The Right-Left Spectrum

.
Ever since I became awakened to the fact that it is the Left that seeks to impose totalitarianism on America, not the Right, I began to look at the political "spectrum" in a new way.

For years we've been told that Fascism and Communism were polar opposites, one Reactionary and one Revolutionary...diametrically opposed—but both totalitarian in their own way. We've been taught that Leftism, taken to it's logical extreme is Communism. We've been told that Rightism, taken to it's logical extreme is Fascism.

We don't have to look hard to see evidence of the continuation of that theory. Tossing the "Nazi" bomb at anyone who opposes them is a way of life for the Left.

But that old idea is completely wrong. What fooled us was an apparently huge, but actually minor difference between Stalin and Hitler.

Stalin was a Socialist First and a Russian second. Hitler was a German first, and a Socialist second.

His Nationalism obscured his Socialism. His Pure-Blood-German-Master-Race obsession, resulting in horrors beyond imagination, obscured his adherence to the standard Socialist agenda.

The difference between Hitler and Marx was that Marx believed that the proletariat had no country, Marx did not recognize national borders. He believed the International Bourgeoisie was the enemy of the International Proletariat—and that the Workers of one country were the more natural brothers of the Workers of other countries rather than of the Bourgeoisie of their own.

This is the one thing Hitler hated about Marx. He generally believed in all the goals of Socialism: the pulling down of the aristocracy and the rich; of nationalizing or otherwise controlling the means of production, the primacy of the State. The "religion" of the State. But he also believed that the State must be a GERMAN one.

Hence the name of his movement: "National Socialism".

This mix of Nationalism and Socialism is Nazism. It was never a Right-Wing ideology, and it's time we make it clear every time some Leftist ignoramus screeches, "Hitler!"

The true spectrum of political thought is much more sensible than the idea that totalitarianism is the logical extreme of both Left and Right. It never made any sense if you think about it. If ideologies are fundamentally different, they don't lead to the same thing. It's absurd.

The Left invariably leads to totalitarianism. That is the nature of the ideology. The forced conformity of every individual to a standard behavior imposed by the State. The State being the primary and most important and most powerful entity. The needs of the individual are sacrificed to the needs of the State, which is often called The People, because it sounds better.

"The People" almost always means "The State" (with the profound exception of the Constitution of the United States.)

Today's political spectrum is as follows from Left to Right:

Totalitarianism of Fascism/Communism/Socialism
Statism of Democratic Socialism
Limited Individual Freedom of Socialist Democracy
Nanny-Statism through (Socialist) Progressivism/Modern Liberalism
Individual Liberty of Classical Liberal (i.e., Conservative) Democracy
Expanded Individual Liberty of Libertarianism
Total Individual Freedom of Anarchy

The further Left, the less individual freedom. The further Right, the more individual freedom.

Anarchy as we generally think of it is not a desireable state. But the simple definition of Anarchy in the Oxford American Dictionary is: "The absence of government in a society". If you think about it, if the call of the Right for personal responsibility, morality, self-discipline were actually practiced, Anarchy would not be the wild chaos it is generally assumed to be.

Indeed, that is precisely the point of the two-pronged ideology of the Right: 1) Individual Liberty and 2) Personal Responsibility & Virtue. The second is the prerequisite of the first.*

To the extent, for example, that American pioneers had no official "government" on the frontier, people murdered each other rather less than they do today in Washington D.C., the very seat of the awesome power of the State. It'd be hard to find people with a higher degree of "personal responsibility" than those who relied on no one but themselves to tame a wild and dangerous wilderness. And most of them were Christians. They are a pretty good example of "Personal Responsibility" and "Virtue" living in a state of Anarchy—no government—without degenerating into general and widespread criminality and chaos—but in fact engaging in and succeeding in building the greatest country in the history of humankind. Not a bad recommendation.

But even assuming the worst, that Anarchy, the total freedom of the individual, resulted in confusion and chaos, it —not totalitarianism—is the most extreme logical conclusion of the Right.

The Right never leads to totalitarianism. That is entirely the province of the Left.

Let's not forget that. And let's not let anyone else forget it either.

The Gunslinger

*The Left simply cannot reconcile the idea of Virtue with Liberty, because their idea of Liberty is Libertinism, and Virtue would ruin all the fun. They make the mistake of thinking that it is the Right's embrace and insistence on Virtue that is "totalitarianism" because it stands against their version of "freedom" which is, in reality, merely mindless self-indulgence. That's the reason they are more frightened of good Christians than Islamic Terrorists. Having a bomb go off in Hollywood is less horrifying than the idea of having to control any of one's impulsive appetites.
.