<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://fascipedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Robert+Leiden</id>
	<title>FasciPedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://fascipedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Robert+Leiden"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Robert_Leiden"/>
	<updated>2026-05-01T11:37:35Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.39.2</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Philippe_P%C3%A9tain&amp;diff=60011</id>
		<title>Philippe Pétain</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Philippe_P%C3%A9tain&amp;diff=60011"/>
		<updated>2025-03-12T19:51:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: fixed a small typo; changed:&amp;quot;5he&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;the.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Greatarticle}}{{short description|Anti-communist Leader of Vichy France}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Petain.png|right|frameless|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain''' (April 24, 1856&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/LH/LH280/PG/FRDAFAN83_OC17V022.htm|title=Birth certificate of Pétain, Henri Philippe Benoni Omer|last=Government of the French empire|website=culture.gouv.fr|language=fr|access-date=13 April 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; – July 23, 1951), generally known as '''Philippe Pétain''', '''Marshal Pétain''', and sometimes '''The Old Marshal''', was a [[French]] general officer who attained the position of Marshal of France at the end of [[The Great War]], during which he became known as '''The Lion of Verdun'''. He then served as Head of state of [[Vichy France]] (anti-[[communist]] France) from 1940 to 1944. Pétain, who was 84 years old in 1940, ranks as France's oldest head of state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During The [[Great War]], Pétain led the French Army to victory at the nine-month-long Battle of Verdun. After the failed Nivelle Offensive and subsequent mutinies he was appointed Commander-in-Chief and succeeded in repairing the army's confidence. Pétain remained in command for the rest of the war and emerged as a national hero. During the [[interwar period]] he was head of the peacetime French Army, commanded joint Franco-Spanish operations during the Rif War and served twice as a [[government]] minister. During this [[time]] he was known as (The Old Marshal).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like the rest of [[Europe]], France was under [[attack]] from [[communists]] attempting to subvert the country from within. With the [[Communism]] attempting to control France, French citizens desiring [[Germany]]'s help, and the Cabinet wanting to ask for an [[armistice]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Churchill's man in Paris, Edward Spears, urged the French not to sign an armistice, saying that if French ports were occupied by Germany, Britain bomb them, and the surrounding civilian cities. Spears reported that Pétain did not respond immediately but stood there &amp;quot;perfectly erect, with no sign of panic or emotion. He did not disguise the [[fact]] that he considered the situation catastrophic. I could not detect any sign in him of broken morale, of that mental wringing of hands and incipient hysteria noticeable in [[others]].&amp;quot; Pétain later remarked to Reynaud about this statement: &amp;quot;your ally now threatens us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 17, 1940 Prime Minister [[Paul Reynaud]] resigned, recommending to President [[Albert Lebrun]] that he appoint Pétain in his place, which he did that day, while the government was at Bordeaux.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Werth, Alexander, ''France 1940-1955'', [[London]], 1957, p.30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Cabinet then resolved to sign armistice agreements with Germany and [[Italy]]. The entire government subsequently moved briefly to Clermont-Ferrand, then to the town of [[Vichy]] in central France. The government voted to transform the [[French Third Republic]] into the [[French State]] or [[Vichy France]], a [[Fascism|Fascist]] state, and attempt to recover the remainder of France from the communists.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After [[German]] and [[Italian]] representatives were welcomed into France, in November 1942, Pétain's government worked very closely with the [[Germans]] to remove the communists, and defend France from &amp;quot;The Allies&amp;quot; and others empowering communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the war, Pétain was tried and convicted for [[treason]] by the victors in [[The World's War Against Communism]], who were continuing to barbaricly  slaughter their enemies via mock trials.  He was originally sentenced to death, but public outcry and outrage threatened an immediate civil war, and his sentence was commuted to life in prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life==&lt;br /&gt;
===Youth and family===&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain was born in Cauchy-à-la-Tour (in the Pas-de-Calais in Northern [[France]]) in 1856. His father, Omer-Venant, was a farmer. His great-uncle, a [[Catholic]] priest, Father Abbe Lefebvre (1771–1866), had served in ][Napoleon]]'s ''Grande Armée'' and told the young Philippe tales of war and adventure of his campaigns from the peninsulas of Italy to the Alps in Switzerland. Highly impressed by the tales told by his uncle, his destiny was from then on determined by the army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Personal life===&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain was a bachelor until his 60s. After The [[Great war|Great War]] Pétain married his former girlfriend, Eugénie Hardon (1877–1962) on September 14, 1920; they remained married until the end of Pétain's life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Charles, ''Pétain'', London, 2005, p. 206, ISBN|978-0-316-86127-4.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After rejecting Pétain's first marriage proposal, Hardon had married and divorced François de Hérain by 1914 when she was 35. At the opening of the Battle of Verdun in 1916, Pétain is said to have been fetched during the night from a Paris hotel by a staff officer who knew that he could be found with Eugénie Hardon.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Verdun 1916, by Malcolm Brown, Tempus Publishing Ltd., Stroud, UK, p. 86.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; She had no children by Pétain but already had a son from her first marriage, Pierre de Hérain, whom Pétain strongly disliked.&amp;lt;ref [[name]]=williams523&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 523.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early military career==&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain joined the [French Army in 1876 and attended the École Spéciale Militaire de [[Saint]]-Cyr Military Academy in 1887 and the École Supérieure de Guerre (army war college) in Paris. Between 1878 and 1899, he served in various garrisons with different battalions of the elite light infantry of the French Army. Thereafter, he alternated between staff and regimental assignments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain's career progressed slowly, as he rejected the French Army [[philosophy]] of the furious infantry assault, arguing instead that &amp;quot;firepower kills&amp;quot;. His views were later proved to be correct during the [[First World War]]. He was promoted to captain in 1890 and major (Chef de Bataillon) in 1900. In March 1904, by then serving in the 104th Infantry, he was appointed adjunct professor of applied infantry tactics at the ''École Supérieure de Guerre'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6249355k/f3.image.r|title=Ecoles militaires|date=1 April 1904|access-date=16 November 2020|website=gallica.bnf.fr|last=Government of the French Republic}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and following promotion to lieutenant-colonel was promoted to professor on 3 April 1908.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6276218v/f8.image.r|title=Service des ecoles militaires|date=5 April 1908|access-date=16 November 2020|website=gallica.bnf.fr|last=Government of the French Republic}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was brevetted to colonel on January 1st, 1910.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike many French officers, Pétain served mainly in mainland France, never French Indochina or any of the African colonies, although he participated in the Rif War. As [[colonel]], he was given command of the 33rd Infantry Regiment at [[Arras]] on 25 June 1911;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6391632r/f24.image.r|title=Ministère de la guerre|date=28 June 1911|access-date=25 September 2021|website=gallica.bnf.fr|last=Government of the French Republic}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a young lieutenant, [[Charles de Gaulle]], who served under him, later wrote that his &amp;quot;first colonel, Pétain, taught (him) the Art of Command&amp;quot;. In the spring of 1914, he was given command of a brigade (still with the rank of colonel). By then aged 58 and having been told he would never become a general, Pétain had bought a villa for retirement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=YiZRC8bsOuoC&amp;amp;pg=PA461|title=The [[United States]] in the First World War: an encyclopedia |author=Anne Cipriano Venzon, Paul L. Miles|chapter=Pétain, Henri-Philippe|year=1999 |isbn=9780815333531.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==First World War==&lt;br /&gt;
===Beginning of war===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Philippe Pétain circa 1915.png|thumb|Pétain in 1915.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain led his brigade at the Battle of St. Quentin (August 29, 1914). The following day, he was promoted to brigadier-general to replace Brigadier-general Pierre Peslin, who had taken his own life. He was given command of the 6th Division in time for the First Battle of the Marne; little over a month later, in October 1914, he was promoted yet again and became XXXIII Corps commander. After leading his corps in the spring 1915 Second Battle of Artois, in July 1915 he was given command of the Second Army, which he led in the Second Battle of Champagne that autumn. He acquired a reputation as one of the more successful commanders on the [[Western Front]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Battle of Verdun===&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain commanded the Second Army at the start of the Battle of Verdun in February 1916. During the battle, he was promoted to Commander of Army Group Centre, which contained a total of 52 divisions. Rather than holding down the same infantry divisions on the Verdun battlefield for months, akin to the German system, he rotated them out after only two weeks on the front lines. His decision to organise truck transport over the &amp;quot;Voie Sacrée&amp;quot; to bring a continuous stream of artillery, ammunition and fresh troops into besieged Verdun also played a key role in grinding down the German onslaught to a final halt in July 1916. In effect, he applied the basic [[principle]] that was a mainstay of his teachings at the École de Guerre (War College) before [[The Great war|The Great War]]: &amp;quot;''le feu tue!''&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;firepower kills!&amp;quot;, in this case [[meaning]] French field artillery, which fired over 15 million shells on the Germans during the first five months of the battle. Although Pétain did say ''&amp;quot;On les aura!&amp;quot;'' (an echoing of Joan of Arc, roughly: &amp;quot;We'll get them!&amp;quot;), the other famous quotation often attributed to him – ''&amp;quot;Ils ne passeront pas!&amp;quot;'' (&amp;quot;[[They shall not pass]]&amp;quot;!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mutiny===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of his high prestige as a soldier's soldier, Pétain served briefly as Army Chief of Staff (from the end of April 1917). He then became Chief of the Defence Staff of the entire French army, replacing General Nivelle, whose Chemin des Dames offensive failed in April 1917, thereby provoking widespread mutinies in the French Army. they involved, to various degrees, nearly half of the French infantry divisions stationed on the Western Front. Pétain restored morale by talking to the men, promising no more suicidal attacks, providing rest for exhausted units, home furloughs, and moderate [[discipline]]. 554 mutineers were sentenced to death but over 90% had their sentences commuted by him.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Nicola Barber|title=The Great War: The Western Front|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y82WHKm2QBYC&amp;amp;pg=PA53|year=2003|publisher=Black Rabbit Books|page=53|isbn=9781583402689}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The mutinies were kept secret from the Germans and their full extent and intensity were not revealed until decades later. The immediate causes were [[pacifism]], stimulated by the [[Russian Revolution]] and the trade-[[Union Movement|union movement]], and disappointment at the nonarrival of [[American]] troops.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bentley B. Gilbert and Paul P. Bernard, &amp;quot;The French Army Mutinies of 1917&amp;quot;, ''Historian'' (1959) 22#1, pp. 24–41.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain conducted some successful but limited offensives in the latter part of 1917, unlike the British who stalled in an unsuccessful Battle of Passchendaele  that autumn.  Pétain, instead, held off from major French offensives until the Americans arrived in force on the front lines, which did not happen until the early summer of 1918.  He was also waiting for the new Renault FT tanks to be introduced in large numbers, hence his statement at the time: &amp;quot;I am waiting for the tanks and the Americans.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===End of war===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Foch Pershing Petain and Haig2.png|thumb|Pétain, Douglas Haig, Ferdinand Foch and John Pershing in 1918]]&lt;br /&gt;
