The “far right” is actually just the far left

Here’s an article you would think is on our side, even coming with the cartoon you see above: The First Step in Fighting Barbarity is to Speak Out. But there, right near the end, we find this:

Well, I oppose the far right in whatever form they take, be it that of extreme ethnic nationalism or Islamo-fascism.

Militant Islam is on the right! Left-right has in many ways lost its meaning but that is ridiculous. The “far right” are invariably socialist and collectivist – see National Socialist Workers Party as just one example of many – and are thus part of the left in every way that counts. The difference between the National Socialists and the communists was in the word “national”. The communist version is characterised by the phrase, “workers of the world unite”, a presumption that was shattered for all time in 1914 when the workers in every country of Europe lined up with their own national governments as they marched off to war. The only difference between these ideological soul mates is whether they pretend they are seizing power for the good of the people of the world or only for the people of their own nation state. All the rest – in fact even that, especially that – are just lies and deceit. Radical Islamic Terrorists exactly fit the mould.

So let me assert one very simple way to tell left from right which is the John Stuart Mill On Liberty test. This is Mill’s own test and if you accept his “very simple principle” then we are comrades in arms on the right side of the political divide. If you do not, then you are part of the left, and the farther from this very simple principle your beliefs happen to be, then you are to that extent a member of the far left, which naturally includes communists, Nazis, Antifa, and most of the media.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I gave a copy to each of the children of my cousins back home, with no real hope that any of them will read the book but just so they will actually have heard the name. Meantime, almost everyone I know, if it came to the crunch, is more like to line up with Antifa than the Mises Institute. This is the great danger of our age, that ignorance not only of what is needed to preserve our freedoms but what these freedoms even are. And if you haven’t read On Liberty, or haven’t read it recently, you really do owe it to yourself to at least go through Chapter One.

And having written that I came across this. From J.J. Sefton at Ace of Spades with the same message: How Can There Be “Right Wing Extremists” If the Right Believes in Individual Liberty and Freedom, OR Why the Left-Center-Right Paradigm Is a Myth. Read the lot, but here is a sample:

THERE IS NO LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM. There are only those who believe in freedom and liberty and those who do not; or more precisely, those who are willing to take advantage of the good nature and gullibility of all too many to seize control and to tear down America as founded, Judeo-Christianity, the Scottish Enlightenment, free market capitalism and every other aspect of real human progress the aforementioned have fostered over the past 2,000 years of history.

We cannot allow the left to get away with its moral equivalence argument, which is one of their techniques for hiding their own hideous past, and the first place to start is to recognise no such equivalence exists. Keeping the blood soaked history of the left in constant view – which includes National Socialism – must become an absolute standard part of the political debate from our side of the divide.

This entry was posted in Conservative politics, Ethics and morality. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to The “far right” is actually just the far left

  1. thefrolickingmole

    Good little reminder.

    The difference between the National Socialists and the communists was in the word “national”.

    That and co-opting the Kulaks (under pain of death) instead of killing them outright.

  2. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Leftoids are always big on fake symmetry, allows them to hide in the center.

  3. notaluvvie

    The trouble is the political spectrum is seen as a continuous line. It has to be seen 3D, ie as a sphere where eventually left meets right. The Nazis were called “right wing” by the Soviets only because they were “nationalist” while the Soviets were allegedly internationalists spreading socialism. In fact the Soviets, especially Stalin, were kleptomaniacs just as much as any other corrupt totalitarian system. The reason Hitler got rid of Rohm was not because he was homosexual, as if they would really care, it was because his SA posed, as Rohm wanted, an ongoing revolutionary organisation which was a threat to the power of Hitler. From whence did the term “fasci” come, from Mussolini, a socialist of course.

  4. thefrolickingmole

    notaluvvie

    Good point on Rohm, his faction was the explicitly revolutionary and more “marxist” wing of the party, Goering was the representative of the co-opting wing.

  5. Mother Lode

    The assigning of Islamofascism as ‘Far Right’ is done through a breathtakingly shallow manoeuvre by the ideological left.

    Islamofascism is motivated by religion. The ‘Right’ is religious. Therefore, Islamofascism is ‘Right Wing’.

    (All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat.)

    Or, slightly different phrasing, instead of ‘right’ they see Islamofascism as ‘conservative’.

    A conservative (traditional) Mongol from Genghis Khan’s hordes and a conservative suburban Christian are basically the same because…conservative. If the former is murderous, then it is reasonable to assume the latter is.

  6. Driftforge

    The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others

    So, pretty much all of it then? This is not exactly a high bar.

  7. Bruce

    Hitler had quite a thing going with the Mufti of Jerusalem, to the point that the SS, (yes, THAT SS), fielded Muslim BRIGADES, i.e. large scale forces with their own fire support, on the eastern front. Some of these had also been recruited from parts of occupied Jugoslavia.

