The Left, the Right and the March of Death

Our Israeli correspondent MC takes a look at the traditional distinction between Right and Left, and what it has signified throughout the course of history.

The Left, the Right and the March of Death
by MC

We refer to the political ‘Left’ or the political ‘Right’ based upon an arbitrary division made during the French Revolution, but in reality there is a massive divide in humanity, pivoting upon whether a self-appointed elite have the right to dictate the ways and beliefs of all men, or whether all men are free to seek out the truths of this world for themselves.

The ‘Left’ proscribes what a man should do and think and how a man should live and worship. The right defines a set of shared common values and allows a man to worship, to think and to behave for himself within the boundaries of that set of values.

There is a huge gulf between these ideals, and it is further obfuscated by the idea that the values of the right are epitomised by the leftist national socialist values of the Nazis. The Nazis were a party of leftist values with a nationalist slant; but of a very proscribed ‘leftist’ way of life. That they are deemed ‘far right’ is a matter of fashion rather than fact.

‘Fashion’ describes a human social conditioning, the desire in the human psyche to appear to be different whilst, at the same time, conforming to a social norm. Fashion is arbitrary and can be manipulated, and it is the Left that is the current arbiter of fashion.

The ‘Left’ styles itself as ‘caring’ and ‘sharing’, and paints the Right as ‘hateful’ and ‘intolerant’. If we ignore the self-delusion inherent in this ‘sainthood’ of the left, the residue is of a ‘Left’ with a purpose that is more interested in violently attacking its opponents than in justifying its own ‘benevolent’ and ‘tolerant’ creed. Always remember that the KKK was a product of the left, not the right. The self-styled sainthood of the ‘Left’ leaves unheeded the Left’s sad history of failure, mayhem and murder.

The philosophy of ‘change’ is the philosophy of an ostrich mentality. The assumption is that we’ve got it all wrong, so we will leave it all behind and ‘hope’ that it will be better next time. Real progress is the process where one reviews one’s current position and learns from one’s mistakes and builds upon one’s successes.

The process of change (revolution) for the sake of changes is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no ‘gain’ in arbitrary change, and there is a great danger of losing that which is desirable, even necessary. Also, because the ‘change’ in this context, has an unproven ‘random’ element about it, one has to ‘hope’ that things will get better. If the Left were capable of honest self-assessment they would understand that random change makes for chaos, not evolution.

The ‘Right’ tries to be more pragmatic, looking at history to see what has worked in the past (and maybe more importantly, what has not worked):

“But the great source of superiority was, after all, in the men themselves. The English sailor was then, as now, a quite amphibious and all-cunning animal, capable of turning his hand to everything, from needlework and carpentry to gunnery or hand-to-hand blows; and he was, moreover, one of a nation, every citizen of which was not merely permitted to carry arms, but compelled by law to practise from childhood the use of the bow, and accustomed to consider sword-play and quarter-staff as a necessary part and parcel of education, and the pastime of every leisure hour. The “fiercest nation upon earth,” as they were then called, and the freest also, each man of them fought for himself with the self-help and self-respect of a Yankee ranger, and once bidden to do his work, was trusted to carry it out by his own wit as best he could. In one word, he was a free man.” (From Westward Ho! by Charles Kingsley [1855])

The classic Westward Ho! is about the long fight between the Spain of the Inquisition and Elizabethan England. Spanish Roman Catholicism had evolved into a typical tyranny of the Left, epitomised by the Spanish Monarchical system where a ruling elite regarded everybody else as mere ‘cattle’ to be herded and terrorized at whim. Countless millions were murdered both in Europe and especially in the Americas. The Spanish ‘Catholicism’ of the 1580s is not at all unlike the Islam of today, and presumably inherited its basic tenets from exactly that Andalucían source.

The ‘Left’ is a mindset in which it is believed that the ‘gifted’ have a divine right to rule over the hoi polloi and to proscribe correct behaviour down to the level of the most private thoughts of the common man: the modern ‘political correctness’. The ‘Left’ has existed for thousands of years, but phoenix-like, it lays its evil mind-egg before self-destructing only to reincarnate in a later age and under a different guise.

The current ‘Left’ grew out of the Age of Reason. Whilst the goddess of Reason was supposed to represent man’s innate ability to think for himself, the reality of this ‘reason’ was to direct men’s thoughts down the very narrow channels of cogitation defined as acceptable by their ‘betters’.

To deviate was to threaten the elite’s very fragile philosophical justification of their actions, actions based more on self-preservation rather than on any real benevolence; the ‘caring and sharing’ was kept on a very tight rein. Caring was done only within the clique, and sharing consisted of robbing the rich (and the not-so-rich) to give to the poor (and to the privileged).

Deviants had to be removed, so the tumbrels rolled, the guillotine slashed and the Moloch fires burned. Dissent died an excruciating death.

At the heart of the ‘Left’ is a meme in which those with a higher than average intelligence, those who think that they also have a superior wisdom, find that they are able to exercise ‘godship’ over their fellow men. It is a lot like the story of the Garden of Eden, where the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge results in ‘godship’ and, of course, godship is stillborn without amenable acolytes on whom to exercise these godlike qualities.

Godship implies the right to decide what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ for other people, and in the hands of the wise this is maybe no bad thing, but in the hands of the foolish it has always had disastrous consequences, the foolish person being the one who cannot learn from his own, or others’ mistakes.

So the ‘Left’ reincarnates itself and gives us the ‘same old same old’, and people start to die. They die because they deviate, they die because they are Jews or Gypsies, they die because they are Armenians or Serbians, and they die of starvation because these ‘caring sharing’ systems, by their very nature, reward the reprobates and paralyze the productive.

The Georgia Guidestones appear to tell us the aims of the current ‘Left’ elite. Simply put, they want to kill most of us, or allow most of us to die off. They want only enough slaves left to pander to their needs, and no more. For the slaves who remain, their lives will be regulated on a tight basis:

1.   Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2.   Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3.   Unite humanity with a living new language.
4.   Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5.   Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6.   Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7.   Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8.   Balance personal rights with social duties.
9.   Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.   Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

These are the modern ten commandments of those who would believe they are gods, holding the right to decide life death and enslavement for all mankind.

In item 4 our old friend ‘reason’ crops up, and we must ask the question whose right it is to dictate reason? The giveaway is the word ‘tempered’, and upon whose ‘temperance’ is this reason to rest? To which the answer of course is theirs. There is no room in this for my ability to reason, which is the very basis of my personal freedom.

What we today call the ‘Left’ has had many names and many incarnations in the past; all of them deadly: Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Islam, Inquisition, Conquistadores, Jacobins, Communists, Nazis, Progressives and Liberals, to name but a few. These guys are killers, because to them there is no sanctity to human life, and their end objective is to be achieved at any cost (to the others).