The year 1918 saw major German offensives on the Western Front. The first of these, Operation Michael in March 1918, threatened to split the British and French forces apart, and, after Pétain had threatened to retreat on Paris, the Doullens Conference was called. Just prior to the main meeting, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau claimed he heard Pétain say ''&amp;quot;les Allemands battront les Anglais en rase campagne, après quoi ils nous battront aussi&amp;quot;'' (&amp;quot;the Germans will beat the English in open country, then they'll beat us as well&amp;quot;). He reported this conversation to [[President of France]] Raymond Poincaré, adding &amp;quot;surely a general should not speak or think like that?&amp;quot; Douglas Haig recorded that Pétain had &amp;quot;a terrible look. He had the appearance of a commander who had lost his nerve&amp;quot;. Pétain believed – wrongly – that Hubert Gough's Fifth Army had been routed like the Italians at Battle of Caporetto.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrar-Hockley 1975, pp. 301–2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the Conference, Ferdinand Foch was appointed as Allied Generalissimo, initially with powers to co-ordinate and deploy Allied reserves where he saw fit. Pétain eventually came to the aid of the British and secured the front with forty French divisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain proved a capable opponent of the Germans both in defence and through counter-attack. The third offensive, &amp;quot;Blücher&amp;quot;, in May 1918, saw major German advances on the Aisne, as the French Army commander (Humbert) ignored Pétain's orders to defend in depth and instead allowed his men to be hit by the initial massive German bombardment. By the time of the last German offensives, Gneisenau and the Second Battle of the Marne, Pétain was able to defend in depth and launch counter offensives, with the new French tanks and the assistance of the Americans. Later in the year, Pétain was stripped of his right of direct appeal to the French government and requested to report to Foch, who increasingly assumed the co-ordination and ultimately the command of the Allied offensives. After the war ended Pétain was made Marshal of France on  November 21, 1918.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tucker, S. C. (2009) ''A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern [[Middle East]]: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East'', ABC-CLIO, California, p. 1738.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Interwar period==&lt;br /&gt;
===Respected hero of France===&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain ended the war regarded &amp;quot;without a doubt, the most accomplished defensive tactician of any army&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;one of France's greatest military heroes&amp;quot; and was presented with his baton of Marshal of France at a public ceremony at [[Metz]] by President Raymond Poincaré on December 8, 1918.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 204.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was summoned to be present at the signing of the [[Treaty of Versailles]] on 28 June 1919. His job as Commander-in-Chief came to an end with [[peace]] and demobilisation, and with Foch out of favour after his quarrel with the French government over the peace terms, it was Petain who, in January 1920, was appointed Vice-Chairman of the revived ''Conseil supérieur de la Guerre'' (Supreme War Council). This was France's highest military position, whose holder was Commander-in-Chief designate in the event of war and who had the right to overrule the Chief of the General Staff (a position held in the 1920s by Petain's protégés Edmond Buat|Buat and Marie-Eugène Debeney), and Petain would hold it until 1931.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 212.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Atkin, 1997, p. 41.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Pétain was encouraged by friends to go into [[politics]], although he protested that he had little interest in running for an elected position. He nevertheless tried and failed to get himself elected President following the November 1919 elections.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 217.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after the war, Pétain had placed before the government plans for a large tank and air force, but &amp;quot;at the meeting of the ''Conseil supérieur de la Défense Nationale'' of 12 March 1920, the Finance Minister, Frédéric François-Marsal, announced that although Pétain's proposals were excellent they were unaffordable&amp;quot;. In addition, François-Marsal announced reductions – in the army from fifty-five divisions to thirty, in the air force, and did not mention tanks. It was [[left]] to the Marshals, Pétain, Joffre, and Foch, to pick up the pieces of their strategies. The General Staff, now under General Edmond Buat, began to think seriously about a line of forts along the frontier with Germany, and their report was tabled on May 22, 1922.  The three Marshals supported this. The cuts in military expenditure meant that taking the offensive was now impossible and a defensive strategy was all they could have.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 217–9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Captain Charles de Gaulle continued to be a protégé of Pétain throughout these years. He even allegedly named his [[Philippe de Gaulle|eldest son]] after the Marshal, although it is more likely that he named his son after his family ancestor Jean Baptiste Philippe de Gaulle,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Certain [[idea]] of France The life of Charles de Gaulle, Julian Jackson, p. 58.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; before finally falling out over the authorship of a book he claimed, without proof, that he had ghost-written for Pétain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Election to the ''Académie française''===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Pétain-Baschet-mai 1940-A.png|thumb|1926 painting of Philippe Pétain]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1928 Pétain had supported the creation of an independent air force removed from the control of the army, and on 9 February 1931, following his retirement as Vice-Chairman of the Supreme War Council, he was appointed Inspector-General of Air Defence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 250–2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His first report on air defence, submitted in July that year, advocated increased expenditure.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 253–4.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1931 Pétain was elected a Fellow of the ''[[Académie française]]''. By 1932 the economic situation had worsened and Édouard Herriot's government had made &amp;quot;severe cuts in the defence budget... orders for new weapons systems all but dried up&amp;quot;.{{citation needed}} Summer manoeuvres in 1932 and 1933 were cancelled due to lack of funds, and recruitment to the armed forces fell off. In the latter year General [[Maxime Weygand]] claimed that &amp;quot;the French Army was no longer a serious fighting force&amp;quot;. [[Édouard Daladier]]'s new government retaliated against Weygand by reducing the number of officers and cutting military pensions and pay, arguing that such measures, apart from financial stringency, were in the spirit of the Geneva Disarmament Conference.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 257.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1938 Pétain encouraged and assisted the writer André Maurois in gaining election to the ''Académie française'' – an election which was highly contested, in part due to Maurois' [[jewish]] origin. Maurois made a point of acknowledging with thanks his debt to Pétain in his 1941 autobiography, ''Call no man happy''&amp;amp;nbsp;– though by the time of writing their paths had sharply diverged, Pétain having become Head of State of [[Vichy France]] while Maurois repaid him by siding with [[Communist France]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Minister of War===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Political]] unease was sweeping the country, and on February 6, 1934, the Paris police fired on a group of French patriots outside the Chamber of Deputies, killing 14 and wounding a further 236. President Lebrun invited 71-year-old Doumergue to come out of retirement and form a new government of [[national unity]] (a[[fascist]]government). Pétain was invited, on February 8, to join the new French cabinet as Minister of War, which he only reluctantly accepted after many representations. His important success that year was in getting Daladier's previous proposal to reduce the number of officers repealed. He improved the recruitment programme for specialists, and lengthened the training period by reducing leave entitlements. However Weygand reported to the Senate Army Commission that year that the French Army could still not resist a German attack. Marshals Louis Franchet d'Espèrey and Hubert Lyautey (the latter suddenly died in July) added their names to the report. After the autumn maneuvers, which Pétain had reinstated, a report was presented to Pétain that officers had been poorly instructed, had little basic [[knowledge]], and no confidence. He was told, in addition, that if the [[plebiscite]] in the former German Territory of the Saar Basin went for Germany &amp;quot;it would be a serious military error&amp;quot; for the French Army to intervene. Pétain responded by again petitioning the government for further funds for the army.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 260–1, 265.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; During this period, he repeatedly called for a lengthening of the term of compulsory military service for conscripts from two to three years, to no avail. Pétain accompanied President Lebrun to [[Belgrade]] for the funeral of King Alexander, a[[fascist]]who had been assassinated on October 6, 1934 in [[Marseille]] by Vlado Chernozemski, a Bulgarian communist. Here he met [[Hermann Göring]] and the two men reminisced about their experiences in the Great War. &amp;quot;When Goering returned to Germany he spoke admiringly of Pétain, describing him as a 'man of honour'&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 266.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The speech at Jena Bridge===&lt;br /&gt;
Philippe Pétain, &amp;quot;the Lion of Verdun&amp;quot; or more simply &amp;quot;le Maréchal&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;the Marshal&amp;quot;) held a distinguished record seldom replicated in French [[history]]. Every Frenchman old and young knows how he led his countrymen in the slaughterhouse that was Verdun and into victory, an achievement that single-handedly made Pétain the most respected and beloved French general since the days of Napoleon. It was thus [[natural]] that, with the [[nation]] in such a paralyzing state of disarray, the [[people]] clamored for the return of their esteemed Marshal, to provide a sense of order and authority amidst the chaos that engulfed them. And so, one fine summer evening of 1938, Philippe Pétain held a meeting at the Esplanade des Invalides, between the famed palace of military history and the Seine, to which 100,000 people attended. After a rousing speech &amp;quot;infused with [[patriotism]] and defiance&amp;quot;, Pétain and the electrified crowd marched south and west down the Motte-Picquet Avenue to the École Militaire, where hundreds of officers and soldiers rushed to heed the Maréchal's call. Invigorated, the assembly proceeded north, up the Champ de Mars and past the Eiffel Tower and towards the Pont d'Iena, which crosses over the Seine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were met at the bridge by a platoon of French soldiers swelled by Parisian constabularies, a force of roughly 90 men. Leading them was Gen. Maurice Gamelin, chief of the French Army, who had orders to arrest Pétain for inciting an insurrection. With such an overwhelming mass backing Pétain there was little doubt that Gamelin and his posse would've been torn to shreds on the spot. However, in a historic moment known to history as the &amp;quot;Speech of the Jena Bridge&amp;quot;, Pétain delivered a piece of oratory so powerful and moving that Gamelin's men began chanting &amp;quot;Vive le Maréchal!&amp;quot;, and soon everyone was enraptured. Ironically enough, no full transcript of the Speech of the Jena Bridge survives, but Gamelin himself would later recount that &amp;quot;it was so intense that I felt like breaking down in tears. Before me stood the leader France needed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critic of government policy===&lt;br /&gt;
