Might as well be provocative. This is likely to provoke an argument somewhere, somehow. Perhaps not here, because it just doesn't happen here--for whatever reason.
The definition of spectrum means some sort of range. With respect to politics, it is the same old hackneyed left-right- middle construct that the commies love to use. Consider the term "far right". This implies a range of views on the so-called right. But there isn't any range of views as such, because there is no opposite to "far right". If you mean "far left" as an opposite, that would be incorrect. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the "far right" and the "far left".
Both are coercive and collective philosophies. The "far right" pretends to be free economically, but isn't free at all. Under the Nazi regime under Hitler, there may have been some private ownership, but that was heavily regulated so there might as well have been no private ownership at all. The only real difference between the Soviet Union and the Nazi regimes, was that the Soviet Union didn't pretend to have private ownership. Outside of that, what difference was there between these so-called "extremes"?
Nazism was fanatical about race, so that MAY be a slight difference. Actually, Nazism was more about German identity than about race. The "races" considered inferior was for all intents and purposes, no different than the race to which Germans belonged to. Once understood for what it is, then there is no real difference even here. There was plenty of nationalism in the Soviet Union. There certainly wasn't any respect to religion, as the Soviets persecuted anyone who practiced religious faith. Germany basically called Judaism a race, but it is actually a religion. So, where's the difference? The main difference is that Germany lost the war. History is written by the winners. If Germany had won, the general understanding would be much different today. The Russians would have been the bad guys, and therefore their evil justified the war.
Since there isn't any real difference between them, why employ such terminology? In my opinion, it is meant to deceive. The use of the word "far right" is intended to deceive, and is a dead giveaway that the person using the label is sympathetic to communism.
What about using the term "far left"? Far left is a totalitarian ideology, and therefore, it is a valid extreme. The real range is between a free society and one that is not. Far left regimes are not free. A free country as the USA was once, is the ideal.
How can it be extreme in a bad way to argue for freedom? Unless it is in comparison with the absence of it, then it makes sense. But the way the word "extremism" is used, it is meant to throw disrepute upon the advocacy of freedom. But they won't say it that way because it won't work. Instead, they'll use the term "extremism" to hide the fact that they oppose freedom. They'll make false comparisons with fascism, even though fascism is not very far from communism.
The real political spectrum is between freedom and slavery. The way that the term is used in reference to right versus left is intended to confuse and deceive the public. Nobody should trust the way it is used in reference to the Marxist paradigm of the right versus the left. Even Hitler used the term "dialectics", which is one of the commies favorite words.
The political left has an allergy to the truth and should not be trusted. They know it too, because it is in the Communist Manifesto. Nobody would willingly accept it unless it is forced upon them. Too bad too many people in the once free country of the USA have forgotten that.
No comments:
Post a Comment