Right and Left

There are some odd terms floating around the political sphere; right and left. These terms are extremely poorly understood by most, even (and sometimes in particular) the most well-researched and well-read people around—and not without reason; even smart people have agendas. I’m going to try, with this article, to clear things up a little bit.

Left is centralisation. Right is decentralisation.

In other words, the Left attempts to attribute more power of determination to government, while the Right attempts to keep power as uniformly spread as possible—right down to the individual to determine their own fate, if possible.

There are several false arguments that now need to be debunked, including what is probably the most famous and least correct popularly held presumption in the entire twentieth century: what about Nazi Germany?

Read this again: Left is centralisation. Right is decentralisation. Fascism is a form of police state which typically invokes racial superiority in order to claim the will to power, and in that definition you can see the things that should have been gently tapping on your prefrontal cortex for your entire history.

Police state. What are police? Civilian authorities charged by a civilian government to keep the centrally dictated peace and order. Remember that peace and order have no inherent value. They are relative concepts, like good and evil or simplicity and complexity. Peace is contextual. A graveyard is peaceful compared to most things. A suburb is peaceful compared to an inner city. An inner city with all its crime statistics remains relatively peaceful as compared to a warzone like Mosul in Iraq. Some good life advice, courtesy of @stefanmolyneux (find him and watch him, it’s just a great idea) is that whenever someone says something you’re not sure about, ask yourself “compared to what?”

When you establish context, you factually establish about ninety percent of meaning where the rest is trapped in the definition of the word being used. For example, if someone says “I crave peace,” obviously peace is a lack of force or violence, and then you have to establish context. Eventually, you arrive at a rough equivalent of whatever the other person meant. It’s important to remember though that without a perfectly aligned frame of reference (that is, two people for whom every single relevant word, term and meaning are completely the same) you’ll never entirely be able to understand what the other person means.

Therefore, when the government is dictating peace and order, you don’t actually have peace and order. You have a lot of government, which is now dictating how you get to live.

This is a very Leftist method of population control. If you add to that a centrally dictated economic plan through wage controls and price freezes and quotas as occurred in Nazi Germany (rather than the more obvious Soviet-style five-year plans) you wind up with a very clear example of the end result of a Leftist agenda.

So yes. Nazi Germany, like the Soviet Union’s brand of communism, was extreme Leftist.

Why do people think that it was right-wing? Well, because people tend to be very stupid. More importantly, they tend to be grounded in their cultural definitions. In the West, in particular, the right is very nationalistic. Nazi Germany was very nationalistic.

By associative reasoning, people seem to have managed on the basis of that rather tenuous connection, the conception that right wing means nationalism (it doesn’t) and nationalism leads to racism (nope) and therefore the right wing is evil.

In fact, nationalism and racism have nothing to do with Left or Right. It’s possible to be a racist and not want to submit or have others submit to government. It’s also possible to love one’s country and not force others to also love one’s country—an inherently right wing action which acknowledges the freedom of both sides.

The Nazis, on the other hand, passed laws requiring obeisance to the state and hefty penalties for not doing so. As did the Soviet Union. In contrast, the United States permitted, and continues to permit (though these permissions are waning as the American Empire declines) demonstration, dissent, discussion and other forms of civil disobedience and criticism.

So, why is right and left important?

There are a few schools of thought. The difference between conservatism and liberalism is about as simple as it sounds. Conservatism is about not changing anything at its extreme, liberalism is about changing everything at its extreme. The problem with liberalism (or, if I have any American readers, “democrat politics”) is that someone has to have the power to change things.

A classic argument is gun control. The argument can’t be “should we have guns?” Guns exist. Someone is going to have them. There’s no closing that particular Pandora’s Box. So in order for guns to be “controlled,” someone with guns has to take them away from other people. Which means the person who is going to be taking them away has to have both the legal legitimacy to take those guns, and sufficient force to put down any potential refusal on the side of the people who are having their guns confiscated—and you know, those people have guns, so the answer is probably more and bigger guns unless you like being shot.

Conservatism, on the other hand, tends to not care if you have guns as long as you aren’t a menace with them. Right-wing cultures only get aggressive when you’re aggressive against them in turn, because they aren’t trying to change very much, and if they do, it’s very slowly.