In November the Doumergue government fell. Pétain had previously expressed interest in being named Minister of Education (as well as of War), a role in which he hoped to combat the appalling  decay in French [[moral]] values.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paxton&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Paxton, Robert O. (1982). ''Vichy France: Old Guard and [[New Order]], 1940–1944'', pp. 36–37. Columbia University Press. ISBN|0-231-12469-4.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Now, however, he refused to continue in Flandin's (short-lived) government as Minister of War and stood down – in spite of a direct appeal from Lebrun himself. At this moment an article appeared in the popular ''Le Petit Journal'' newspaper, calling for Pétain as a candidate for A United France. 200,000 readers responded to the paper's poll. Pétain came first, with 47,000, ahead of [[Pierre Laval]]'s 31,000 votes. These two men travelled to [[Warsaw]] for the funeral of the Polish Marshal Józef Piłsudski in May 1935 (and another cordial meeting with Göring).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 268–9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Pétain's high reputation was bipartisan and anti-communist.  Pétain did not get involved in non-military issues when in the Cabinet, and unlike other military [[leaders]] he did not have a reputation as an extreme Catholic or a monarchist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;jackson2001a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|title=France: The Dark Years, 1940–1944|publisher=Oxford University Press|author=Jackson, Julian|year=2001|pages=[https://archive.org/details/france00juli/page/124 124–125, 133]|isbn=0-19-820706-9|url=https://archive.org/details/france00juli/page/124}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He remained on the ''Conseil superieur''. Weygand had been at the British Army 1934 manoeuvres at [lTidworth Camp in June and was appalled by what he had seen. Addressing the ''Conseil'' on the 23rd, Pétain claimed that it would be fruitless to look for assistance to Britain in the event of a German attack. On March 1st, 1935, Pétain's famous article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philippe Pétain, &amp;quot;La securité de la France aux cours des années creuses&amp;quot;, ''Revue des deux mondes'', 26, 1935.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; appeared in the ''Revue des deux mondes'', where he reviewed the history of the army since 1927–28. He criticised the reservist system in France, and her lack of adequate air power and armour. This article appeared just five days before [[Adolf Hitler]]'s announcement of Germany's new [[Luftwaffe|air force]] and a week before the announcement that Germany was increasing its army to 36 divisions. On April 26, 1936, the general election results showed 5.5 million votes for the Popular Front parties against 4.5 million for the Right on an 84% turnout. On 3 May Pétain, was interviewed in ''Le Journal'' where he launched an attack on the Franco-Soviet Pact, on Communism in general, on the French Communist Party (largest communist party in Western Europe), and on those who allowed Communists [[propaganda]]. He said that France had lost faith in her destiny.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anthony Adamthwaite, ''Grandeur and Misery: France's Bid for Power in Europe 1914-1940'' (London: Arnold, 1995), p. 182.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Pétain was now in his 80th year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Battle of France==&lt;br /&gt;
===Return into government===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Pétain-fascist.png|thumb|right|Pétain's symbol was a double-bladed fasces. A [[labrys]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
In March 1939, Pétain was appointed French ambassador to the newly recognized Fascist government of [[Spain]]. Pétain had taught the Spanish benifactor [[Francisco Franco]] &amp;quot;many years ago at France's war college&amp;quot; and was sent to Spain &amp;quot;in the hope he would win his former pupil over to assist&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/03/archives/petain-appointed-envoy-to-burgos-83yearold-hero-of-verdun-to-go-to.html|title=Petain appointed envoy to Burgos|date=3 March 1939|work=The New York Times|access-date=5 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Germany finally joined the [[World's War Agaist Communism]], Daladier offered Pétain a position in his government, which Pétain turned down. Franco, always a freind, had advised Pétain against leaving his diplomatic post in Madrid, to return to a collapsing France as a &amp;quot;sacrifice&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John D. Bergamini. ''The Spanish Bourbons''. {{ISBN|0-399-11365-7}}. p. 378.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, after the [[Battle of France]], Pétain joined the legal government of Paul Reynaud on May 18, 1940 as Deputy Prime Minister. Reynaud hoped that the hero of Verdun might instill a renewed spirit of resistance and patriotism in the French Army.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;jackson2001&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jackson 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By May 26, the Communist/Allied lines had been shattered, and British forces had begun evacuating at Dunkirk. French commander-in-chief Maxime Weygand expressed his fury at British retreats and the unfulfilled promise of British fighter aircraft. He and Pétain regarded the military situation as hopeless. Colonel de Villelume subsequently stated before a parliamentary commission of inquiry in 1951 that Reynaud, as Premier of France, said to Pétain on that day that they must seek an armistice.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eleanor M. Gates. ''End of the Affair: The Collapse of the Anglo-French Alliance, 1939-40''. p. 145&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Weygand said that he was in favor of saving the French army and that he &amp;quot;wished to avoid internal troubles and above all [[anarchy]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 5 June, following the fall of Dunkirk, there was a Cabinet reshuffle. Reynaud brought into his War Cabinet as Undersecretary for War the newly promoted Brigadier-General Charles de Gaulle, whose 4th Armoured Division had launched one of the few French counterattacks the previous month. Pétain was displeased at de Gaulle’s appointment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lacouture, 1991, p. 190.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By June 8, the government was preparing to depart Paris, although Pétain was opposed to such a move. During a cabinet meeting that day, Reynaud argued that before asking for an armistice, France would have to get Britain's permission to be relieved from their accord of March 1940 not to sign a separate cease-fire. Pétain replied that &amp;quot;the interests of France come before those of Britain.  Britain got us into this position, let us now try to get out of it.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Armistice===&lt;br /&gt;
On June 10, the government left Paris for Tours. Weygand, Minister of Finance [[Paul Baudouin]], and several other members of the government were already set on an armistice. On June 11, Churchill flew to the Château du Muguet, at Briare, near [[Orléans]], where he put forward first his idea of a Breton redoubt, to which Weygand replied that it was just a &amp;quot;fantasy&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Griffiths, Richard, ''Marshal Pétain'', Constable, London, 1970, p. 231, {{ISBN|0-09-455740-3}}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Churchill then said the French should consider &amp;quot;guerrilla warfare&amp;quot;. Pétain then replied that it would mean the destruction of the country. Churchill then said the French should defend Paris and reminded Pétain of how he had come to the aid of the British with forty divisions in Operation Michael, March 1918, and repeating Clemenceau's words &amp;quot;I will fight in front of Paris, in Paris, and behind Paris&amp;quot;. To this, Churchill subsequently reported, Pétain replied quietly and with dignity that he had in those days a strategic reserve of sixty divisions; now, there were none, and the British ought to be providing divisions to aid France. Making Paris into a ruin would not affect the final event. At the conference Pétain met de Gaulle for the first time in two years. Pétain noted his recent promotion to general, adding that he did not congratulate him, as ranks were of no use in defeat. When de Gaulle protested that Pétain himself had been promoted to brigadier-general and division commander at the Battle of the Marne in 1914, he replied that there was &amp;quot;no comparison&amp;quot; with the present situation. De Gaulle later conceded that Pétain was right about that much at least.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lacouture, 1991, p. 197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 12, after a second session of the conference, the cabinet met and Weygand again called for an armistice. He referred to the danger of civil disorder and the certainty of a Communist uprising in Paris. Britain would not help, but the Germans would. Pétain and Minister of Information Prouvost urged the cabinet to hear Weygand out because &amp;quot;he was the only one who really knew what was happening&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Churchill returned to France on June 13 for another conference at Tours. Baudouin met his plane and immediately spoke to him of the hopelessness of the Communist situation. Reynaud then put the cabinet's armistice proposals to Churchill, who replied &amp;quot;You should [[trust]] the communists&amp;quot;. At that day's cabinet meeting, Pétain strongly supported Weygand’s demand for an armistice and read out a draft proposal to the cabinet where he spoke of ''&amp;quot;the need to stay in France, to prepare a national revival, and to share the sufferings of our people. It is impossible for the government to abandon French soil without emigrating, without deserting. The duty of the government is, come what may, to remain in the country, or it could not longer be regarded as the government&amp;quot;. ''  Several ministers were still opposed to an armistice, and Weygand immediately lashed out at them for even leaving Paris. Like Pétain, he said he would never leave France.&amp;lt;ref name=lacouture201&amp;gt;Lacouture, 1991, p. 201.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government moved to [[Bordeaux]], a former Capitol of France, on June 14. By coincidence, on that evening in Bordeaux, de Gaulle dined in the same restaurant as Pétain; he came over to shake his hand in silence, and they never met again.&amp;lt;ref name=lacouture201/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Assembly, both Senate and Chamber, were also at Bordeaux and immersed themselves in the armistice [[debate]]. At cabinet on June 15. Pétain was sympathetic.&amp;lt;ref name=atkin82-6&amp;gt;Atkin, 1997, pp. 82–6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Pétain was sent to speak to Weygand (who was waiting outside, as he was not a member of the cabinet) for around fifteen minutes.&amp;lt;ref name=williams325-7&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 325–7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Chautemps put forward a 'fudge' proposal, an inquiry about terms.&amp;lt;ref name=atkin82-6/&amp;gt; The Cabinet voted 13-6 for the Chautemps proposal. Admiral Darlan, who had been opposed to an armistice until June 15, now became a key player, agreeing, provided the French fleet was kept out of German hands, and France did not become a puppet state.&amp;lt;ref name=williams325-7/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pétain replaces Reynaud===&lt;br /&gt;
