NOTE: The history of civilization is not about the haves vs. the have-nots, nor right vs. left. The history of civilization is the struggle between liberty and tyranny.
The Artful Dilettante
If we want to navigate through complex territory, we need an accurate map. If we do not have a good map, we are likely to get lost. If we want to understand the political landscape, we need a sound paradigm by which to orientate ourselves. If we do not have a good paradigm, we are likely to lose our bearing and make wrong judgments. One of the reasons why so much of our political discourse is so confounding and unfruitful is because our paradigm is faulty.
The left-right map we have been given to navigate the political landscape is incorrect. It depicts the political spectrum as populated on the far left by hardline communists and socialists such as Lenin, Stalin, Castro. On the other end – on the far right – we have fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. These two camps stand on the opposite extremes and in between there is everyone else. In this model, the American Democrats are left of center while the Republicans are right of center.
Incorrect: Conventional understanding of the political spectrum
Here is how you can quickly see there something wrong with this paradigm: both Stalin and Hitler were socialists and big government totalitarians whose ideological underpinnings had their roots in the teachings of Karl Marx (see here about Hitler’s socialism). But if these two delineate the whole length of the political spectrum, where, then, do we fit limited government types such classical liberals or today’s libertarians? In the conventional understanding, there is really no place for them.
Below is the political spectrum drawn in a way that encompasses the full width of the political landscape.
Correct delineation of the political spectrum
In this paradigm, the spectrum is delineated by the degree of statism intended and aspired to by various political actors and ideologies. Thus, on the extreme left you have statist totalitarians while on the opposite side you have non-statists and state minimalists.
Actors on the political spectrum
With the corrected paradigm, we now easily find a proper place for classical liberals and libertarians. At the same time, Hitler – a Nazi socialist who built a powerful German state – is placed where he belongs on the left side, somewhat downstream from full-out statists like Stalin, Lenin or Castro.The Naked Communist: E…Skousen, W. CleonBuy New $17.89(as of 04:16 EDT – Details)
Some observations on the correctly delineated spectrum
We now see that the conventional paradigm only presents the left portion of the spectrum and not the whole extent of it. This misunderstanding has been consciously planted and cultivated by the left which had several good reasons for propagating this distortion. Their first concern was to distance themselves from Hitler, their socialist brother. We explained earlier how they were able to pull it off: “What gave the leftists a cover for their obfuscation was Hitler’s racism and nationalism which he superimposed on his socialist underpinnings. This muddied the waters just enough to make the lie possible. The truth, however, remains that fundamentally Hitler was your standard socialist.”
The obfuscation enabled leftists appear to be removed from or even opposite of Hitler. This was a masterstroke of propaganda given that Hitler is their ideological bedfellow. We have shown previously how the two share fundamental inclinations in the Ideological Pedigree Table of Values and Views. As such, they stand shoulder to shoulder on the political spectrum. Hitler was a leader whose socialism was mixed with strong elements of racism and nationalism. Today’s Democratic party – which has been recently taken over by its radical elements – is a present-day version of the Nazis in the American context. Both are socialists who are strongly racist and nationalistic. The only difference is the target of their racism – whites vs Jews – and the direction of their nationalism: negative vs positive (for more detailed treatment of this see here).
The left’s inversion of the political paradigm has had the further advantage of placing their ideological opponents – those advocating a more limited state – on the same half of the spectrum as Hitler thus creating an appearance of affinity even though in reality they are opposites.
The Naked SocialistSkousen, Paul B.Best Price: $25.82Buy New $24.95(as of 03:32 EDT – Details)By placing themselves close to the center, leftists have managed to make themselves look moderate and reasonable. Their feigned modesty was designed to increase their appeal to the common man for whom they purport to care. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. The moment leftists gain power they make life miserable for the very people they claim to champion. Just ask the workers of the Soviet Union, Hitler’s German Volk, Mao’s peasants or the people of Cuba how good and pleasant was life under their leftist rulers.
On the most fundamental level, a leftist is someone who advocates state control over the means of production. This control can be complete or partial. It can be in the form of direct ownership by the state or by indirect ownership through state-mandated entities or agents. Control over the means of production can also be achieved through various forms of legislative, administrative and regulatory mechanisms. The degree of control intended determines where on the left side of the spectrum one stands.
The left side of the political spectrum can be broadly divided into two parts: the hard left and the soft left. The line of demarcation is not always sharply defined. Hard leftists advocate complete or near-complete socialization of the economy and a powerful centralized state. Moderate or soft leftists strive for a less statist arrangement. The hard left is always made up of either actual or potential totalitarians and murderers. To the soft left belong, for the most part, the self-serving bunglers.
Division of the political left into two zones
It is impossible to exercise a significant measure of control over the means of production without becoming authoritarian. This is because such control goes against the natural flow of things. To achieve it, you need coercion and violence (or at least the explicit threat of it). The greater the degree of control you seek, the more authoritarian you must become. Complete or near complete control requires one to become a totalitarian. Such a high level of state control over the means of production can only be implemented through mass murder. This has been the case in every country where such control has been achieved (see The Black Book of Communism). It is a kind of Faustian bargain: you gain power and control but in return you have to sell your soul, i.e., you must oppress, coerce and kill. Apparently, certain types do it quite gladly.
Socialists are leftists. The terms socialist and leftist can be used interchangeably although only in a rough and imprecise way. There have been many different modes and varieties of socialism – both attempted in practice and formulated as theories – and this term is very difficult to define. Even socialists themselves do not agree on what socialism actually means or entails and there are constant arguments and infighting among them. Given the lack of definitional clarity in regard to the term socialism, it is generally more productive to use the term leftist insteadMasters Of Deceit: The…Hoover, J. EdgarBuy New $7.99(as of 05:22 EDT – Details).