96 thoughts on “The Left, the Right and the March of Death

  1. MC;
    The word ‘right’ (wing), and the scurrilous labeling so beloved of the media and the chattering classes such as ‘far right’, ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’, are essentially meaningless terms. The dichotomy between the socio-political left and the socio-political right, whilst widely accepted as a given, simply has no definition. Only the ideas and political morality of the ‘left’, and hence the use of that word, can be defined, for they can be traced back to those who originally sat on the left side of the French National Assembly, the bicameral parliament established in 1791 following the French Revolution — which gave birth to the ‘Committee for Public Safety’ under Robespierre and the subsequent ‘Reign of Terror’ during 1793-94.
    The term ‘right’, however, has no traceable origins; it is essentially a chimera, a creation of the left for the purpose of describing those, the fallen, who are not of themselves, who do not in whole or in part share their world view, their vision of how human affairs should be conducted.
    Nor, as it would at first appear, is this relationship a linear one where one grouping is on one side or the other. The reality is that in their unbending certitude the left have come, by either omission or commission, to position themselves in what could best be described as a state of moral and intellectual stasis, virtually a Ptolemaic, heliocentric view of the political universe whereby they are the Sun at the centre of everything and the rest of us exist in various shades of ideological darkness somewhere in the void beyond their warm, central fire.
    The left maintain, defend and expand this position by the use and misuse of language in order to cripple dialectic and demonise those who do not share their enlightenment, those who differ from the self-anointed. We may be Free Market Libertarians, Monarchists, Judeo-Christians, Secularists, Islamophobes, Identitarians or Statists of any persuasion. Indeed, we may be any and all who have not taken Communion at their recidivist, totalitarian altar — we are the benighted.
    Rgds, S III

    • It has amazed for decades that those who seek liberty allow this Left/Right dichotomy to persist. It has essentially allowed the collectivists to arrange the how the match is played on the field of their choosing. Marxists certainly have amassed capital with it. /s

      In more contemporary times, Ronald Reagan attempted to convince us to toss the linear L/R paradigm and adopt a two dimensional view of the political playing field. It began with his stump speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964. I’m sure this audience is familiar enough with “A Time for Choosing.” The key passage I’ll recall regarding this issue goes:

      You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: up to man’s ages-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

      There is the collectivist/individualist divide others have mentioned. Given that the Great Communicator saw things this way, how come we haven’t adopted it yet, and worse, how come we still are occupied discussing it instead — like we are seeing on this thread?

      Let me suggest two reasons, one you probably all recognize, the other you have not heard about for reasons unknown.

      The first is that media controls what is considered common knowledge. It’s in the same way the Left controlling the definition of the political playing field as L/R. To use the Baron’s very effective title regarding the Diana West bully squads, it is worse than conspiracy, it is consensus. All media continues to use L/R. Even we do (in order to be more universally understood). Even yours truly. The media and academia continue to use L/R, and we have become slaves to it.

      The second reason is because so few have ever heard Reagans “A Time for Choosing” 2.0 that he gave circa 1983. I was in my late thirties, traveling in my car, and heard it on the Los Angeles NPR affiliate, (I think, KUSC).

      Please forgive me my imperfect memory, but as you will see, the essence of it predicted our current poor state of liberty.

      As best as I can recall, Mr. Reagan referred to a political platform as if it were a scaffolding that could move up or down, but mostly, incrementally, it moved lower. He likened what he considered to be the Marxist political spectrum of Left and Right to the left and right of this ever see-sawing scaffold.

      The Left would gain control, and they’d pile up programs on their side of the platform. The foundation beneath the platform would begin to sink from the weight of their efforts. This resulted in the platform being tilted noticeably. It made the voters feel uncomfortable. So the voters would turn to the Right to straighten things out.

      Well the right might try to prop up the left side a bit, and refill the foundation, but in doing so, they’d dig a hole under their side of the platform next. Those who gain power always have interests who want something back — usually in the form of legislation that favors them or taxes their competitors — for their support. Thus the weight of these efforts and favors repaid cause the platform to tip to the right this time. That sinking feeling leaves the voters uncomfortable again.

      So the voters would then put the Left back into power. And the Left would begin to fill in the hole under the right, but pile up more programs on their side and drive their side of the platform even deeper into the foundation of America’s liberties.

      And so it would go on, back and forth, Left and Right, Left then Right. Pretty soon the citizens of this great nation would find themselves in a pit of despair; a pit dug by the machinations of those who built up the oppressive weight of government. Government has been built up incrementally, one law after another, ruling upon ruling, practice becoming entrenched policy. And it was all done under the guise of representing a left or a right side, but both headed in one direction — into the pit of tyranny. All those vested interests would insist it stay that way. Worse, as they’d get more demanding they’d cloak it with fairness. They were owed all that they’d “earned” for their efforts to gain “their people” power in the past.

      At some point the vast majority of Americans will insist on climbing out of the hole dug for them by this political machine — that single minded and ruthless incremental see-saw of power-seeking achieved by eating away at the foundation of our liberties. Taxes and regulations and busybodyness that is in no way justified in a nation dedicated to individual freedom.

      Americans were passed a birthright containing the fresh air of freedom. It is what our Founders had envisioned, and it is what our fathers fought to keep. And it’s pretty much still been available to most Americans for around 200 years. If we do not stop the digging soon, somewhere along the way, Americans will demand to be let out of this pit. May God bless them then as He has in the past.

      It is my opinion that the Tea Party movement is the realization of Mr. Reagan’s vision. We will no longer limit ourselves to the thinking that we must choose to accept a Left or a Right. We are trying to climb out of the Marxist/Statist pit dug by influential forces who’ve been incrementally overriding the restraints on their power. We are seeking freedom from the tyranny of those tired old partisans who claim to be working for our common good but are enthusiastically enslaving us and our posterity.

      • Pascal, that is an excellent comment that goes to the very heart of what is occurring throughout the West.

        Well done! I hope that others dropping by on this thread will read and then comprehend what is written here.

        • Thank you Nemesis. I have been frustrated trying to find a copy of that later version of the speech, either audio or transcript. One would think that the guardians of Mr. Reagan’s legacy would republish it. It is possible they do not see the significance or they have new masters to follow. Whatever the reason, I fear that so few of those who surrounded him had the same vision and integrity as their boss. You would think at least whomever was the writer or collaborator on that speech would come forth with it. Maybe it was only showbiz to whomever it was. As it stands, it’s loss saddens me greatly. I’m sure it was much better than what I’ve laid down.

    • “What we today call the ‘Left’ has had many names and many incarnations in the past; all of them deadly: Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Islam, Inquisition, Conquistadores, Jacobins, Communists, Nazis, Progressives and Liberals, to name but a few. These guys are killers, because to them there is no sanctity to human life, and their end objective is to be achieved at any cost (to the others).”

      That’s nearly every gentile civilization! You are on a roll my lad.

  2. No.

    “The right defines a set of shared common values and allows a man to worship, to think and to behave for himself within the boundaries of that set of values.” — SO DOES THE LEFT. The Georgia Guidestones mentioned later in the post are nothing if not this – a definition of a shared set of values, and the Left desires that people may think for themselves [only] as long as they stay within the boundaries of that set of values. This definition describes the left, the right, the neutral, the blue, the red, the green, the up, the south, and pretty much every society in existence, just with a different set of values.

    So your definitions of “left” and “right” are poor. In addition, your categorisation of which things are left amounts to little more than listing badthings and saying that the left is bad, so badthings are left. There’s no reasonable way that Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Rome are all “left” unless you have stretched the meaning of “left” beyond all common understanding.

    • There is one thing all those of the Left seem to have in common, which is a distortion which has caused them to
      view life in an unnatural, inverted way. I don’t know why
      Mc thinks the ‘ Elites ‘ who created the Georgia Guidestones, are of the left, I think these people are
      total capitalists who want a totalitarian system for the
      World, which they themselves believe they would be
      outside and above, and in fact controlling.

    • Suggest you re-read the essay and try and understand why I have put quotes around ‘Left’ (and ‘right’), I’ll give you a clue

      “We refer to the political ‘Left’ or the political ‘Right’ based upon an arbitrary division made during the French Revolution, but in reality there is a massive divide in humanity, pivoting upon whether a self-appointed elite have the right to dictate the ways and beliefs of all men, or whether all men are free to seek out the truths of this world for themselves.”

      • Of course these self-appointed elites have no right
        to act like gods over the rest of us. It’s about time
        someone named and shamed these invisible elites.
        That would be a first step in ‘ dealing ‘ with them.
        As far as left or right is concerned, as someone else
        said these terms are dated and almost meaningless
        now when most people pick bits out of both.

