Left–right politics (secular)

This article's tone is too preachy and/or passionate. Fascipedia demands a detached professional style, and encyclopedic tone like that of a printed encyclopedia.

{{{1}}}

CAVEAT:

The tone of this article may indeed be considered "preachy," 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.

Here are some relevant Biblical Passages which indicate the symbolic difference between Right and Left:

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 "right-hand man," which would imply the person situated to the left of God is superior to God.

refs:

https://concordiatheology.org/2012/07/gods-two-sustaining-hands/

https://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-sits-on-gods-left-hand.html

Therefore, anyone and anything to the left of God is invalid.

Deuteronomy 17:11 "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." In other words, we must accept the good with the bad.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left."

Proverbs 3:16 "Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor."

Jonah 4:11 "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?"

It is strongly hinted that the left hand is the one prone to mischief, and so must be left in the dark:

Matthew 6:3 "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,"

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:

Matthew 25:33 "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

Matthew 25:41 "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."

Further, Jesus himself is alleged to BE "the right hand of God:"

Psalms 16:11 "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."

Psalms 17:7 "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."

Psalms 48:10 "According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness."

Psalms 60:5 "That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me."

Psalm 89:13 "You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand."

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”

Isaiah 41:13 "For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee."

Acts 5:31 "God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

Acts 7:55 "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."

Luke 22:69 “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

And so it is not surprising that these terms are also reflected by the Jews in the modern occultist lexicons:

https://www.learnreligions.com/left-hand-and-right-hand-paths-95827

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.

It became obvious to all but hypocrites that what modern Conservatives now "conserve" 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.

Philosophically speaking, the question seems to remain: "Do individuals create groups, and/or can individuals only exist because pre-existing groups (of individuals) create and protect them?"

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 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.

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 "hypocritical" criminals who declare that free-will choice exists and want to punish heroic victims for "committing crimes."

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 "positivist," liberal "law" 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.

The whole Left/Right paradigm can only exist in a rigged system of might-made "right" mob-rule "democracy" where the ignorant low-information masses of voters can be conned into voting for crime.

"Democracy" itself is a "Leftist" model, because it promotes mob rule by definition, as opposed to and by a rule of law based Republican model.

Positivist "law" (crime) is based on the false Christian and communist version of the Golden Rule of Law: "Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you" - 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 "Do NOT do unto others" 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:

“In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted."

— Winston Churchill - 

So basically Germany was the only sane place, and Churchill at least sub-consciously knew it, too.

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.

Under the Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist "Brazen Rule of criminal chaos" 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 "the government," 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 - "for your own good, think of the children!"

The left's version is a dog-ear-dog, zero-sum and winner-takes-all model where, just as under the so-called "free market" capitalist model, needs become commodified and subject to supply and demand. but where demand is infinite, control of supply is total slavery.

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:

"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."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 11:2.

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:

"You will own nothing and he happy about it - or else!"

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 "the state's") slaves. The state, then, is nothing but a false image projected to shield the criminals.

In the "Right wing" model, only the real live individual human citizens have rights, while "the state" only has the responsibility to defend those citizen rights.

In the former, Leftist model, the state has not only the right but also the responsibility to defend only its self by always "defensively, pre-emptively" attacking betraying subverting and undermining the citizens, while in the latter she state has no rights or responsibilities except to defend the people.

As Adolf Hitler asserted, if the state does not defend the people, then it does not deserve to exist.

So in the end, Left versus Right is collectivist idolatry versus individualist humanity.

The "Eternal Struggle" of Leftist democracy is against "oppressive" rules and against the one true Law itself - the communists' "permanent revolution" ideal is against "wrongthink" - that which opposes the state's right of total control over, and the total subordination of, the individual citizens' rights freedoms personalities and will.

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.

Leftist "thought" does not trust the "equally-helpless perpetual victim" individuals' capacity for thinking, and therefore imposes force to ensure compliance with its criminal hypocrisy - and this can include the "soft" power of "social credit" (hypocrisy) scores, where if one fails to comply, he is deprived of state-controlled food - and life.

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.

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.

Therefore, the Republicans are only the party of immoral "ethics" (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.

Because there is no "balance" 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, "just to be fair!"? Evil is unfair by definition.

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.

The "Left vs Right" (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.

If someone is a fearful, literal "psycho-path" (Greek for "thought-killer") they will want to form into ever-larger gangs for their own "protection," (but really only to increase their might-made extortion "rights" while diluting and decreasing their individual responsibility) and so are "lefties" whether they place that particular label on them selves or not.

So, what's a "right winger?" 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 "leftist" gangster criminals.

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.

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?

CONCLUSION: EVEN IN BASIC TERMS OF WARRING ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES, THE LEFT-RIGHT DICHOTOMY PARADIGM IS A FALSE ONE:

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.

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.

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:

"Capitalism" isn't a political movement; it used to be simply known as "economics" and "commerce," where you get to own buy and sell your own property. Ditto for "Communism" which, as the opposite, is NOT economics or commerce, but political force where "the government" gang owns you and doesn't allow you to own buy or sell property.

Therefore the left/right divide is not one denoting a difference in economic philosophies, but remains simply 0the basic difference between hypocrisy and honesty.

"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."

- Heather macDonald -

So every time we hear some allegedly "Conservative" politician say "We must focus on the economy!" we should reply:

"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: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs." As such, "politics" and "economics" are diametrically-opposed but still "diversely, equally" opposite ENEMIES."

So, is "Economics" not also "Politics?"

In the crony-"capitalist" 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 "political" solutions which economically benefit only them selves at the direct expense of the rest of us.

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).