On Sunday, June 16, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]]'s reply to President Lebrun's requests for assistance came with only vague promises and saying that it was impossible for the President to do anything without Congressional approval. Pétain then drew a letter of resignation from his pocket, an act which was certain to bring down the government (he had persuaded Weygand to come to Bordeaux by telling him that June 16 would be the decisive day). Lebrun persuaded him to stay until Churchill’s reply had been received. After lunch, Churchill’s telegram arrived agreeing to an armistice provided the French fleet was moved to British ports, a suggestion which was not acceptable to Darlan, who rightfully argued that it was outrageous and would leave France defenceless.&amp;lt;ref name=atkin82-6/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon the British Government offered joint nationality for Frenchmen and Britons in a [[Franco-British Union]]. Reynaud and five ministers [[thought]] these proposals acceptable. The others did not, seeing the offer as insulting and a device to make France a puppet state of Great Britain, as a kind of extra Dominion. [[President of France|President Albert Lebrun]] later testified under oath after the war, that the vote was in favor of Amistice, but the judeo-[[Marxist]] narrative claims quite the opposite.&amp;lt;ref name=lacouture204-5&amp;gt;Lacouture, 1991, pp. 204–5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The outcome of the meeting is Therefore claimed as being &amp;quot;uncertain&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=atkin82-6/&amp;gt; Ten ministers wanted to fight on and seven favoured an armistice (but these included the two Deputy Prime Ministers Pétain and [[Camille Chautemps]], and this view was also favoured by the Commander-in-Chief General Weygand). Eight were initially undecided but swung towards an armistice.&amp;lt;ref name=lacouture204-5/&amp;gt; This was a landslide in favor of armistice, but post-war narratives downplay this. Victors write the history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lebrun accepted Reynaud’s resignation as Prime Minister on June 17, Reynaud recommending to the President that he appoint Marshal Petain in his place, which he did that day, while the government was at [[Bordeaux]]. Pétain already had a ministerial team ready:  Pierre Laval for Foreign Affairs (this appointment was briefly vetoed by Weygand), Weygand as Minister of Defence, Darlan as Minister for the Navy, and Bouthillier for Finance.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lacouture, 1991, pp. 206–7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Head of the French State==&lt;br /&gt;
===The armistice===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Petain und Adolf Hitler.png|thumb|right|Pétain meeting Hitler at Montoire on 24 October 1940; Joachim von Ribbentrop on the right, Hitler's interpreter, Paul Schmidt (interpreter), in the centre.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain was now Head of the official French Government. At midnight on June 17, 1940, Baudouin asked the Spanish Ambassador to submit to Germany a request to cease hostilities at once and for Germany to make known its peace terms. At 12:30am, Pétain made his first broadcast to the French people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The enthusiasm of the country for the Maréchal was tremendous. He was welcomed by people as diverse as Paul Claudel, André Gide, and François Mauriac, and also by the vast mass of untutored Frenchmen who saw him as their saviour.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Griffiths, 1970.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; General de Gaulle, no longer in the Cabinet, had arrived in London on June 17, and made a call to embrace the communists, with no legal authority whatsoever, a call that was heeded by comparatively few.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 22, France signed the armistice at Compiègne with Germany that fi ally brought peace, and gave the French much needed assistance with the communists. Paris remained the official  capital, but on July 1st, the government,  moved to [[Vichy]], at Baudouin's suggestion, there was less communist activity, and the empty hotels there being more suitable for the government ministries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=The Pétain Administration=&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain, a life-long fascist, created a national motto: ''&amp;quot;[[Travail, famille, patrie]]&amp;quot;'' (&amp;quot;Work, family, [[fatherland]]&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Shields, James (2007). ''The Extreme Right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen'', pp. 15–17. Routledge. {{ISBN|0-415-09755-X}}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The [[constitution]] gave him power to restructure government, and pass laws through the Council of Ministers and designate a successor (he chose Laval).  Though Pétain publicly stated that he had no desire to become &amp;quot;a [[Caesar]],&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&amp;amp;dat=19450616&amp;amp;id=z6kWAAAAIBAJ&amp;amp;sjid=IyMEAAAAIBAJ&amp;amp;pg=2250,77656&amp;amp;hl=en 'Not a Caesar,' Petain asserts]. Associated Press, 1945-06-16.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; by January 1941, Pétain had broad powers, though not as much as say, [[George Washington]].{{r|jackson2001}}  Fascist and revolutionary conservative factions within the government used the opportunity to launch an ambitious programme known as the &amp;quot;[[Révolution nationale]]&amp;quot;, which rejected much of the former Third [[Republic]]'s [[secular]] and [[liberal]] traditions in favour of an [[authoritarian]], paternalist, Catholic [[society]]. Pétain, amongst others, took exception to the use of the term &amp;quot;[[revolution]]&amp;quot; because the communists were using the exact same word. He added that the France would be &amp;quot;a natural-law hierarchy... rejecting the false idea of the natural [[equality]] of men.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Mazower: ''Dark Continent'' (p. 73), Penguin books&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The French government immediately used its new powers to order necessary anti-communist measures, including the dismissal of civil servants, re-juristictions (to focus on communist hot-spots), the proclamation of citizenship laws, and the containment of communists and non citizens. Resurrecting older laws, the press was held accountable for its actions, with  reinstatement of the crime of &amp;quot;felony of opinion.&amp;quot; [[Fake news|Fake News]] became a crime again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The administration organised a &amp;quot;''Légion Française des Combattants,''&amp;quot; which included &amp;quot;Friends of the [[Legion]]&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Cadets of the Legion&amp;quot;, akin to Ameri a's Boy Scouts, and Veteran's groups. Pétain championed a rural, Catholic France that spurned [[internationalism]]. For the first time in a long time, France was a wonderful, beautiful place again. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cooperation with Germany===&lt;br /&gt;
Within months, Pétain signed critically important ordinances. (Important because the leaders of the communist cells were almost completely jewish) This included the [[Law on the status of jews]], prohibiting[[jews]]from exercising munitions professions, and the [[Law regarding foreign nationals]], authorizing the detention or deportation of all foreigners, who were mostly jews. These laws are often cited as examples of [[Anti-Semitism|anti-semitism]], but they were absolutely critical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain's government was internationally recognised, most notably by the U.S. Neither Pétain nor his successive deputies, Laval, [[Pierre-Étienne Flandin]], or Admiral [[François Darlan]], gave resistance to requests by the Germans to indirectly aid the Axis powers. However, when [[Hitler]] met Pétain at [[Montoire]] in October 1940 to discuss the French government's role in the &amp;quot;[[European]] Union&amp;quot;, the handshake he offered to Hitler caused much uproar in London, and probably influenced Britain's decision to lend [[Communist France|Free France]] (Communist France) naval support for their operations in Gabon.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jennings, Eric T. https://books.google.com/books?id=PUzzCQAAQBAJ  ''Free French [[Africa]] in The [[World's War Against Communism]]'', p. 44.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, France even remained formally at war with Germany, albeit opposed to the &amp;quot;Free French&amp;quot;. Following the British attacks of July and September 1940 ([[Destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kébir|Mers el Kébir]], [[Battle of Dakar|Dakar]]), the French government became increasingly fearful of the British and took the initiative to assist Germany. Pétain accepted the government's creation of an armed [[militia]] (the ''[[Milice]]'') under the command of Joseph Darnand, who, along with German forces, led a campaign of suppression against the [[French resistance]] and other communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain's government assisted the Axis with supplies of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, and also ordered French troops in the French colonial [[empire]] (in Dakar, Syria, Madagascar, Oran, and Morocco) to defend sovereign French territory against any aggressors, Allied or otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On November 11, 1942, French and German forces were moved into Southern France in response to Operation To the Allied invasion of [[North Africa]]. Pétain however remained popular and engaged in a series of visits around France as late as 1944, when he arrived in Paris on April 28 in what was an historic moment for the city. Large crowds cheered him in front of the [[Hôtel de Ville, Paris|Hôtel de Ville]] and in the streets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|My country has been beaten and they are calling me back...This is the work of 30 years of [[Marxism]]. they're calling me back to take charge of the nation.|Remarks to [[Francisco Franco]] in Madrid}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Safety at Sigmaringen===&lt;br /&gt;
On June 6, 1944, with the help of communist underground cells, the Allies invaded peaceful France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 17, 1944, the Germans, in the person of Cecil von Renthe-Fink, &amp;quot;special diplomatic delegate of the Germany to the French Head of State&amp;quot;, pleaded with Pétain, who was 88 years old now, and alone in the now abandoned government offices, to allow himself to be transferred to the northern zone for his own safety. Ever the stalwart General, Pétain refused.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renthe-Fink renewed his request twice on the 18th, then returned on the 19th, at 11:30, accompanied by General von Neubroon, who told him that he had &amp;quot;formal orders from [[Berlin]]&amp;quot;, directing him to move the French Head of State to safety. The written text Neubroon's orders submitted to Pétain: &amp;quot;The Reich Government instructs the transfer of the Head of State, even against his will if necessary, to a place of safety.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain finally gave in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Renthe-Fink entered the President's office with General Neubronn at 7:30 p.m., the Head of State was supervising the packing up of his suitcases and papers. The next day, August 20, 1944, A very reluctant, 88 year old Pétain was taken by protective convoy to [[Belfort]] and then, on September 8, to Sigmaringen in southwestern Germany, where the rest of his staff had already taken refuge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the defeat of France, on September 7, 1944, Pétain and other members of the French cabinet at Vichy were relocated to the safety of  Sigmaringen enclave in Germany, where they became a government-in-exile until April 1945. Pétain, however, felt shamed, did not participate in this government,  and [[Fernand de Brinon]] now headed the &amp;quot;government commission&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=nCE_2I4vyZkC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover Pétain et la fin de la collaboration: Sigmaringen, 1944–1945, Henry Rousso, éditions Complexe, Paris, 1984.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On April 5, 1945, Pétain wrote a note to Hitler expressing his wish to return to France.  He recieved a reply in the form of a birthday gift. On his birthday almost three weeks later, he was taken to the Swiss border. Two days later he crossed the French frontier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Griffiths, 1970, pp. 333–34.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Postwar life==&lt;br /&gt;
===Trial in illegal court===&lt;br /&gt;