  3. I think that the most useful dichotomy to use is individualist vs. collectivist. The collectivist believes he has the right to sacrifice the life of any individual for the collective. Any collectivist society may have collectives within collectives. Thus, the nation can be seen as a collective, as can the working-class within the nation. Or the Empire can be the collective, and at a more detailed unit of measurement, the family can be the collective within the Empire. If the pater familias of ancient Rome had the right to put his child or wife to death, then it was an anti-individualist society. Nazis were collectivists, Muslims are collectivists.

    • Joe, I totally agree with you. The use of “left” and “right” only cements the existing “smoggy” political structures. My native country Sweden has been collectivist for many years.

      Personally, I divide people and organisations in those who respect and follow the current law of a country and those who find all kinds of excuses breaking it.

      • We have a very good pedigree with this individualist/collectivist line. I urge everyone to read/listen to Ludwig von Mises “Theory and History”.

        As a lifelong socialist, with several degrees in philosophy, I think it is the one book every adult needs to read to understand the 20th and 21st century. Obviously, I’m not saying it is sufficient, but I can’t think of another book that gives such a great understanding of economics, politics, philosophy and sociology.

        You can get it for free as an audio book here. Listen to it while you do the gardening, washing up, or even falling asleep at night. You owe it to yourselves.

        The great man has made his books available for free, even the audio versions. So much for mean-spirited capitalists. Ludwig von Mises was not Scrooge McDuck.

        We really shouldn’t be wasting our time trying to re-articulate (badly) the work of people like von Mises, von Hayek, etc.

        • Hi Joe,

          Like Marten Gantelius, I’d like to second the far more useful individualist/collectivist distinction. To that I’d like to add the “Rothbardian” observation that the real class-struggle has always been between the tax-producers and the tax-consumers (usually the state and its enforcers and clients). I also really like your mention of Von Mises.

          In my view, the ongoing political pantomime is kept alive (sort of) by this left-right pseudo-divide. Instead of acting as opposing forces, I see them working in tandem, like its just a marching order for the Welfare/Warfare State: “Left-Right! Left-Right! Left-Right!”
          Why are so many people still buying this statist charade?

          Kind regs from Amsterdam,

      • The “badly” refers to my abilities. I couldn’t even have written what MC wrote.

        I think there is more wisdom in Hayek’s “Why I am not a Conservative” than in 1000 books on politics written in the last 50 years.

  4. -A wonderful post that is unnecessarily damaged by the reliance on numbers of Inquisitorial victims generated by 16th century Dutch and English pamphleteers. I fear that this comment will cause a devolution into a “going off topic” and I apologize in advance as well as hope that this does not turn out to be the case. The numbers which are mentioned in these tracts – some go as high as 95 million, are so clearly the work of propagandists as to be self-defeating. Europe did not even have this many people until the 19th century. Many will ignore the fact that I will attack my Church at the drop of a hat when it/she is wrong, but modern research pits the TOTAL number of executions over the Inquisition’s history at numbers closer to 3,500 – and that is not a mistype. I see a long night ahead – one for which I do not have the time but I am a slave to history so I will have no choice. I have to remove as many leaves from my lawn as possible before the sun sets but I expect bedlam (with me playing the part of Constantine Drageses as Janissaries cut me down or maybe Jacques de Molay at the stake) when I get back to the computer. Also for the record, I believe that God acted to help the English against the Armada so that their system would win – I strongly prefer the societies they created to those made by Spain.

    • You need to add to ypour 3500, the totals of the indiginous Americans that fell victims as well, or don;t they count?

      • I thought to treat the indigenous American victims but decided to stick with the Inquisition as it looked to me that your focus was mostly on the numbers attributable to the latter. I was also afraid that, if I did mention the indigenous, the chances of going off topic would be even greater.
        I will be as brief as possible. The actions of the Spanish need to be seen outside of the Black Legend, which included portrayals of both the Inquisition and the the Spanish colonies. Wholesale slaughter was contrary to the interests of the Spanish; they wanted laborers and history provides us with multiple examples of churchmen who protested vigorously against cruel practices. Yes, there was violence and murders, but these pale in comparison to the practices of – for example, the Aztecs against fellow indigenous. We can add that the English and their cultural descendants were also far from nice to the indigenous in the US. Also, modern historians are almost unanimous in the opinion that no pre-modern era people could even attempt to kill a tiny fraction of the actual ingenuous victims of that period – we did not have that capability until recently. They hold that smallpox was by far the main the killer. Many millions of people with no inherited immunity and congregated together in densely-populated cities were helpless against the virus. Whether it was spread by contact with people or animals (Europeans had worked with livestock for millennia), the indigenous -particularly the urban ones, were totally unprepared.

      • Typical expected stereotype of the position I’d expect from you.

        The Spanish were not exterminators like the English. They blended in, and blended themselves away.

    • If you re-read the article you will note that I do not put these deaths down to the Spanish Inquisition, there was a lot more going on in Spain and its empire than just the inquisition. Spain was still a feudal society, its American empire was run as a totalitarian system where the life of a native Indian had no value other than the individual’s ability to serve the needs of Spain and its Grandees.

      I see this era of Spanish ‘Catholicism’ as a deviation, highly influenced by the prior Islamic occupation of the land. Which is why Catholics in England, on the whole, were reticent about supporting it.

      • Yes, as a former Hispanophile-turned Anglo-Catholic at heart (many, many years ago) I have more than a passing familiarity with that period in Spain. In fact, Feudal is not the best word to describe that society that was born in a centuries-old frontier state. It had elements of Feudalism but far greater differences, particularly among non-urban/non-nobles having significantly power than in a feudal state. I noted in the previous reply – “I thought to treat the indigenous American victims but decided to stick with the Inquisition as it looked to me that your focus was mostly on the numbers attributable to the latter” – I made a decision and that was not due to a failure to read thoroughly. I also read it three times and my abilities as demonstrated from my standardized test scores on Reading Comprehension have not failed me since Third Grade (That’s for a laugh but also serious). I will refrain from anything that picks apart your choices of words exempt to note that the word “both” is clearly used in the paragraph in question, so I have no need to re-read the portion to which I took exception.

  5. An excellent article! And probably one that is well overdue in explaining the difference in thinking between those who wish to control others and those who let others control themselves.

    However one can define a political spectrum in all of this ‘thinking’ and ‘idealism’ the definition of which has now been made opaque and distorted by the SSM (soviet style media) and its bias against those who can see the inherent danger and choose to dissent from the narrative as defined by the Controllers.

    While the SSM continue to label the dissenters as being of the ‘Far Right’ the truth is that the only kind of thinking on the far right of the political spectrum is Anarchy – no rule of law – and it is from this starting point that every other kind of political group thinking moves left of, until at the Far Left, there is nothing but Totalitarianism – the complete control of the individual by the state.

    I believe that most individuals fit in between the two defining poles. Some are thinkers, but most do not do a lot of thinking and are content to let government control most aspects of their lives unless their private pleasures begin to interfered with. And that is what then wakes up the many only to find when fully awake that they have lost so many of their personal freedoms!

    The Internet has been a boon to the ‘Thinkers’ and it would come as no surprise to those who now choose to dissent that government would try all means to control it and to dictate what is permissible to be said over it, and to an extent, the Controllers have made inroads into an area that was supposed to be ‘free’ to everyone.

    Looking back over my 62 years of life I can see where the Controllers have made inroads into all our personal liberties particularly private property rights. The means used to defend oneself either under common law or via a constitution which proclaims inalienable rights is also under attack from those who have the most to fear from an armed citizenry – the Controllers.

    It is now incumbent upon all of us who recognize the danger that we ALL face if left unchecked, to wake up those still asleep to what it is that they seem to be oblivious to!