This does mean that hard-right cultures tend to stagnate if left entirely to themselves.

In any case, the topic of this article is projection, and why our culture today is becoming so extremely divided. If left is total control and right is total lack of control save over one’s own affairs, the conflict is obvious.

The idea goes like this: everyone projects.

If I worry that my girlfriend is cheating on me, and I don’t have hard evidence or even anything particular which I suspect to back that up, the probability is that I’m considering another woman. Or I’m attracted to another woman. Or that I have commitment problems, or am unstable, or have some type of psychological issue.

Otherwise, the idea that my girlfriend is cheating has no origin except for outside seepage from media, or from an unfortunate friend’s situation, or something of that sort—which likely isn’t particularly convincing to me as an otherwise reasonable person.

When the left tries to centralise power within the government in order to limit gun violence, it’s because they’re scared of gun violence. I will leave to you the root of the seed origin of that fear—I can’t honestly tell you.

What I think, though, is that neither side is correct at its extremes, but neither is the middle—a compromise which just turns into a tug-of-war between the two ideologies.

Political and economic landscapes shifting between the two ideologies (or, in fact, shifting at all) produces instability, which cannot be invested in. Any nation which does not have a definitive and concrete stance is a bad idea both for domestic and foreign investment. In ages past, the American Empire has been right-wing, with only state controls on things like environment, permissible wages, holidays, and so on and so forth.

As the federal government began to dictate such things with the powers it was invested with during the two world wars that began the twentieth century, society began its inevitable slide to the left.

The government is able to justify this by playing on the fears of the mob. Let’s take a basic example that isn’t gun control.

The War on Drugs was a massive effort to control, curtail and contain the spread of crack cocaine which began to affect the inner cities about a decade after the end of the Second World War.

What it wound up doing was creating massive incarceration rates for people who indulged in the drug. Rather than helping them overcome addiction with education and hospital care (which, if centrally dictated, would also have been a left-aligned action) the government decided to imprisonment; a deterrence strategy rather than a healing strategy.

As a result, the population which used crack cocaine both weaponised and sank underground, becoming a massive black-market centered organised crime fount which could leverage massive price increases due to government action which decreased supply through various means, and increased risk of ownership.

This artificial stimulation of the crack cocaine market also had demographic impact as the users of it tended to be African-American. What wound up happening due to the leftist fear of drugs dividing the country is that drugs, in fact, divided the country as a result of social projection.

See, the left was scared that drugs would harm people, and so it undertook to harm people because they used drugs.

Why is this social projection? Because no one else was worried about it. Junkies don’t care who they hurt, sellers were just trying to turn a profit, and the rest of the population can be essentially counted on to not worry about things until they are stirred up and lied to by whatever media exists at the time.

They would have had to have been. Without popular approval, a massive campaign which reaches quasi-police state status based on a substance ingested of one’s own free will (much like in the 1920s with Prohibition which also massively stimulated underground and organised criminal networks and massively inflated alcohol prices) would immediately have met with popular resistance.

Campaigns like these are a result of social projection. The left can only institute them if they are themselves worried about substance abuse and how it will affect their own lives, and once they become convinced that it will, they seek to spread the resultant policies across the domain of their control.

Meanwhile, a right winger socially projects confidence.Donald Trump, for example, has not sought to restrict. Rather, he has promised to abolish many regulations and treaties (treaties, of course, only constrict and bind). This is a classic right-winger act, who believes that the free market will self-correct in the vein of the Austrian School of Economics, most notably put forward by Milton Friedman.

The right-winger projects only confidence that others will seek to choose their own fates, in their own interests. This is why denizens of the left cannot stretch their minds to such a choice; by constantly imagining that others seek or require their own choices to become limited, one must in term limit the choices that others can make; the freedom to own guns, drink alcohol or do drugs, as well as the freedoms to commerce and almost anything else you can imagine.

Every law is a result of social projection, and therefore every law is a result of the left being scared of the impact of what some action or other will have on their own lives and interests. Therefore, literally every government on Earth, from tribal chieftains to China’s Politburo are in some fashion, left-aligned. The only questions to ask are how left, and how the progress toward the left is inhibited by the checks and balances which characterise the United States until fairly recently.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s