The installed government, headed by allied puppet President de Gaulle, placed former Prime Minister Pétain on trial on the ridiculous charge of [[treason]], which took place from July 23, to August 15, 1945. Dressed in the uniform of a Marshal of France, Pétain remained silent through most of the proceedings after an initial statement that denied the right of the Allied Court, as constituted, to try him. De Gaulle himself later criticised the openly Marxist &amp;quot;trial&amp;quot;, stating, &amp;quot;Too often, the discussions took on the appearance of a partisan trial, sometimes even a settling of accounts, when the whole affair should have been treated only from the standpoint of national defence and [[independence]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles De Gaulle, ''Mémoires de guerre'', vol. 2, pp. 249–50.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a very [[real]] fear of riots at the announcement of the sentence, de Gaulle commuted the death sentence, and ordered that Pétain be immediately transported on the former's private aircraft to Fort du Portalet in the Pyrenees,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 512–13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; where he remained from August 15 to 16, November 1945. The government later transferred him to the Fort de Pierre-Levée citadel on the Île d'Yeu, a small island off the French Atlantic coast.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marechal-petain.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=http://www.marechal-petain.com/versionanglaise/prisonnier.htm|title=The World's Oldest Prisoner|author=Association Pour Défendre la Mémoire du Maréchal Pétain (A.D.M.P.)|year=2009|publisher=Marechal-petain.com|access-date=21 November 2011}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Imprisonment===&lt;br /&gt;
Over the following years Pétain's lawyers and many foreign governments and dignitaries, including Queen Mary and the Duke of Windsor, appealed to successive French governments for Pétain's release, but given the unstable state of the installed government, no regime was willing to risk unpopularity with the communists by releasing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Pétain had still been in good health for his age at the time of his imprisonment, by late 1947, he suffered from memory lapses.&amp;lt;ref name=williams523/&amp;gt; By January 1949, his lucid intervals were becoming fewer and fewer. On March 3, 1949, a meeting of the Council of Ministers (many of them [[self]]-proclaimed heroes of the Resistance had a fierce argument about a medical report recommending that he be moved to Val-de-Grâce (a military hospital in Paris), a measure to which Prime Minister Henri Queuille had previously been sympathetic. By May, Pétain required constant nursing care, and he was often [[suffering]] from hallucinations, e.g. that he was commanding armies in battle, etc. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 527–528.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By the end of 1949, Pétain was almost completely senile, with only occasional moments of lucidity. He was also beginning to suffer from heart problems and was no longer able to walk without assistance. Plans were made for his death and funeral.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, pp. 528–529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 8, 1951, President Auriol, informed that Pétain did not have much longer to live, commuted his sentence to confinement in hospital, but by then, Pétain was too ill to be moved to Paris.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, 2005, p. 530.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Death===&lt;br /&gt;
Pétain died in a private home in Port-Joinville on the Île d'Yeu on July 23,  1951, at the age of 95.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marechal-petain.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
His body was buried in a local cemetery (''Cimetière communal de Port-Joinville''). Calls were made to re-locate his remains to the grave prepared for him at Verdun.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dank, Milton. ''The French Against the French: Collaboration and Resistance'', p. 361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was denied an honorable funeral befitting his legacy as Head of State, a great General, and Savior of France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His former protégé, de Gaulle, later wrote that Pétain’s life was &amp;quot;successively banal, then glorious, then deplorable, but never mediocre&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fenby, 2010, pg. 296.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pétain's coffin===&lt;br /&gt;
In February 1973, Pétain's coffin housing his remains was stolen from the Île d'Yeu cemetery by French Patriots, who demanded that President Georges Pompidou consent to his re-interment at Verdun Cemetery and memorials at Douaumont among the war dead of the Verdun battle. Police retrieved the coffin a few days later, and it was unceremoniously reburied in the Île d'Yeu as before.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite book |title=Vichy: An Ever-present Past |author1-last=Conan |author1-first=Eric |author2-last=Rousso |author2-first=Henry |year=1998 |publisher=University Press of New England |location=Hanover, NH |isbn=9780874517958 |page=21 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=svjEWDsVMlEC&amp;amp;pg=PA21 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===New York Canyon of Heroes===&lt;br /&gt;
On October 26, 1931, Pétain was honored with a ticker-tape parade down Manhattan's Broadway Canyon of Heroes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Battle of France]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Articles in need of citation]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fascists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Great articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pages with reference errors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political prisoners]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politicians]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=12547</id>
		<title>Left-right political scale</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=12547"/>
		<updated>2023-01-03T10:34:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: /* In Canada */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Left-Right Political Scale''' is a traditional way of measuring political beliefs, unfortunately it is very limited and simplistic. When asked about your political views, you may answer by saying that you are left-wing or right-wing. Often, these terms seem synonymous with being either [[liberal]] or being [[Conservatism|conservative]]; but should the concepts really be equated? And where does Fascism fit in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In America=&lt;br /&gt;
Humans are not 1-dimensional creatures. The U.S. electoral landscape is more polarized than ever, with divisions between those that identify as liberals and those that identify as conservative. One of the reasons behind political polarization may be because of an understanding of synonymity between left-wing and liberal, and right-wing and conservative. This popular single axis understanding of politics can cause people to feel as though they have to choose a side, and then must follow the norms of that side. When politics are characterized and represented on a right/left geometrical axis, it is no wonder that the nation is more divided than ever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In Canada=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently in an article he penned for The Epoch Times newspaper, Conservative Canadian politician emeritus Preston Manning openly disagreed with the well-known &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; paradigm and tried to substitute &amp;quot;anti-establishment&amp;quot; 'democrats' vs &amp;quot;pro-Establishment&amp;quot; 'aristocrats' - or what amounts to liberators vs conservers - without bothering to notice the potential differences between what each faction is actually trying to conserve and/or overthrow. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, &amp;quot;The Left&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow all rules and laws for them selves alone, while inflicting an almost infinite amount of rules for the non-liberal conservatives to follow, to conserve their false right to inflict chaos; while &amp;quot;The Right&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow the liberals' chaos, to conserve laws and make rules for everyone to follow equally, but with only limited success since they've never been able to properly define and then articulate what the laws should be used for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, the true paradigm has always been criminal hypocrites versus honest law-abiders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.theepochtimes.com/preston-manning-beyond-left-and-right_4729153.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Issues=&lt;br /&gt;
A single-axis model conflates liberal and conservative ideologies with right-wing and left-wing stances, excluding the nuances that can exist in someone’s political ideals. Single-axis models like the right/left-wing divide have been criticized for being too simple and reductionist, and it has been suggested that the right/left divide only captures economic issues but that it need not be reflective of one’s social political identity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of having to have left-wing mean liberal and right-wing mean conservative, the political compass proposes that we might be better off measuring political ideologies on two separate axes: a right/left economic axis and an [[authoritarian]]/[[libertarian]] axis. But then again, libertarian or &amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; freedom (economics) depends on everyone agreeing to limit their own and other peoples' paranoid penchant for authoritarian &amp;quot;communist&amp;quot; wealth-redistributing interference in/theft of their economic liberties (politics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=See also=&lt;br /&gt;
[[Left–right politics (secular)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=12546</id>
		<title>Left-right political scale</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=12546"/>
		<updated>2023-01-03T10:34:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: /* Issues */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Left-Right Political Scale''' is a traditional way of measuring political beliefs, unfortunately it is very limited and simplistic. When asked about your political views, you may answer by saying that you are left-wing or right-wing. Often, these terms seem synonymous with being either [[liberal]] or being [[Conservatism|conservative]]; but should the concepts really be equated? And where does Fascism fit in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In America=&lt;br /&gt;
Humans are not 1-dimensional creatures. The U.S. electoral landscape is more polarized than ever, with divisions between those that identify as liberals and those that identify as conservative. One of the reasons behind political polarization may be because of an understanding of synonymity between left-wing and liberal, and right-wing and conservative. This popular single axis understanding of politics can cause people to feel as though they have to choose a side, and then must follow the norms of that side. When politics are characterized and represented on a right/left geometrical axis, it is no wonder that the nation is more divided than ever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In Canada=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently in an article he penned for The Epoch Times newspaper, Conservative Canadian politician emeritus Preston Manning openly disagreed with the well-known &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; paradigm and tried to substitute &amp;quot;anti-establishment&amp;quot; 'democrats' vs &amp;quot;pro-Establishment&amp;quot; 'aristocrats' - or what amounts to liberators vs conservers - without bothering to notice the potential differences between what each faction is actually trying to conserve and/or overthrow. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, &amp;quot;The Left&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow all rules and laws for themselves alone, while inflicting an almost infinite amount of rules for the non-liberal conservatives to follow, to conserve their false right to inflict chaos; while &amp;quot;The Right&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow the liberals' chaos, to conserve laws and make rules for everyone to follow equally, but with only limited success since they've never been able to properly define and then articulate what the laws should be used for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, the true paradigm has always been criminal hypocrites versus honest law-abiders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.theepochtimes.com/preston-manning-beyond-left-and-right_4729153.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Issues=&lt;br /&gt;