  6. Wow! Where to start answering this strange collection of allegations? As Lewis Carroll suggested, I’ll begin at the beginning, with:

    Para 1: The French Revolution, like the US Constitution, arose from the outrage of thinkers of the Enlightenment (itself a late offspring of the Protestant Reformation) that religious authorities, often in cahoots with unelected political ones, should be allowed to dictate people’s morals and behaviour. Even as a rare Leftist poster here, can I be alone in believing that the threat of theocratic dictatorship (especially Islamist) is why we’re all on GoV in the first place?

    The hijacking of democratic liberal/socialist ideals (American readers, please excuse two “dirty” words) by would-be or actual dictators does not mean those ideals were misconceived. Without the Enlightenment, universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery and female emancipation may still not have happened in those places where they have, and I must point out that the opponents of such very basic human rights have been mainly of the Right.

    Para 2: It is often the religious Right which tries to dictate people’s beliefs. Check out Concordats (not subject to democratic challenge) between the Catholic church and some governments, or US Christian fundamentalists’ alliance with the GOP (still officially the party of the Right in the US) to try to impose their beliefs on abortion with those who don’t share their views.

    Para 5: Indeed many on the Left like to appear “holier than thou”, and I detest them more and more; but this is also a besetting sin of many on the Right, who accuse them of disloyalty, treason, moral turpitude and the like when many (I hope I may include myself) hold their views out of conviction and even goodness, if that’s not an odd expression for an atheist to use. On the other hand, can MC deny that some on the Right hold to their views not from love of humanity, but because they believe it advantages them at the expense of others?

    Para 10: Kingsley, a clergyman, also wrote “The Water Babies”, a critique of capitalist exploitation of children, attacked Catholicism and praised Darwin. I wonder how he voted?

    Paras 11-17: Could mainly at least as well be quoted as criticisms of the old religious and political elite, who were opposed by the radical followers of Enlightenment ideals.

    Para 20 (?- the last one) is really offensive. I suggested earlier that some people espouse the Right for selfish reasons, but don’t assume that they all do, or I’d have no time for the Baron, Dymphna and others of my acquaintance, online or personal. Even if the well-intentioned impulse which led to the rise of the Left has gone much too far in some ways (eg PC MC), MC (!)* has no right to question the sincerity of all who continue to support it, even if they seem misguided- I don’t like his views, but nor do I assume he’s insincere, or holds them out of pure self-interest.

    * I’ve sometimes chuckled over Pat Condell’s initials; daresay MC may not be wild about his!

    • I think you have missed the whole point of the essay, in the present age, we call it “left and right” in ages past it was called other things. The essay is about the huge divide, down through history, between feudal type collectivism, and a society based upon an individuals right to make his own sets of decisions.

  7. I wouldn’t call the Holy Roman Empire a despotism. I’m an Englishman but I don’t think it’s a good idea to Romanticize Elizabeth I.

    She was a strong ally of the Ottomans.

    One could easily write a dissertation that compares her Islam policy to that of Cameron. I don’t think she could have conceived of colonization by Muslims but she didn’t mind it for the Balkans, Italy and Spain.

    • I make a passing reference to Elizabethan England, is that romatic? I found the Kingsley quote interesting because of its relevance to the the gun control debate and the idea that if you want a free society, then the people must be armed, this coming from a deeply Christian author of the mid nineteenth century.

      In many places the politicians do not trust the people to bear arms; maybe because the people do not trust the politicians to look after their best interests. Only a crooked politician is scared of his/her electorate.

      Gun Control has always preceeded acts of Tyranny, tyrants don’t like people who can shoot back, it makes for very short, and very turbulent tenures.

      • It’s a vast block quote from an author who can be understood as a product of the Romantic era.

        Long Bows? Sea Dogs? Proto Anglo Yankee ingenuity! Liberty!

        I’m just pointing out that the Holy Roman Empire wasn’t a despotism. The Emperor was an elector, many states in the Empire were Imperial City status, which is essentially Republican in all but name. The Habsburgs and their offshoot monarchs as in Spain were not particularly objectionable. Hardly an example of anything I’d call leftist.

  8. “always remember that the KKK was a product of the left, not the right”

    It was a product of Democratic party politics. Also Populism.

    But the left? The KKK was enthnonationalist and white supremacist. So what on earth were the blacks who reacted by joining the communist party, or all the Jewish activists who sided with them? right wingers?

    • The KKK was a combination of resentment at losing the Civil War, the resulting impoverishment of everyone by a revengeful Federal govt, and the lack of any way to move forward in the South, since their noses were constantly being shoved into the fact of their defeat.

      The first modern war where civilians in the South were considered fair game and a scorched earth policy to starve the populace from the Shenandoah Valley down to Georgia and Mississippi was instituted by Lincoln and his generals. That karmic mistake is still with us.

      Just like the millenial-old grievances in other parts of the world, the grievances in the Southern soul still fester, though not actively; I don’t think there’s a solution. But the KKK is a spent scene and no self-respecting Southerner is interested in its continuance. It’s nothing more than a pathetic gathering of a few sore losers and the mentally disturbed.

      The Southern accent is still ridiculed by Northerners and the average Southerner is accused of sentiments he or she has never held and behavior s/he finds repugnant. But the more you protest, the less they listen; they know what they know.

      • Hey D –
        I find it interesting that the left still wants to chew over the KKK. How many of them are there now, 10?

        It was a democrat org but the left have done a really good job of switching it up, just as they did equal rights protection…

        Al Gore’s father, once a United States Senator, voted AGAINST the voting rights act of, I think, 196 3… This was while young Al Gore was living in a D.C. fancy hotel!

        The same has been done of Nazis. Most LIV now believe that Nazis were “far right extremists.” Nothing could be further from the truth; they were left wing socialists. The LIV chooses to believe what they are told by the media.

    • “The KKK was enthnonationalist and white supremacist. ”

      If you look at the economic policies of most of the ethnonationalists in Europe, you will see that they are socialists. Whether or not they are white supremacists has not mattered – there were never (historically) any “non-white” people for them to care about. It will be interesting as immigration continues, to see whether or not the IRA, Basque separatists, Catalan separatists turn out to be socialists and white supremacists too. It wouldn’t surprise me.

  9. Miliband wants to live in a ‘Marxist universe’, Cameron claims, begs the question what universe is Cameron living in? 🙂

  10. I hate to say this, but you guys who run this site really know how to shoot yourself in the foot. I am 100% with you when you discuss the horrors of Islam/Jihad. In fact, many people who you would define as “leftist” agree with your opinion about Islam.

    But then you go off on this left-vs-right nonsense which has nothing to do with Islam. If a person believes in socialized medicine and global warming and is an atheist, in today’s political context that’s considered leftist, but if that same person also believes in the death penalty, nuclear power and opposes Islam then he/she must be a rightest – and thus your head explodes because you’ve got someone who is both a leftist and rightist at the same time, which is presumably impossible.

    As long as you simplistically continue to divide the world into two incompatible warring tribes, right vs left, your main message (ie the evils of Islam, Sharia law and Jihad) will be lost.

    If you want to remain ineffective, you are doing the right thing. If you want to actually effect change and stop Jihad, you might consider changing course. There are plenty of people (perhaps even a majority) who are thoroughly fed up with the Islamic fundamentalists and want to take a hard line against them. But they aren’t going to support starving the poor, ditching medical care, or worshiping Ayn Rand. If you want to keep insulting them (calling them Nazis, communists, etc), then you can look forward to being ignored.

    • Isn’t that interesting.

      You think that we all don’t believe in socialized medicine, global warming and atheism? And yet you want nuclear energy, the death penalty and a push back against Islam?

      Do I have that right?

      If you are able to defend your positions you are welcome at GOV. Please do so as I would be very interested in your POV.

      BTW, what do you intend to “push back” against Islam if not our Christian heritage as free nations organized by Christian doctrine?