On the hard left you have traditional communists and far left socialists including the Nazis. On the soft left you would have the post-war western European socialist and labor parties. Today’s GOP and the Conservative Party in Great Britain also belong to the right side of the soft left. Political parties are not permanently fixed at one position on the spectrum; they tend to move and shift within a certain range depending on which faction controls them at any given time. We have seen an instance of a fairly dramatic move recently in the US where the Democratic Party has been taken over by the extreme elements within its ranks and consequently lurched sharply leftward. As it currently stands, the US Democratic Party is a hard left party controlled by left-wing extremists and it behaves accordingly. For example, its highest officials openly encourage rioting, violence and destruction of cities while deliberately tying the hands of law enforcement and shielding perpetrators from persecution. The latest instance of this is the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris who praised Black Lives Matter as “brilliant.”
As you may know, BLM is a revolutionary outfit founded by Marxists. The riots that have torn America apart and caused billions of dollars in damage have been conducted under the auspices of BLM, which has launched this destructive movement under the false pretenses of systemic racism. Senator Harris’s praise of BLM comes on the heels of her June interview in which she openly called on BLM and their collaborators to continue the violence and destruction. This is what she said:
“Everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that… they’re not going to let up—and they should not. And we should not.”
Please note that this statement was not made by some fringe anarchist. This is incitement to lawlessness, violence and anarchy is coming from the highest echelons of the Democratic party. Also please notice Harris’ use of the pronoun “we.” This is an explicit acknowledgement that Democrats on the highest levels approve of and are part of this violent criminal movement.
Not to be outdone, and in keeping with the tried-and-true tactics of the hard left, Hillary Clinton, former Democratic nominee for president, has called on Democrats – in direct subversion of the democratic process – not to concede the upcoming election “under any circumstances.” This is how she put it:
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is gonna drag out and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch.”
Hillary Clinton’s stance is indicative of the present dynamic within the Democratic party. Having begun as a leftist radical in the 60s, Clinton became in her ripe age a hardened establishment politician for whom considerations of power and money took precedence over her youthful socialist ideals. Her transformation was so complete that she eventually became something of a neocon. So much so that a number of high-level Republican operatives voted for her over Donald Trump in the 2016 elections. But with the recent capture of her Party by its radical elements, Hillary Clinton – in an apparent effort to remain relevant internally – has moved sharply leftward, closer toward her youthful roots. As a proper radical, she now openly advocates the subversion of democracy and election theft. It would not be at all surprising if one of these days she goes all out and begins speaking of “Revolution.” This is truly a pity, because Mrs. Clinton has arrived at a point in her life where she could at least attempt to bring some sanity and moral sense into the situation. She could try to position herself the Grand Dame of the Democratic Party and condemn the criminal behavior of the democrat mobs who are ravaging and terrorizing this country. But rather than doing what is right and decent, she is pouring more vitriol on the fire.
Both Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton know exactly what they are doing. With the left’s ugly nature now on full display, they sense they are going to lose electorally, but this does not discourage them in any way. They will instead try to gain power by other means. After all, the hard left has rarely come into power via the democratic process. The reason for this is quite simple: people generally grasp that despite their rhetoric there is something deeply wrong with these leaders and their twisted programs. As a result, socialists and communists almost invariably seize power through undemocratic means such as coup d’états, insurrections, parliamentary coups, election theft and such. These high-level Democratic politicians behave exactly like the Nazi and Bolshevik operatives did in their time. In a repeat of history, their gangs of looting followers on the streets of America are the equivalent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts and Lenin’s red mobs.The Devil and Karl Mar…Kengor, PaulBest Price: $39.90Buy New $26.96(as of 04:44 EDT – Details)
People who gravitate toward the hard left are usually driven there by the dark impulses of their psyches which they seek to discharge through political activism. This has been true in the past and it is also true now. Many of the far-left leaders have been narcissist psychopaths with little or no empathy for fellow human beings. These days you can observe the connection between psychological disturbance and far left activism when you watch the woke and progressives in action.
The vast majority of them are clearly troubled individuals. They are usually highly self-absorbed, angry and emotionally disturbed. You can watch a telling video of a liberal woman having a meltdown over the death Ruth Bader Ginsburg while driving in a car. This is what she shrieks in part:
“Holy f—king shit, you guys! I am driving the car but I just go a notification that Ruth Bader Ginsberg died! F-ck! Could this year get any f-cking worse?!
The woman then howls and shakes as if she were possessed. If you watch the video, you will notice that she is not actually upset about the death of a human being but about the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not manage to hang on a little longer so that Trump would be deprived of the opportunity to nominate her replacement before the election. “Ruth,” she screams wildly, “you just had to make it to 2021!”
Needless to say, the woman looks better adjusted than most of her ideological compadres these days. Apart from the obvious lack of empathy, many among the woke also exhibit sexual abnormalities of various kinds such as homosexual behavior or thinking that they belong to the opposite biological sex (a condition known as gender dysphoria). Some woke activists even claim there are more than one hundred types of gender. When the British TV show host Piers Morgan challenged this idea late last year the woke launched a campaign to have him cancelled. These days you can find these cancel types at the ongoing BLM riots where they shout and scream about a problem that does not exist.
Needless to say, these types are angry, intolerant, unloving and vindictive. They are ever ready to cancel and destroy anyone who disagrees or opposes them.
They exhibit the same tendencies that the hard left has always displayed: hatred of free speech, proclivity toward violence, suppression of dissent, racism, atheism, dehumanization of opponents, accusations of thought crimes, intimidation of dissenters, etc. Should they obtain the power they so feverishly seek, they will undoubtedly use it in the same cruel ways their ideological brothers have always done.