A single-axis model conflates liberal and conservative ideologies with right-wing and left-wing stances, excluding the nuances that can exist in someone’s political ideals. Single-axis models like the right/left-wing divide have been criticized for being too simple and reductionist, and it has been suggested that the right/left divide only captures economic issues but that it need not be reflective of one’s social political identity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of having to have left-wing mean liberal and right-wing mean conservative, the political compass proposes that we might be better off measuring political ideologies on two separate axes: a right/left economic axis and an [[authoritarian]]/[[libertarian]] axis. But then again, libertarian or &amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; freedom (economics) depends on everyone agreeing to limit their own and other peoples' paranoid penchant for authoritarian &amp;quot;communist&amp;quot; wealth-redistributing interference in/theft of their economic liberties (politics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=See also=&lt;br /&gt;
[[Left–right politics (secular)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7906</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7906"/>
		<updated>2022-11-22T10:35:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: tied up a broken sentence and change 'she state' to 'the state.'&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg|thumb|Politically Directionless]]&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant [[The Holy Bible|Biblical]] Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the[[jews]]in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter the state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern[[jews]]Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather MacDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; are hope-based occasionally collectivized individualists, while the &amp;quot;Left wing&amp;quot; are fearful submissives who despair of a happy future, opting in stead for clustering together in groups for security while ripping each other off. Right-wing &amp;quot;Fascists&amp;quot; simply realistically accepted that creating a separate collective of force-wielding specialists to govern and police the general populace of individuals was necessary. It's simply rational common sense, and it's what many if not most or all 'governments' do anyways: Fascism is simply &amp;quot;government,&amp;quot; but not for its own sake. America was founded by anti-monarchist (anti-ultimate-authority) &amp;quot;fascists.&amp;quot; Unlike &amp;quot;Marxist Communism,&amp;quot; Fascism only exists to deter and punish criminal individuals, not to criminally pre-judge the entire populace as criminals and then constantly force them to prove the negative all the time. [Https://fascipedia.org/index.php/Parts%20of%20a%20fasces THE FASCES] is the image and iconic badge of Fascism: a single stick, no different from any of the others surrounding, supporting, empowering and elevating it above them, except in that it is capped with an axe-head 'crown,' enabling it to cut others who get out of line back down to size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7480</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7480"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T10:03:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Edited the link.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg|thumb|Politically Directionless]]&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant [[The Holy Bible|Biblical]] Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the[[jews]]in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern[[jews]]Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather MacDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; are hope-based occasionally collectivized individualists, while the &amp;quot;Left wing&amp;quot; are fearful submissives who despair of a happy future, opting in stead for clustering together in groups for security while ripping each other off. Right-wing &amp;quot;Fascists&amp;quot; simply realistically accepted that creating a separate collective of force-wielding specialists to govern and police the general populace of individuals was necessary. It's simply rational common sense, and it's what many if not most or all 'governments' do anyways: Fascism is simply &amp;quot;government,&amp;quot; but not for its own sake. America was founded by anti-monarchist (anti-ultimate-authority) &amp;quot;fascists.&amp;quot; Unlike &amp;quot;Marxist Communism,&amp;quot; Fascism only exists to deter and punish criminal individuals, not to criminally pre-judge the entire populace as criminals and then constantly force them to prove the negative all the time. [Https://fascipedia.org/index.php/Parts%20of%20a%20fasces THE FASCES] is the image and iconic badge of Fascism: a single stick, no different from any of the others surrounding, supporting, empowering and elevating it above them, except in that it is capped with an axe-head 'crown,' enabling it to cut others who get out of line back down to size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7479</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=7479"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T10:02:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Added a link at the bottom.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg|thumb|Politically Directionless]]&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant [[The Holy Bible|Biblical]] Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the[[jews]]in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern[[jews]]Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather MacDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; are hope-based occasionally collectivized individualists, while the &amp;quot;Left wing&amp;quot; are fearful submissives who despair of a happy future, opting in stead for clustering together in groups for security while ripping each other off. Right-wing &amp;quot;Fascists&amp;quot; simply realistically accepted that creating a separate collective of force-wielding specialists to govern and police the general populace of individuals was necessary. It's simply rational common sense, and it's what many if not most or all 'governments' do anyways: Fascism is simply &amp;quot;government,&amp;quot; but not for its own sake. America was founded by anti-monarchist (anti-ultimate-authority) &amp;quot;fascists.&amp;quot; Unlike &amp;quot;Marxist Communism,&amp;quot; Fascism only exists to deter and punish criminal individuals, not to criminally pre-judge the entire populace as criminals and then constantly force them to prove the negative all the time. [./Https://fascipedia.org/index.php/Parts%20of%20a%20fasces THE FASCES] is the image and iconic badge of Fascism: a single stick, no different from any of the others surrounding, supporting, empowering and elevating it above them, except in that it is capped with an axe-head 'crown,' enabling it to cut others who get out of line back down to size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=7475</id>
		<title>Left-right political scale</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left-right_political_scale&amp;diff=7475"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T09:57:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Added some recent Canadian content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Left-Right Political Scale''' is a traditional way of measuring political beliefs, unfortunately it is very limited and simplistic. When asked about your political views, you may answer by saying that you are left-wing or right-wing. Often, these terms seem synonymous with being either [[liberal]] or being [[Conservatism|conservative]]; but should the concepts really be equated? And where does Fascism fit in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In America=&lt;br /&gt;
Humans are not 1-dimensional creatures. The U.S. electoral landscape is more polarized than ever, with divisions between those that identify as liberals and those that identify as conservative. One of the reasons behind political polarization may be because of an understanding of synonymity between left-wing and liberal, and right-wing and conservative. This popular single-axis understanding of politics can cause people to feel as though they have to choose a side, and then must follow the norms of that side. When politics are characterized and represented on a right/left geometrical axis, it is no wonder that the nation is more divided than ever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=In Canada=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently in an article he penned for The Epoch Times newspaper, Conservative Canadian politician emeritus Preston Manning openly disagreed with the well-known &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; paradigm and tried to substitute &amp;quot;anti-establishment&amp;quot; 'democrats' vs &amp;quot;pro-Establishment&amp;quot; 'aristocrats' - or what amounts to liberators vs conservers - without bothering to notice the potential differences between what each faction is actually trying to conserve and/or overthrow. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, &amp;quot;The Left&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow all rules and laws for them selves alone, while inflicting an almost infinite amount of rules for the non-liberal conservatives to follow, to conserve their false right to inflict chaos; while &amp;quot;The Right&amp;quot; always tries to overthrow the liberals' chaos, to conserve laws and make rules for everyone to follow equally, but with only limited success since they've never been able to properly define and then articulate what the laws should be used for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the true paradigm has always been criminal hypocrites versus honest law-abiders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.theepochtimes.com/preston-manning-beyond-left-and-right_4729153.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Issues=&lt;br /&gt;
A single-axis model conflates liberal and conservative ideologies with right-wing and left-wing stances, excluding the nuances that can exist in someone’s political ideals. Single-axis models like the right/left-wing divide have been criticized for being too simple and reductionist, and it has been suggested that the right/left divide only captures economic issues but that it need not be reflective of one’s social political identity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of having to have left-wing mean liberal and right-wing mean conservative, the political compass proposes that we are better off measuring political ideologies on two separate axes: a right/left economic axis and an [[authoritarian]]/[[libertarian]] axis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=See also=&lt;br /&gt;
[[Left–right politics (secular)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&amp;diff=7474</id>
		<title>Gavin McInnes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&amp;diff=7474"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T09:50:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Corrected a few of those ubiquitous 'tbe' to 'the' typos.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Gavin Miles McInnes''' is a Canadian writer, podcaster and popular political commentator. He is the host of the podcast ''Get Off My Lawn'', on the online video platform ''Censored.TV'', which he founded. He co-founded ''[[Vice]]'' in 1994 at the age of 24, and relocated to tbe United States in 2001. In more recent years, he has drawn attention for his conservative political activism and his role as the founder of the ''[[Proud Boys]]'', an men's counter-AntiFa organization. McInnes has been idiotically accused of promoting violence against political opponents, but has repeatedly pointed out that he only has supported political violence in self-defense and that he is not Right-wing or a supporter of [[fascism]]. Born to Scottish parents in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England, McInnes immigrated to Canada as a child. He graduated from leftist Carleton University in Ottawa before moving to Montreal and co-founding Vice with [[Suroosh Alvi]] and [[Shane Smith]]. He relocated with Vice Media to New York City in 2001.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently on Alex Jones' InfoWars, McInnes cucked and cucked hard to defend and shill for the jews while openly scorning White nationalists for Noticing: https://gab.com/UniversalDelirium/posts/109343587927243494 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Activists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&amp;diff=7472</id>