      • Yes Babs, without going into details, that’s a short list of things I believe in. I could produce a much longer list of issues which would mark me as both a card-carrying member of “the Left,” and “the Right,” simultaneously.

        Now maybe I’m misunderstanding you. I keep reading here on the GOV about this evil “Left” and this virtuous “Right,” with no real definition of just what that means. Perhaps you need to produce a definition of just what this “Left” means.

        I could, as you suggested, launch into a discussion of the various things I believe in (it would be a very long list) and defend my beliefs. But a lengthy debate over nuclear power, socialized medicine, economics, free trade agreements, financial regulation, space exploration, etc, would almost certainly be way off topic from what this blog is all about…which I believe is anti-Jihad.

        As for all the terrible things said about Islam on this blog: I’m in full agreement. Islam sucks. I’m with you on that. I’m just not ready to join a Rightist cult, nor do I wish to be labeled Leftist either.

        Can’t we all get along?

      • “what do you intend to “push back” against Islam if not our Christian heritage as free nations organized by Christian doctrine?”

        Sure, that’s going to work, with the Catholic Church, Anglicans, etc. falling over backwards to embrace islam. Do tell me, how on earth does “turn the other cheek” militarily defeat “kill the unbeliever”?

        The Catholic Church’s feeble Crusades only occurred after 400 years of attacks from without. Now the enemy is inside the gates, we don’t have 400 years. We don’t have 40 years.

        My elderly father goes to church armed with a koran, and doorsteps the priest to ask why he rails against same-sex marriage, but is utterly silent about a book that says the priest and his flock are faeces and are to be slaughtered.

      • Mass immigration into the UK has never been exclusively a bleeding hearts project, the right has also been complicit in the mass importation of human capital, the removal of national borders and the free movement of peoples across markets being the fundamentals of their very own genocidal immigration ideology.

        Indeed the mainstream rights opposition to white EU immigration is a ruse – a stick to beat the EU and vent their own self-loathing note how 9 times out of 10 they will not take that immigration stick to Third World Commonwealth immigration.

        The mainstream rights conceptualisation of free market economics as first principle demands the dissolution of national territories and the free movement of peoples across borders.

        George Osborne’s better kind of immigration-

        “In a speech at Peking University, the Chancellor told students there was “no limit” on the number of visitors from China who could come to Britain, as he stressed his visit was about “more than a collection of business deals”.

        “There is no limit to the number of Chinese who can study in Britain. No limit to the number of Chinese tourists who can visit. No limit on the amount of business we can do together.”

        There you have it the right rubbing the lefts nose in it!

        • “… 9 times out of 10 they will not take that immigration stick to Third World Commonwealth immigration.”

          Correct. Their ‘opposition’ to immigration from Europe is phony – for if they truly were concerned about the negative impact of immigration on Britain their attention would be focused on third world immigration.

    • Paraquat, maybe you should re-read this article and then re-consider your stance. What the author is highlighting is his own observation, to which I mostly agree, about how those who yearn to control you and I and everyone else have destroyed so much of humanity due to their totalitarian instincts which they allow to govern their thinking.

      Everyone has a tendency at some time to influence others into their own standards of life or political thinking when they believe they are right. It takes the individual who can understand where that kind of yearning can lead to, and who can then modify their thinking so as to quell their inner controlling tendencies, and because of that understanding, have a far greater appreciation for the liberty of the individual person.

      That is why parents who understand their own minds and are not reliant on others to ‘direct them’ will always raise good children who in turn will also raise their own good children.

      But some people cannot or will not stop their controlling tendencies over others and will allow their inner totalitarian nature to manifest itself through wealth, political power or by other means.

      History is full of the victims of such people!

      Please read my comment above and then try to understand that politics is power for some who yearn to control others and that political parties are generally labelled as being left or right depending on their ideologies, although that appears to have become rather blurred over the past few decades!

      I don’t know about you, but I would rather be sitting on the Right Hand side of God not his Left!

    • Two problems with your argument:

      1) You could have put the crux of the point more vividly; to wit:

      A person could be a flaming Leftist on every issue under the Sun — but if he were to condemn Islam, he would suddenly be transformed into, and demonized as, a “right wing fascist”.

      2) While many non-Leftists throughout the West remain fairly dim-witted about the problem of Islam, one can see as a general tendency (absent a few exceptions) that Leftists tend to gravitate toward the position that defends Muslims from an imaginary “backlash” and its attendant thought crimes of “bigotry” and “racism”, and they often more industriously go the extra mile of rolling up their shirtsleeves to help Muslims whitewash the sorded history — and current events — of Islam. Non-Leftists, and those on the right, are noticeably less inclined to indulge these things. In the USA, I have noticed a long-term pattern, where common sense policies (e.g., the federal support for the state of New York and New York City police having aggressive mosque surveillance activities) have far more support from Republican Congressmen than from Democratic congressmen. I’ve seen this so much, with regard to so many different issues revolving around the problem of Islam, I must conclude that while Republicans continue to be tardigrade on the learning curve about the problem of Islam, their political culture apparently has more rationality than is cultivated in Leftist circles, which then leads them to be marginally more rational about the problem of Islam. One doesn’t want to exaggerate this difference; but on the other hand, one doesn’t want to pretend it’s non-existent.

    • Islam is a symptom of a far greater problem which is sovietisation on a global basis. Worldwide cultural Marxism is wielding Islam as a huge baseball bat to club us into acquiescence to their vision of their Utopia.

      Personally, I don’t share that vision.

      The political left (those that wish to forcibly subjugate people to ‘their’ political vision) and Islam are partners in the same dance, and as the essay tries to put across, it is a dance of death. To achieve a world population of 500,000,000, billions of people have to die.

      This dance of death is not new, we are lucky to have lived in an age of relative freedom, this has been a rarity in world history; most people have existed under combined political and religious tyranny for their entire lives. it is we who are freely able to express our thoughts (right or wrong) who are the freaks!

      Here in Israel, the Jewish religious extremists behave in many ways like their Islamic cousins, but they tend not to murder people because Torah forbids it. The Koran encourages it, and in the 20th century the ‘Left’ broke all records in this area, hence the desire to designate National Socialism as ‘Right’ to counterbalance to some extent the murderous excesses of Lenin Stalin Kruschev, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho and others.

      Islam, Nazi and Communist regimes all have a common meme; Conform or Die. It is this meme that I am writing about in this essay. It is a meme we can see down through history and in our time it is called the ‘Left’

      Like moderate Islam, moderate Socialism is a fabrication; there is actively violent socialism, and there is its support train of camp followers. The murderers cannot exist without the camp followers who provide its sustenance and comforts.

      Only by continually exposing the linkage between cutural Marxism and Islam will we get those suckered into the great ‘leftist’ delusion to start thinking outside their intellectual box. Socialism was, is and always will be a disaster, and its death toll is just plain hideous.

      See Seneca III’s comment above, he puts it far better than I ever could!.

    • Welcome to our world!

      Take what you have written and realise that you have described the position we find ourselves in very well!

      It is not GoV that is dividing the world into right and left, and hence obscuring the problems with Islamic doctrines, for goodness sake!

    • As I pointed out above, the discussion should really be on the grounds of individualism vs collectivism.

      The use of terms like ‘left’ vs ‘right’ is not based on any essential distinction, but on an accident of history during the French revolution. The terms are employed by the power elite to simplify, obfuscate and confuse. When I took to task the BBC’s senior political commentator on his description of the BNP as ‘right wing’, he deleted my comment.

      People all over the world have been sold out by their power elites. In my mind, Americans like Paul Gottfried and Samuel Francis are correct to focus on the role of the elite, who are truly in power. These elites will adopt any ideology and appear to propound it, provided that it keeps them in power. It’s why Nixon could visit China.

