tailored to fit his hypotheses) Moldbugian lines that start with the age of absolutism. There is a good explanation for why one would: This is the dawn of the age of literacy, and someone historically minded like Moldbug will have a heckuva time finding reasonable quantities of work from before then. Gutenburg wasn't adopted immediately...and took a while to spread...and so really the 1600s were the dawn (early morning anyhow) of literacy. That this coincided with the age of absolutism is very likely coincidence.
2. This doesn't seem to be taking BBdM's serious study of politics into account. Politics -- the distribution of the goodies available in society -- goes on in absolutist societies as much as non-absolutist ones, and the best growth rates/standards of living thus far are the constrained democracies (Early US, Singapore now, etc.)
I like better the combination of Moldbug, Rand and Jacobs:
Mencius Moldbug is right: Harvard is, and has always been a seminary. The religion has dropped God, but continues uninterrupted.
Jane Jacobs is right: There are fundamentally 2 standard ethical systems -- the trader and the protector.
Ayn Rand is right: There is a universal conflict between Atilla and the Witch Doctor, where both of them want you to subordinate yourself to their cause.
As of right now, the Witch Doctor, in the guise of the Academy, is ascendant in the conflict of who gets to make you serve. In the middle ages, the relative strengths were reversed. In neither case is life good for the individual.
The only thing that makes life better for individual people is the continuing creation of wealth/value through trade. And Rand spoke truth to power by exalting the Jacobsian trader, and disparaging both varieties of slave-holder who would restrain the trader.
If I remember correctly, though, Marx has a better handle on the problem:
Throughout history, you have the upper classes, the middle classes and the lower classes. Revolutions consist of parts of the middle classes trading places with upper classes.
Neither the Church of Harvard nor the Military-Industrial-Complex (as per Chomsky) are separate, much like the Church and State in Midieval Europe. They intermarry, interbreed, and together become a single mass of entrenched privilege with no need for revolution. Now, the bourgeoisie controls not only the means of production, but the means of education as well.
The only path out is to invent economic structure, and undermine the state church faster than it can keep up. This is happening. The progressive edifice is massively cracked, and no one is paying attention. Economic forces are stronger even than that Cthuloid beast...and where newspapers go now, so too goes Collegiate education within 15 years...and much of K-12 as well. Since the center of the Progressive edifice has been the ownership of the Means of Education, those of us in our 20s or 30s will live to see the day when again the Atillas are a bigger worry than the Witch Doctors.
Back...suddenly to the original point: there really are 3 positions. Pro-church (of Harvard), Pro-MIC, and anti-both. I'll grant that right now the Church of Harvard seems so large a threat that it's difficult to see it as transient. But the economic chickens are flying home, and it's not going to be pretty, especially with no one paying attention well.