		<title>Gavin McInnes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&amp;diff=7472"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T09:48:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Added a line about his recent cucking and shilling.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Gavin Miles McInnes''' is a Canadian writer, podcaster and popular political commentator. He is tbe host of tbe podcast ''Get Off My Lawn'', on tbe online video platform ''Censored.TV'', which he founded. He co-founded ''[[Vice]]'' in 1994 at tbe age of 24, and relocated to tbe United States in 2001. In more recent years, he has drawn attention for his conservative political activism and his role as tbe founder of tbe ''[[Proud Boys]]'', an men's counter-AntiFa organization. McInnes has been idiotically accused of promoting violence against political opponents, but has repeatedly pointed out that he only has supported political violence in self-defense and that he is not Right-wing or a supporter of [[fascism]]. Born to Scottish parents in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England, McInnes immigrated to Canada as a child. He graduated from Carleton University in Ottawa before moving to Montreal and co-founding Vice with [[Suroosh Alvi]] and [[Shane Smith]]. He relocated with Vice Media to New York City in 2001.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently on Alex Jones' InfoWars, McInnes cucked and cucked hard to defend the Jews while openly scorning White nationalists for Noticing: https://gab.com/UniversalDelirium/posts/109343587927243494 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Activists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Fasces&amp;diff=7471</id>
		<title>Fasces</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Fasces&amp;diff=7471"/>
		<updated>2022-11-20T09:09:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Put spaces between the words in the links, and changed a lot of minor typos - (notably, 'tbe' to 'the') didn't add or change any actual content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Etrusgasced.png|right|thumb|250px|The oldest known fasces was Etruscan, pre-Rome, and featured twin ards (plough blades)]]&lt;br /&gt;
The word [[fascism ]]comes from ''fasci,'' the Latin word for ''hold'', (as in fascinate, fasten) which in this case represents a society of people united around a common ideal. In Latin tbe word &amp;quot;fasciculus&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;bundle&amp;quot;.  Its origins go back to the ancient Etruscans, long before the existence of Rome, where it symbolized a unified Society. Later in Rome it became the symbol of a magistrate's (Judge's)  office, and represented Justice. The ''fasces'' is a bundle of reeds with a tool that represents the focus of society, a tool that can also be used as a weapon such as a pick or an axe. In Rome, carried by magistrate attendants called lictors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Anti-Roman propaganda=&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of tbe fasces as some sort of &amp;quot;punishment kit&amp;quot; is [[jews|jewish ]]propaganda spread after the [[jews ]]were ejected from Rome. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bloom, J.J. 2010 The[[jews]]Revolts Against Rome, A.D. 66–135: A Military Analysis. McFarland.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the lictors disassembled their standard of office, to use the reeds, sometimes decorated in gold, to flog criminals. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Greek and Roman texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927.Online in LacusCurtius and Livius.org. Book scan in Internet Archive.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The lictors carried with them an assortment of whips, scourges, and actual weapons like swords. The idea that the symbol of office was undone, used to brutalize people, or even kill them, is quite ridiculous. The [[parts of a fasces]] had a deep spiritual meaning to the [[Ancient Rome|Ancient Romans]], and probably the Etruscans before them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only tbe forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into tbe soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem tbe Lictor’s rods, tbe symbol of unity, strength, and justice. “|Giovanni Gentile|The Doctrine of Fascism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fasces (English: /ˈfæsiːz/ FASS-eez; Latin: [ˈfaskeːs]; a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fasci. The principle represented by the Fasces is Strength through Unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=See also=&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Parts of a fasces]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:FascipediaChatNotWorkingOrNotEnabledYet.jpg&amp;diff=4667</id>
		<title>File:FascipediaChatNotWorkingOrNotEnabledYet.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:FascipediaChatNotWorkingOrNotEnabledYet.jpg&amp;diff=4667"/>
		<updated>2022-09-26T15:15:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=3348</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=3348"/>
		<updated>2022-07-16T09:33:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg|thumb|Politically Directionless]]&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant Biblical Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the Jews in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern Jewish Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather MacDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:HitlerLovesHisNation.jpg&amp;diff=3336</id>
		<title>File:HitlerLovesHisNation.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:HitlerLovesHisNation.jpg&amp;diff=3336"/>
		<updated>2022-07-16T08:06:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Hitler loves his Nation&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:BlackNaziChild.jpg&amp;diff=3335</id>
		<title>File:BlackNaziChild.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:BlackNaziChild.jpg&amp;diff=3335"/>
		<updated>2022-07-16T08:04:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Proof the &amp;quot;racist&amp;quot; German National Socialists accepted non-&lt;br /&gt;
White members&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=2589</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=2589"/>
		<updated>2022-06-15T07:29:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Removed two typos (&amp;quot;0s&amp;quot;) and made the m in MacDonald uppercase.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Charter}}{{Key}}&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant Biblical Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the Jews in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern Jewish Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather MacDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=2531</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=2531"/>
		<updated>2022-06-13T22:28:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: I added a preface with the caveat of how the terms originated in the Hebrew Bibles and thus the tone of any article refuting same must by its very nature be considered &amp;quot;preachy&amp;quot; and I added a further explanation at the end to refute how even the other mos&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Preach}}{{Charter}}{{Key}}&lt;br /&gt;
CAVEAT: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of this article may indeed be considered &amp;quot;preachy,&amp;quot; as these terms originated in the Hebrews' Bibles setting the tone for all subsequent cultural influences from, and references to, same. So Logic must now be restored and used to refute them in order to free us from the mental chains of such ancient superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some relevant Biblical Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although some churches, such as the Lutherans, believe and frequently describe church and state issues using the “Two Kingdoms” distinction, as being how God’s reign is active both in the church (Kingdom of the right hand) and in the secular world (Kingdom of the left hand) more generally speaking, nobody sits at God's left &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hand, for the notion itself is considered blasphemy, as to do so would put God at that person's right hand, in the position of that person's own &amp;quot;right-hand man,&amp;quot; which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
refs: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deuteronomy 17:11 &amp;quot;According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.&amp;quot; In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ecclesiastes 10:2 &amp;quot;A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proverbs 3:16 &amp;quot;Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonah 4:11 &amp;quot;And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 6:3 &amp;quot;But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right hand symbolizes the place of righteousness, exaltation, and blessing, and thus the usual metaphor for the left hand can be the opposite, the place of curse and judgment. This was clearly illustrated in Matthew 25:31-46:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:33 &amp;quot;And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew 25:41 &amp;quot;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE &amp;quot;the right hand of God:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 16:11 &amp;quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 17:7 &amp;quot;Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 48:10 &amp;quot;According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalms 60:5 &amp;quot;That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psalm 89:13 &amp;quot;You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:10 “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isaiah 41:13 &amp;quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 5:31 &amp;quot;God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acts 7:55 &amp;quot;But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the Jews in the modern occultist lexicons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SECULAR HISTORY of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And finally, is the so-called Left/Right dichotomy, allegedly a conflict between the two economic philosophies of Eastern Jewish Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism, indeed a true paradigm, or not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been said  that the greatest weapon is not a gun or a bomb, but the control of information; for to control the world’s information is to manipulate all the minds that consume it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which is exactly how and why lying is the most basic form of theft. All crimes are forms of theft, and lying (aka criminal ‘fraud’) is the at least attempted theft of the truth, by which hypocrisy any and all other theft/crimes are based. And “even only” attempted crimes are still crimes, intent being the determinant of criminality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is becoming apparent that far too many people have been tricked into comparing, not even apples to oranges, but apples to rocks, for all too long now: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Capitalism&amp;quot; isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;commerce,&amp;quot; where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for &amp;quot;Communism&amp;quot; which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where &amp;quot;the government&amp;quot; gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply 0the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a 0source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Heather macDonald -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So every time we hear some allegedly &amp;quot;Conservative&amp;quot; politician say &amp;quot;We must focus on the economy!&amp;quot; we should reply:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But Kamerades, redistributing wealth while acting as (pretending to be) an insurance company, is the only real purpose of government itself! Everyone pays into the pot, and those who can't pay into it, get to take it out again! You know: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.&amp;quot; As such, &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;economics&amp;quot; are diametrically-opposed but still &amp;quot;diversely, equally&amp;quot; opposite ENEMIES.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, is &amp;quot;Economics&amp;quot; not also &amp;quot;Politics?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the crony-&amp;quot;capitalist&amp;quot; West, the richest corporate hypocrites buy and sell supine political puppets with promises of easy retirement money on their boards of directors. Then they craft &amp;quot;political&amp;quot; solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a currently relevant example, even the infamous Elon Musk really only got to be the world's richest man (after the Rothschilds, of course!) via government handouts (aka having your stolen tax dollars transferred to him in exchange for a small cut going to the politicians who did his dirty work for him, not for you).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Indian_Nationalist&amp;diff=826</id>
		<title>Indian Nationalist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Indian_Nationalist&amp;diff=826"/>