      Left vs. Right is just theatre to distract the people from what is really going on. Focusing on the islamisation of the west (enabled by ‘Left’ and ‘Right’) is what matters. Explaining how that has happened with politicians, academics, clergy, journalists of any hue being part of the process should reveal that the elite have an agenda that is in the background, hidden by all the smoke and noise of Left vs. Right.

    • I agree, the abstruse nature of left v right is a bizarro debate. I’m actually nostaligic for the class struggle. The Religio-cultural struggle we have today is a pain in the [fundament]. I resent even having to think about it.

  11. It should be kept in mind whenever someone calls the Nazis “right wing” that when the schism in the Bolsheviks between the Trotskyites and the Stalinites finally came to the fore that Trotsky and his supporters were accused of “right revisionism” by Stalin and co.

    That habit of the Bolsheviks of calling anybody who didn’t agree with them a “rightist” is where the “right wing” tag for the Nazis came from.

  12. “The ‘Left’ proscribes what a man should do and think and how a man should live and worship.”

    As does Islam. Maybe that’s why the two are bedfellows.

  13. Ultimately I do not see this as a battle between the populist perceptions of left and right, the epitaph on the tombstone is Ultra-Liberalism.

  14. Everyone should read Albert Camus’s THE REBEL. In this book, Camus argues that you cannot justify atrocities on some golden, utopian ideal. Or in other words, the ends do not justify the means. For writing this book, Camus was castigated and ostracized from the French Left.

    Camus ultimately realized that how you achieve your goals is just as important as the goal itself and wrestled with the French Left’s support of totalitarian dictatorships, like Stalin’s U.S.S.R., which was all the fashion in France at that time. Sartre spent a lot of time and words justifying Stalin’s crimes against humanity and would should never forget that.

    That said, one of the greatest lies perpetrated on school children is teaching them that Nazism is to the Right what Communism is to the Left. I am more cynical than the writer of this essay and believe this is meant to show some sort of moral equivalence between Right and Left, when in fact there is no such equivalence. Yes, Nazism is a Leftist ideology and Hitler was aligned with Stalin for a number of years. In fact, this was the seminal reason that the film director, Elia Kazan, and some others left the Communist Party at that time and had their eyes opened.

    It took many years to free myself of this mendacious indoctrination and finally came to realize that Leftism is a self-imposed gulag ideology, whereby its followers agree to imprison themselves in a police state. That is the ultimate end of Leftism. The Left loves nothing more than passing law after law. Does anything say this more than a bill that is over 2,700 pages long? This is something out of a Kafkaesque nightmare. The Left will tell you where you can smoke, what you can and cannot eat, what size drink you can drink, what car to drive, what light bulb to use, what medical insurance plan to have, what you can marry, etc.

    What I came to realize is that Conservatism is the true liberal ideology with a belief in the individual to achieve their goals and dreams in a world that is free of State constrictions and laws.

    We much take back our schools and universities from the insidious and subversive Left which is twisting and perverting the minds of our children. The smarter ones, will eventually come to the realization that I have, but the sheep will continue to be lead along like, er… sheep.

  15. The whole left/right division falls down once you factor in the control equation…these terms are just used by the real political elites who pull the strings.

    Their agenda isn’t political, it’s far deeper and touches institutions several thousand years old….long before Whig and Tory!

    Just re-evaluate political elites through Masonic symbology, and see what Illuminati undercurrents you unearth! It may surprise you to know how many currently serving Australian politicians for example have direct connections to a single Lodge, and that Abbotts own education overlapped the MK ultra program…just a coincidence?

    The sooner we drop the childish pursuit of left/right competition and started looking broader, the sooner we will see the wood AND the trees.

    • You think the “pursuit” of the left/right competition is childish?

      While I’d have preferred the collectivist vs. the individualist nomenclature, the one MC chose serves well enough to distinguish the two sides.

      However, a Masonic template laid over the world appears to be a reductio ad absurdum to me. And the Illuminati?? Come on…large conspiracy theories are eventually uninteresting, though I know the folks who hold them to be true do so with fierce intensity.

      So this new Australian PM who has labeled the carbon tax “socialist” (bravo!) does so from some Masonic purpose? I don’t think so.

      These conspiracies are blunted instruments used to beat down those who are different from us. I’ve noticed that the Masons-rule are often anti-Catholic in origin, while those preoccupied with Zionists usually the Rothschilds and the banksters…

      …however, a dedicated conspiracy theorist can weave all those threads – from Skull & Bones to the Illumanti to the Bilderbergs to the Trilateral Comission – into some overarching theory about how the world works.

      Those of us who find Grand Conspiracies less fascinating and who are looking for the “cui bono” in any situation have M.E.G.O. Moments when our interlocutor hauls in his big (and always evil) Explanation, which kills the conversation (or sends the thread sideways, in this case) with their security blanket Theory. They are dialogue-killers, those conspiracies, and there is nothing to be learned from them.

      In the coming interregnum, which no group is going to be able to control (I wish they could as I like modern life’s amenities) I predict an eventual change in the names of the GCs. Not that there won’t still be the need for them, just that the labels will be different.

      Your comment is OT. It stands for now, but if this thread gets wound around your theme, we’ll have to delete it so that regular conversation can resume. There are hundreds of sites where your comment would be welcome but this isn’t one.

      • I too like the collectivist/individualist approach, but in this case I wanted to be able to stress the temporary nature of the names with which we label these age old rifts in humanity. The master/slave, Lord/serf, noble/villein, patrician/plebeian, Grandee/peon relationships have been with us down centuries and millennia, the names change, but the fear and the cruelty remain the same.

        Our current struggle is part of an eternal struggle against the bullies; those who actively seek personal power over the weak and the vulnerable. But the weapons have changed. Once we hacked bodies to bits, now, we hack minds to bits by removing culture, identity and family from the equation of life, we substitute ‘entertainment’ in the form of armchair sport complete with a liquid six pack, then there is GTA 1 thru 5 to further muddle the mindscape; all the time pushing moral relativity at us.

        We sit besotted in front of the tube, oblivious to what goes on around us, only looking for our next ‘fix’ of white witch mindcandy; we are Edmunds fixated on Turkish Delight, ready to betray all and sundry, even our brothers and sisters to ensure its continued supply.

        Most who read GoV articles have escaped the pixelated prison cell, and the associated mind embollism (bubbles of reality TV form in the bloodstream as one comes up from the depths of X factor, giving rise to the possibility of permanent brain damage as they slice though the delicate shrouds of cognitive sanity)

        • @MCin Sderot,

          Note what the prize is in the X factor the collective adulation for the contrived individualist or in GTA the exultation of individualist aspiration in a contrived collective environment.

      • Don’t you think you are being a bit tough on
        Michaelmas, he’s making a fairly harmless point.
        A lot of people are fascinated by the connection
        or not between financial elites and Zionism,
        why shy away from it ? It would be better
        if we could get it aired, which must be right as these so-called elites clearly prefer to be invisible.
        They are certainly hiding a lot.

        • “which must be right as these so-called elites clearly prefer to be invisible.”

          I certainly don’t think that the elites are jews. As far as I’m concerned, there are elites operating in Iceland, Peru and China and Thailand. Sorry to say it, but if people find themselves instantly thinking “jews”, then those people are channeling jew-hatred (a hatred that IMO is traced back to islam). I think that in almost all cases the elites’ interests in each other transcend things like religion. American capitalist elites will happily help Chinese communist elites.

          When Burnham talked about the managerial class, he was clear that these elites would create super-states in America, Europe and Asia. Jewishness did not come into it. Most of my jewish friends are exceedingly ordinary, and often financially very poor.

