The Left Right Myth

Tags

, ,


https://i2.wp.com/www.indianfolk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/right-left.jpg

The economist Friedrich Hayek once said the squabbles between communists, socialists, and Fascist were akin to a family quarrel between cousins.  There is much truth in what he said.

The idea of there being a left and a right is ingrained into Western psyche, but its use has far outstripped its origins. The idea of left and right comes from the French Assembly during the French Revolution, with those who supported the king sat on the right, those who supported the revolutionaries on the left. To be left was seen as being an egalitarian, and supporter of the social view of the world. Alternatively, the right was seen as supporting the status quo, or the monarchy. As is readily apparent, the left has not strayed to far from its roots, but the right has come to mean whatever/whomever is seen as in opposition to the left.

It is often said, that at their extremes the left and right seem to close a circle, with the differences melting away into dictatorship. A more nonsensical statement can hardly be found. The truth is, there is no left and right, at least not as commonly defined. Left and Right and merely a construct to advance an agenda, one that many have bought into. The real line is from a totalitarian communism/socialism on one end, and extreme individualism on the other.

The socialistic view comes from Rousseau, and defines society as a group united by a “General Will.” This General Will in modern parlance is the commonalities that bind society together as a whole, and defines them.  In short, it is a group’s stereotype. The “left” lives and dies by this, with the only change over time is what constitutes a society. For Rousseau it was a country or state, for Marx it was the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, for Neo-Modernists the categories include sex, race, gender, politics, and class. In each of these the pattern is the same: Stereotype a group of people, define the people within the group according to a stereotype, declare each group as being either good or evil, calling those in “good groups” who do not fit the stereotype traitors to be excommunicated, and allowing escape for from an evil group via accepting the premises of the good ones. Individuals under this regime do not count, but are seen as merely reflections of the greater whole.

The so called far right has the same exact point of view. They assume individuals are mere reflections of their group, and those that do not fit the stereotype they impose on the group are traitors. In truth, the only difference of note between the so called left and the far right are the stereotypes used, and the fact that, since the far right’s relies on skin color or ethnicity exclusively, mobility between groups is impossible.

When seen in this light, it becomes apparent the battle between ANTIFA and White Supremacist is one over semantics. Both would declare their stereotype to be the most legitimate, and each declares those that do not fit it traitors or worse. There is little daylight between those that claim a black man who votes Republican is not black, and declaring a white man who marries and black woman to be a traitor to his race. Both applaud race divisions and oppose “cultural appropriation.” The truth is, the social agendas of the groups is nearly identical as well, including a strong socialist type state government that imposes their views. This is not surprising, as the both sit in near proximity to each other on the socialistic to individualistic line graph.

In reality, the whole leftist socialistic group constructs is bull malarkey, There is almost always much more difference between individuals within a group, than differences between groups. The only time this is not true is in cultist type scenarios where there is a high price to pay for getting out of line. Individuals are the ultimate minority, and to give respect (not tolerance) to each other the only answer to avoiding conflict. While some agreed upon standards of conduct are a necessity in a civil society, often referred to as the social contract, it must be premised on individual responsibilities and rights. Extreme individualism does not work, but a society must be built upon individualism to be worth anything. Social based societies, on the other hand, are suicidal by nature, and often homicidal as well.

Nearly every genocide in the history of humanity has as its root cause the social view that accords to all the members of a group some negative stereotype. When socialistic stereotypes are used as a basis to pit people against each other, the possibility for wide spread carnage is extremely high. In this vane, leftist calls for death to white people and “putting down” Trump supporters has to be taken seriously. History provides too many examples of what happens when such ideas were allowed to fester.

The social view, and all its incarnations, like social justice, should be seen as evil. In so doing, not to link the evil of the ideas with those that espouse them. Most who embrace socialistic ideas do so with the greatest of intentions, blind to the evil they are propagating. Nonetheless, the bigotry of the left, and violence it inspires, must be exposed for what it is at every turn.

“The Conservative Mind”

If you like this Pass it on

Advertisements