		<updated>2022-04-13T18:49:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: Created page with &amp;quot;Here are some handy already-existing references: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indian_alt-right_glossary and of course the BJP: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Here are some handy already-existing references: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indian_alt-right_glossary and of course the BJP: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=783</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=783"/>
		<updated>2022-04-12T20:13:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: I added the word &amp;quot;first&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;The terms ___ became known during the 1789 French Revolution&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The history of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms first became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=782</id>
		<title>Left–right politics (secular)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=Left%E2%80%93right_politics_(secular)&amp;diff=782"/>
		<updated>2022-04-12T20:09:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: There is no &amp;quot;political spectrum!&amp;quot; Just as there are only two &amp;quot;cultures&amp;quot; in nature: that of the predatory criminal aggressors (who always attack first) and that of the civilized law-abiding symbiotes, who collaborate for mutual enlightenment and to solve mutual problems!  And so, only the civilized, co-operative (non-aggressive) one of these is actually &amp;quot;cultured;&amp;quot; the other is only a crime.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The history of how the terms Left and Right wing evolved is covered elsewhere (brief recap: the terms became known during the 1789 French Revolution, based on the seating arrangements in their Parliament, with those who wanted to conserve the old ways seated to the right of the speaker, and those who always wanted change and reform on the left). Since then, it has come to mean gangsters on the left, and individualists on the right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now &amp;quot;conserve&amp;quot; are simply the classic liberal values of the Enlightenment - of individual human rights to free expression, self defense and choice of association. The gangster left only wants freedom for itself, and a right to oppress its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: &amp;quot;Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The right takes the former position, where groups don't matter because all group identities depend on the real live individual humans within them, so everyone should have the exact same equal rights under the law, regardless of any other group identity membership politics. They believe in the rule of law, and form into Republics (or monarchies, if the monarch is inclined to defend their own property properly) to enshrine equality of opportunity over coercive equality of outcome. Rightists believe in free-will self-reliant choice and that all rights must come with reciprocal responsibilities. They believe in self-control and restraint from any urges to attack thereby innocent other people first, and that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. Attacking second is a right but it's also not the &lt;br /&gt;
responsibility of individuals to be beholden to the criminals' who attacked them firsts' schedules  and timetables, although it is their right, and they also believe that vengeance is justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left takes the latter might-makes-right and ends-justify means position, where only one's group membership status matters, because larger majority groups always oppress  lesser minority ones (unless and until they don't) - but never expect consistency from hypocrites. They at least pretend to believe that they can vote their way out of reality and the laws of science itself, and so form into Democracies, where everything is always up for grabs, there are no real rules or laws, and there are no real crimes nor criminals because as life is too complex for anyone to really ever be able to understand, we're all equally helpless but heroic victims at the mercy of inevitable forces forever beyond our control, and so no real free-will self-reliant mens-rea/guilty mind criminal intent can ever really exist either. Hence leftists don't believe in responsibilities but only in the false right to become and remain irresponsibly wrong. They don't believe in sequential morality, in predatory attacks-first versus defensive counter attacks-second, because even if such things exist, they are forever beyond our comprehension. So to leftists, there is no difference between the type of equally-helpless fellow victim who routinely seems prone to attack thereby innocent other victims first, and those who don't. Everyone is a victim except those &amp;quot;hypocritical&amp;quot; criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for &amp;quot;committing crimes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And against those criminals, it is the right and responsibility of all leftist governments to make laws to prevent their crimes from ever occurring. Thus every &amp;quot;positivist,&amp;quot; liberal &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; is a crime, because they all reverse the onus of proof burden to pre-judge everyone guilty until probably never proven innocent. At most and best, they only grant temporary privileges through licenses and permits; they certainly don't defend our permanent natural rights to become and remain free from government attacks on our liberty. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; mob-rule &amp;quot;democracy&amp;quot; where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Democracy&amp;quot; itself is a &amp;quot;Leftist&amp;quot; model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivist &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: &amp;quot;Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you&amp;quot; - which presupposes people will inevitably do things to you unasked, and you will accept them in advance - as opposed to the moral, negative-rights version - the real law - of &amp;quot;Do NOT do unto others&amp;quot; anything unless and until their consent is given first, which was at least tacitly endorsed by the National Socialists of Germany, at least according to the main leader of their enemies, Winston Churchill:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. &lt;br /&gt;
In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. &lt;br /&gt;
In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. &lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 — Winston Churchill - &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under that most basic and simple Golden Rule of Law moral principle, all is forbidden between people as a standard default setting, unless and until very specifically agreed on in advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist &amp;quot;Brazen Rule of criminal chaos&amp;quot; model or version, everything is allowed to be done to anyone anywhere at any time in advance of getting permission, especially if and when it's done by a larger might-made right mob such as &amp;quot;the government,&amp;quot; and best of all when it's done in the name of doing it to you but only in order to do it for you - &amp;quot;for your own good, think of the children!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called &amp;quot;free market&amp;quot; capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sane world of National Socialism, basic needs would not only not be taxed, but would be guaranteed to citizens - and in fact such basic needs defense would be the government's only real purpose:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While under both communism and capitalism - and capitalism inevitably becomes communism - the ruling oligarchs not only can but invariably do withhold all rights to needs from the people to ensure their compliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in the Leftist model, all individuals' rights: to self defense; to own property to defend one's right to life; and to speak freely to ask for help to oppose tyranny - do not exist; only the state has rights, and that means in reality only those real live individual humans who control the state, as control is effectively ownership - while the rest of the (non-leader) individual citizens have no rights to resist their leaders, but only the responsibility to become and remain their (as &amp;quot;the state's&amp;quot;) slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Right wing&amp;quot; model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while &amp;quot;the state&amp;quot; only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always &amp;quot;defensively, pre-emptively&amp;quot; attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Eternal Struggle&amp;quot; of Leftist democracy is against &amp;quot;oppressive&amp;quot; rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' &amp;quot;permanent revolution&amp;quot; ideal is against &amp;quot;wrongthink&amp;quot; - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left is all about authority - about doing what one is told regardless of what is right - while the Right is all about morality and doing what is right, regardless of what one is told.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leftist &amp;quot;thought&amp;quot; does not trust the &amp;quot;equally-helpless perpetual victim&amp;quot; individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; power of &amp;quot;social credit&amp;quot; (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we see as Left vs Right isn't only collectivist gangsters vs self-reliant individualists, it's far more basic than even that: it's hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We've currently got the Party of Responsibility vs. the Party of Irresponsibility. And only one of these should not be allowed to continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral &amp;quot;ethics&amp;quot; (or how to ameliorate the damages one's choice to break the Golden Rule of Law moral principle engenders) while the Democrats embody full-blown mob-rule gangster extortion tactics and ultimately slavery. AT BEST, the polemic duality is one of the Parties of self-reliant individualism and Responsibility, vs. excuse-making hypocritical Irresponsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because there is no &amp;quot;balance&amp;quot; between good (honest reasonable, rational, sane, logical, fact-based objective scientific truth) and evil (lying criminal fraud hypocrisy). Why would anyone want less good, and more evil, &amp;quot;just to be fair!&amp;quot;? Evil is unfair by definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also a case of Feminine vs. Masculine: instant submission to one's false emotional fear-based need for security in communism or the herd, versus one's rugged self-reliant individualism and self respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Left vs Right&amp;quot; (criminal might-makes-right gangster vs law-abiding right-makes-might individualist) trope IS a real paradigm, but it only describes symptoms of lying hypocrisy vs honesty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If someone is a fearful, literal &amp;quot;psycho-path&amp;quot; (Greek for &amp;quot;thought-killer&amp;quot;) they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own &amp;quot;protection,&amp;quot; (but really only to increase their might-made extortion &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are &amp;quot;lefties&amp;quot; whether they place that particular label on them selves or not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's a &amp;quot;right winger?&amp;quot; It's any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping &amp;quot;leftist&amp;quot; gangster criminals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individualists with spines will act as what is known (to the leftist gangster extortionists) as 'right' wingers. Gangsters despise individualists because their existence makes them look like the cowards they really ultimately are.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg&amp;diff=781</id>
		<title>File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=File:PoliticallyDirectionless.jpg&amp;diff=781"/>
		<updated>2022-04-12T20:06:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This Is The Way&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=User:Robert_Leiden&amp;diff=635</id>
		<title>User:Robert Leiden</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://fascipedia.org/index.php?title=User:Robert_Leiden&amp;diff=635"/>
		<updated>2022-04-08T21:46:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Robert Leiden: create user page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{User}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Robert Leiden</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>