          • You are correct. I firmly believe that the Left is feeding people Jew-hatred in order to redirect their concerns and set up a buffer between the elite and the people. The Left also needs to destroy Israel as that nation has two factors that are both hated by the Left – national sovereignty and a people with a sense of cultural/religious identity that want to keep it that way.

        • Ah, s ducain! Imagine meeting you here; what a surprise.

          Get it “aired”?? Seriously? It’s airing right now in hundreds of fora devoted to those connections. As I’ve told you repeatedly, it’s off topic at GoV. Your persistence is unpleasant and will soon become past bearing.

          Fortunately for all, you’re still free to go over to those sites and say all the things you can’t say here. I urge you to do so.
          The elites have always hidden a lot; it’s part of the system MC is describing. They know they’d be strung up if people knew the real back story, so they wisely use their money in various efforts to keep it under the carpet, lumps and all.

          Personally, we’ve been watching the attack on Diana West from a subset of the ‘elites’. Why? Because unlike the purported conspiracies, we actually know Diana West and are aware of her work. The cordon sanitaire erected by ‘our’ side was an ugly surprise. While it’s impossible to see behind the curtain we can certainly deduce the existence of the curtain based on the behavior (or non-behavior) of the ‘conservative’ elites we formerly admired.

          I’d ask you to give it up but I don’t think you can. This Zionist conspiracy has got you by the short hairs, but that’s your struggle, not ours. We have our own demons, and they will never include the Masons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs, the Zionists, etc., ad nauseam.

          A much more interesting project is to read about the verifiable links among our current crop of crony capitalists in government/media/academia/etc. – i.e., the level of betrayal we can actually behold.

          For that reason, DHorowitz’ obsession with Diana West’s book is fascinating in a sad kind of way because he’s gone so far – or is so far gone – that he has created a special page for her in his otherwise valuable website, “Discover the Networks”. Now *that* page is prima facie evidence of a serious disorder. She is not a part of the Leftist underground he exposes so well, but he can’t leave her alone so he sticks that DW page up there like a moustache on a poster. And like all obsessives, he is sure his victim is attacking *him* even though he went to absurd lengths to build his house of cards…
          On a related theme, here’s another strange turn: from whatever motive, the Associated Press has outed this administration’s obsessive control re images of the President. After five years of it, AP is finally fed up with a diet of home-grown PR and is now boycotting all pics emanating from the White House. The public nature of their anger is most interesting. Far more interesting than those Zionists in your closet. You can bet AP will be mining for unflattering images of their bête noire. Oops, is one permitted to say noire?

          Basta, s ducain.

          • I giggle at the inanity of the Jew-hate lobby, it is actually a huge, if somewhat macabre, flattery exercise to imagine that a tiny (albeit cohesive) ethnic grouping are so influential as to “control the world”.

            Statistically that would make one Jew worth a hundred, maybe a thousand….

            But I must not get too biblical it might upset somebody.

            Whilst I am sure that some of the ‘elite’ are of Jewish extraction, they cannot be practising Jews if they are condoning murder.

            Israel is full of stray cats, they live amongst the trash. They come into houses and take food etc. One would think that measures should be taken to prevent their breeding. But that is not the Jewish way; Yah looked back at His creation and said that it is tov mehod (very good). It is therefore not for mankind to meddle with (by neutering or killing cats).

          • Hmm… If the EDL arose mainly as a reaction to Islamisation here in the UK, then is not the continued, if sometimes disorganised, refusal of democratic socialism to go away (eg “Occupy”) a reaction to the crony capitalism to which you refer?

          • Dymphna, I have not read the
            D West book yet, I have to wait until
            X-mas, but the very aggressive
            counter -reaction to it is what caused my interest in the first place.
            If as you say she is attacking a sub-set of the elites, or attacking the
            foundations on which they have and
            continue to build their ‘ One World ‘
            empire, is it not progressing the
            entire subject by exposing these
            people whoever they are ? It does ñot matter whether they are all of one religion or not, as they clearly
            have a different type of religion, one
            which believes in control and power.
            If these elites are not your demons
            ( they are mine ), then who are your demons ?

          • As a reply to @S. Ducain

            I think it is obvious to all who are prepared to open their eyes, and to notice that the emperor is parading up the street stark naked and is in violation of the law of the land.

            The problem we have is to whom do we attach the blame?

            Is it the tailors who prepared the fraudulent ‘clothes’? the Chamberlains who hold the imaginary train, the dressers, the footmen, the empress, they all could have intervened, as could the general public.

            In the world today we have various groups who are supposed to have dunnit:

            The Vatican
            The Joos
            The illuminati
            The CFR
            The Queen (of England)
            The Trilateral commission
            The Bankers
            Big business
            Big Pharma
            Prince Philip

            To single out any one of these is to make this into a witch hunt. Many people blame the Jews for almost everything. But I would bet that a good percentage of the ‘elite’ are ‘Christians’ and if you apply to Christianity the same criteria as one does to Jews it becomes an xtian conspiracy. However, it is impossible to be a Christian and participate in the activities of the elite, first one must renounce those very doctrines that make you a Christian, either in fact or in act. One can be a christian maybe, but not a Christian, likewise, one can be a jew, but not a Jew.
            As Solzhenitsyn tells us, the Gulag can be the bland door at the end of YOUR street.
            Personally, I think that there is not one ‘elite’ but several, maybe even competing against each other, but they have one thing in common which is essentially ‘Satan worship’ in the sense that be it ‘skull and bones/bohemian grove’ or Gaia (as demonstrated at climate change conferences), atheist cultural Marxism or Roman Pagan cults at the Vatican or Jewish Protocols in synagogues of Satan.
            But we have to try and make sense of the realities we are faced with, Soros, Gates, Soetero, Clinton, CAIR, Saudi Royalty, these we know are pulling nefarious strings.
            We can be as the child yelling “the King is in the all together” but the real question is “who is listening” American Betrayal starts with the betrayal of a single American Citizen by just three of his elected Representatives in 1934. We have to learn a hard lesson here, that he was in reality betrayed by those who voted those crooked politicians into power, and those who tolerate their crimes by inertia, it is not the Joos or the Popes, the real problem is ME! How far am I prepared to go to expose the problem and support real democracy? Am I prepared to lose my job, my income, my credibility, my family, my car, my house? Am I prepared to forgo television or newspapers because they are a major part of the problem? Am I prepared to stand up and be counted?

      • It’s hardly off topic…you sound to me like one whose vision is so blinkered you can’t see the peripheral forces that are guiding the great history you love to expound on.

        A dose of some humility wouldn’t go astray, and an admission you’d actually missed half of the players as you talked up the game!

        And yes, it is childish to still rely on tags of left and right, straight out of some Cold War anachronism, whilst financial institutions rewrite the laws of dozens of countries, forces of the next wave of colonialism muster their troops and the real battleground is shaping between US and China, hardly a left right fight nowadays…

        • Hi Micklemas

          I think you are missing the point of the article, which is not really about left and right, or even about a modern world context.

          It is about those who want to control other people and those who are prepared to allow all people make decisions for themselves.

          I am afraid that it would be a bit difficult for me to rewrite the article to comply with your private opinions, so it will have to stand as it is, totally limited by my failure to be able to write with as broad a spectrum as you require of me.

          In the mean time I will retire to my room and play with my toys in the full knowledge that I have at least made an effort to appease and placate.

  16. Since the establishment of the Comintern, only “left” had a coherent meaning: supportive of internationalist socialism until the Soviet Union collapsed, and since then, supportive of the squishy multiculturalist globalist fascism that is on view in most parties with the equivalent of “social” or “socialist” in their names, as well as among the American Democrats and the social science and humanities faculty of most universities in the Anglosphere . “Right” simply means opposed to the left. Thus monarchists, anarcho-capitalists, American constitutionalists, Nazis, nationalists of every stripe, Tories, ultramontanists, and libertarians despite having essentially no political positions in common are all “right wing”. The adjective “far” gets appended when the group opposing the left has a strong element of nationalism or defense of a traditional Christian culture.


