Horseshoe Theory

Human history is one long war between those who believe in freedom and those who don’t.

The Horseshoe Theory is the theory that the far-left and far-right of the political spectrum are inversions of the same ideology: Radicalism. Basically, the radicals of both sides think the same, behave the same, and have the same goals, just for different groups. Both are advocates for authoritarianism, are obsessed with race, follow their ideologies religiously, deem those who disagree with them to be evil and/or inferior, force their people to love the state, etc. More on that later.

According to Wikipedia, the Horseshoe Theory is not supported within academic circles… Why?


I admit I’m a high school dropout who also never spent a single day in college (unless you count random classes I took at college campuses when I was in middle school), and I might just be an uneducated buffoon overall. That being said, I can’t understand how Horseshoe Theory is not supported within academic circles, IF that is the case. I would use the horseshoe to graph a person’s political views even if I didn’t believe the far ends weren’t virtually the same.

Instead of political compasses looking like this…

Blank Compass

They ought to look like this…

Horseshoe Edited

There are two sides to everything. Even in nature, nearly all creatures are symmetrical. Look in a mirror, and you’ll notice one half of your body is almost a perfect copy of the other half, just flipped around. This is true for most living creatures. In the political realm, why would this be any different? You can be either for or against something, or somewhere in the middle. No matter what the issue at hand is, there are only three options: yes, no, or ‘sorta.’

The two sides – the Right and the Left – are the only sides to take. According to, the two sides are defined as follows:

Left-wing: Typically involves concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others, as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. Those favoring extensive political reform.

Right-wing: Belief that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Those opposing extensive political reform.

In essence, you either want things to change and/or be equal for all (Left), or you believe things must be a certain way, namely the way it’s always been (Right).

Technically, we all fall somewhere in between no matter how radical our views. I think the reason political compasses have always been square, instead of any other shape, is because people think we need a y-axis to measure how much freedom is in our political views – tyranny (no freedom) on one end and anarchy (complete freedom) on the other. Except, if you think about it, both communism (a type of tyranny) and anarchy are both far-left ideologies, because with both communism and anarchy, everyone is equal. Oh, and neither is sustainable, which makes them both 0% right-wing.

On the same note, theocracy and imperialism are both far-right. Theocracy because religion is archaic and holds the hierarchal belief that God is at the top, his servants are directly below him, and infidels are at the bottom. Imperialism is far-right because it is the active practice of asserting your perceived superiority upon others, as a state.

Communism and anarchy go hand-in-hand, because in both states, everyone is poor, and violence makes all the decisions. Theocracy and imperialism go hand-in-hand because in both states, nobody can escape their own caste regardless of merit, and violence makes all the decisions.

To those who claim that Hitler was left-wing, they really don’t know what they’re talking about. And no, I don’t give a shit that Hitler’s party (which he was not the founder of) was called the ‘National Socialists.’ Names don’t mean anything when it comes to political parties, only who is in them. Hitler was ultra-nationalist. He emboldened his base with nationalism, he set out to conquer the world in the name of nationalism, and he attacked the Soviet Union almost entirely because he hated communism. Oh, and the Nazis merged politics with religion. Their first treaty was with the Catholic church, and on the belts of every officer was “Gott Mit Uns,” meaning God With Us.

To those who claim that Stalin was right-wing (and yes, some idiots actually claim this), they also don’t know what they’re talking about. The hammer-and-sickle is not a right-wing symbol, it is a collectivist symbol. The Soviet Union’s actual name was ‘the USSR,’ which stood for The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nobody was paid for the hard labor they did, whether they were a doctor or a trash collector.

History ought to thank both Hitler and Stalin, because both men showed the world that both far-left and far-right societies only cause destruction and misery, not freedom or prosperity. Nobody is free, not even the leaders. Both Hitler and Stalin openly admitted fearing for their lives every single day that they would be assassinated. Hitler was nearly assassinated at least 25 times. And don’t think that only 2 men ran radical governments based in either ideology. We still have Hirohito (far-right), Mussolini (far-right), Mao (far-left), Pol Pot (far-left) and of course, the regime of North Korea (far-left) which still operates to this day.


  • Both give rise to dictators.
  • Both demand religious admiration of the state, its ideology, and its leader, regardless if the state is theocratic or bans religion.
  • Both are imperialistic.
  • Both inhibit freedom of the people, including freedom of speech, the press, dissent, etc.
  • Hate Jews for some reason.

When you look at far-left and far-right regimes, they hardly look any different.

Stalin banned religion from the Soviet Union and yet the people were required to worship him, the state, and socialism. When you prohibit dissent, that undoubtedly is forced worship. You always get religion, in some form, even when you ban it.


Those who can learn versus those who can’t. Those who are reasonable versus those who cannot be reasoned with.

You don’t just need to belong to the far end of one side or another, like Stalin. You can have ideas/policies that are a mixture of left and right-wing approaches, like Hitler. At the end of the day, it’s still a matter of whether you’re radical or rational.

The center gets along with each other. Whether you are center-left or center-right, chances are, you don’t have very much dividing you from the centrists on the other side. You are still centrists nonetheless. There are a multitude of things I disagree with Ben Shapiro on, but for the most part, he and I have the same values and want the same things for our country and for mankind. I could get in an entertaining debate with Ben Shapiro, but at the end of the day, we’re still not that different. Shapiro is center-right, I am center-left. We share common ground nonetheless: the center.

Progressives (often called Leftists), on the other hand, I am vehemently against, even though technically we’re on the same ‘side.’ Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad, Thunderf00t, and The Amazing Atheist, belong(ed) to the left side of the center, and yet frequently oppose the radical left. This is the main reason why I don’t even consider Progressives to be one of my own, politically. We agree on almost nothing.

Because they are radicals, I am not. It’s that simple.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s