  18. Hi MC,

    Thank you for your essay on the political “Left” and “Right”, about the arbitrary division in politics vs the massive divide that goes way beyond that (and might not even include politics, since what I gather from your essay is that basically they’re all “leftists” of a kind).

    On the right side of the massive divide in humanity, you have placed those who think that:

    “[..] all men are free to seek out the truths of this world for themselves.”

    I’d like to verify my impression that you think of the “Left” vs “Right” in terms that more or less exclude the political system. Let’s confine that to the US political landscape, and my question to you would be:

    Can you name an individual (or a group of individuals) who represents the cause of freedom in the above quotation from your article?

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,

    • This is an exceptionally good question, because the absolute of personal freedom is anarchy in its true meaning; withot rulers. But this is as utopian as anything on the left side of the spectrum is.

      I would suggest that an examination of the ideals of your own PVV, or in UK, Liberty GB would be a good place to start.

      I am not really familiar enough with the US scene to make any directives there perhaps the Baron can comment. Also look at some of the entries above by @Nemesis and @Pleistarchos who both seem to have understood what this essay is about. Also @SenecaIII sums up pretty well in the first comment.

      At its most fundamental this is not about politics, it is about free speech, and the renewal of the idea of ‘seditious libel’ which has cropped up in the EU/ECJ a few years ago (Booker/North whistleblowing), and is what is also behind the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ currently being pushed hard by the OIC.

      As Solomon said, “there is nothing new under the sun”, and the freedom of thought, which is at the root of freedom of speech, has long been a target of those who seek to dominate. reduce and enslave the human psyche for their own purposes be they ‘religious’ or ‘political’ (or even just plain egotistical).

      The alarming thing is that whilst the ‘Left’ has always sought to herd people into its utopian fold, we now see those legislators of the supposed ‘Right’ being bought off as well. RINOs in the US and Consevatives in the UK are no longer conservative as such, having fallen to the ‘fashionability’ snare inherent in ‘Left’ control of the media (and thus ‘fashion’). So we find Cameron (UK PM) behaving more like a New Labour grandee.

      I hope this answers at least some of your question; when one opens cans of worms, one expects to have to wriggle a bit!

      • As if in great haste to follow your suggestion @MC, I already examined all of the political parties in the Netherlands several years ago (when I still voted), including the PVV, LPF (Pim Fortuyn, who could have sparked a genuine anti-Islam revolution in Holland) and even the SP (socialist party, old school).
        Counter to the rest of the political establishment these parties were/are in favour of leaving the EU (and also the UN, in case of the PVV).
        When Islam is concerned, only the PVV and before them the LPF have had the courage to face Islam head-on. This has led the MSM to attach the label “far-right” to these parties. One quick look past the assorted presstitute’s vernacular, and one will see that the parties involved could easily be dubbed “old left”, meaning the political left of the ’50s before the welfare state expanded beyond belief and really became infected by political correctness and multiculturalism (the latter imported from the US after the post-war period of decolonization in the ’50s and ’60s).
        For some within the general public “right-wing” still stands for limited government or the rollback of the state. The PVV is not a party that will impose traditional free market right-wing limits on the state. It is not a party that will abolish central banking. It won’t abolish the fiat currency system. It will not dispose of the income tax and it will uphold the structure of the welfare system. Wilders represents people who (rightfully) feel abandoned by the established parties, both on the Left and “Right” (parenthesis here meaning slightly less Leftist). Two things set the PVV apart from the establishment parties: opposition to the EU(SSR) and Islam. And that counts over here in Holland. Big time.

        Kind regs from Amsterdam,

  19. “…The political left (those that wish to forcibly subjugate people to ‘their’ political vision) and Islam are partners in the same dance,….”

    MC is absolutely correct, and it is important that readers appreciate that the Left/non-Left genre is considered an appropriate topic for forums such as GOV. It is not a coincidence that Leftists both import massive amounts of Muslims into their nations and also take the side of Muslims v. Israel, Muslims v. free speech, or Muslims v. anything else. Islam, like any form of Marxism, is pan-national and pan-ethnic/culture in nature. The Left does nothing that will not help bring about worldwide Socialism. Like Marxism, Islam erodes ANY sense of identity that existed prior to the institution of that system is a particular region. Marxism and Islam both start with the Year Zero approach. The Left does employ Islam to further its goals, so we must be willing to treat both as slightly different manifestations of the same overall threat. No religion is nearly as conducive to Socialism as is Islam.

  20. Any term in political science is useful if it is denoting, or describing, something in reality. That doesn’t mean it is, or has to be, perfect. All descriptive terms (particularly in a field as potentially complex as political science) have flaws; the question is whether the flaws outweigh the usefulness.

    On the one subject of the problem of Islam, the terms Left and terms Right in my estimation do denote real phenomena, where we do see a trend where more individuals who can be approximately categorized as on, or in, the Left tend to whitewash Islam and to denigrate condemners and warners of Islam, while comparatively fewer do on, or in, the Right.

    However, there has come to my notice over the past decade an important wrinkle to this seemingly simple formula: the unusually, and discomfittingly high number of individuals one could approximately categorize as on, or in, the Right who nevertheless tend to do with regard to the problem of Islam pretty much just what Leftists do — perhaps not with quite the self-righteous zest by which Leftists tend to add insult to injury; but still, the damage continues to be done.

    We cannot call these people on the Right who behave this way “Leftists”.

    Hence my development of the term “PC MC” to denote precisely non-Leftists who nevertheless tend to defend Muslims from “bigotry”, and in the process, either implicitly or explicitly tend to chill, or even vilify (if not try to ostracize — e.g., the Republicans who betrayed Michelle Bachmann not to long ago). They cannot be said to be doing this for “Leftist” reasons. Thus “PC MC” denotes a broader, and deeper civilizational process that must have been occurring under our feet all along — a massive paradigm shift, a sea change in the sociopolitical and cultural public conscious that brings with it a whole constellation of axioms, shibboleths, mantras and memes — including the only one I care about: the reflexive need to defend Muslims from “bigotry” and its obverse side of the coin, the reflexive need to vilify those who condemn Islam and who logically condemn all Muslims who enable Islam (and what Muslims don’t?).

    So, the above was my long-winded way of saying that we should adopt “PC MC” as the key term, and it would be defined somewhat circularly:

    Anyone is PC MC to the extent that they defend Islam and Muslims.

    And yes, unlike pregnancy, one can be “a little PC MC”. The crucial question in that regard is whether they are sufficiently PC MC to be part of the Problem, rather than the Solution (and vice versa).

  21. This is an excellent new way to process those who defend Islam, especially those following the bidding of Masonic or other extraneous Christian cults or alignments.

    However, the reflexive need to defend for example Christian heresy or self serving Christian zealotry or Zionism, to take just some of the other likely Correctnesses, needs it’s own definition too.

    Perhaps if lines of discourse between for example treacherous Vatican agitators in the pay of ancient Apostatic cults and mainstream conservative political operatives could be traced and substantiated we could define a whole new language that re-constructs Correctness in a broader context.

    Muslim sympathisers will always defend their own squeamish views but hounding them alone is probably counter productive.

  22. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition

  23. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition | Virginia Right!

  24. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition | Liberty's Spirit

  25. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition | askmarion

  26. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition | Nice Deb

  27. Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council nominations for the week of “Liar, liar, pants on fire”

  28. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition | Aewl's Abode

  29. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition |

  30. Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: November 6, 2013

  31. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition |

  32. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Pants On Fire Edition

Comments are closed.