    When this did not end well, the “cultural inrichers” looked around for a new “sponsor” in their perpetual money / power game.

    Enter, the OTHER socialists, the “international” ones.

    This cosy arrangement meant that the sand-lice got weapons and training, and the totalitarian sociopaths got forward bases.

    Interestingly, in the years immediately following the last great unpleasantness, the soviets and, of course, their “fraternal cousins”, in the countries claimed from the Nazis, had trickled military hardware into the nascent state if Israel. This was not exactly in a spirit of even handedness.

    The idea was to destabilize a region that was primarily a British “area of influence”, and thus stir up trouble within the alliance between the USA and Britain.

    Bear in mind, also, that, at the time, the soviets effectively RAN the British intelligence services.

    Bizarrely, a whole lot of stuff, recently made surplus to the needs of the Wehrmacht, found its way to Israel, via the newly reborn Czechoslovakia, not yet fully under the soviet jackboot.

    An additional twist was that Stalin, being the hard-core anti- Semite he was, (along with being totally paranoid and an industrial-grade sociopath), “exported” large numbers of Jews from his old and newly-expanded turf. This served two purposes: it got rid of a lot of potential future “trouble-makers” and it caused a massive headache for his ex-allies because it was guaranteed to “stir up” the arabs.

  8. Roger

    The Nazis were called “right wing” by the Soviets only because they were “nationalist” while the Soviets were allegedly internationalists spreading socialism.

    By the 1930s time the Soviets weren’t internationalist. After the failure of the post-war revolutionary movements in W. Europe Stalin developed “Socialism in One Country”. This led to the split with the Trotskyists, who were the international socialists and the ideological forbears of much of today’s hard Left with international links.

  9. Roger

    Stalin taught Hitler.

    Rohm was to Hitler as Trotsky was to Stalin.

    Trotsky & Rohm believed in ongoing revolution and were thus dangerous to the consolidated power of Stalin & Hitler respectively.

  10. lotocoti

    Anarcho-Capitalism is the far right.
    The others are the left fighting over franchise territory.

  11. Chris M

    Simply put left want more government authority and control, right want less.

    Far left = Authoritarian
    Far right = Anarchy

    Both extremes are bad and end with the same riotous result.

  12. Tom

    The Western left stopped being a liberation movement 30-40 years ago. As they have subverted more and more civic institutions — especially the media — they have revealed themselves in all their ugly Stalinist ideology. As a de facto ruling class, they are doing exactly what Stalin did — rounding up dissenters and using the media to enforce their de facto state ideology. They loathe democracy — but it is the only institution that stands in their way. Yet they’re bold because their media echo chamber tells them they’ve won. And their thought police — state and federal human rights commissions and “anti-discrimination” tribunals — have made criticism of the new state ideology illegal.

    As usual, Australia is 20 years behind the counter-revolution that Trump has started in America.

  13. cynical1

    They are not called “Useful idiots” for nothing.

  14. “It’s too late baby now it’s too late”
    We’ve lost control of the language and lost control of the dissemination of information. The internet you say? Haha, I LMFAO, look at the purge of conservative sights from Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and even fundraising sites like Patreon.
    We got here because many on ‘my side’ refused to fight dirty like our enemies have been fighting dirty for decades now. If you refuse to go down to the depths to fight evil, then evil will come to the surface to fight you. That’s what’s happening now and we’ve left it too late.

  15. Bob of Brisbane

    That’s the trouble with attaching titles to people or groups and arbitrarily categorising them as ‘left’ or ‘right’. It’s too easy to attach derogatory titles to discredit them instead of saying what they do that’s unacceptable. Perhaps the saying applies: When someone’s boot is on your throat, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a left boot or a right boot.

  16. feelthebern

    Simply put left want more government authority and control, right want less.

    Far left = Authoritarian
    Far right = Anarchy

    Possibly the stupidest thing ever posted at the Cat.
    Both the far left & the far right are totalitarian at heart.

  17. feelthebern

    I retract that.
    I mistook Far for Alt.
    Haven’t had a coffee yet.
    Apologies.

    Skunks away….

  18. Dr Fred Lenin

    The point about nazis being nationalists and the Bolsheviks being internationalist is not quite correct. The Bolsheviks were being defeated by the left wing nazis ,then the Bolsheviks appealed to Russian patriotism by declaring “the great patriotic war” ,you were not fighting for the Bolshevik dictator and his nomenklatura brown noses You were fighting for “Mother Russia ” ,and that IS nationalism ,even to this day . You

  19. Empire GTHO Phase III

    We got here because many on ‘my side’ refused to fight dirty like our enemies have been fighting dirty for decades now. If you refuse to go down to the depths to fight evil, then evil will come to the surface to fight you. That’s what’s happening now and we’ve left it too late.

    I agree with the cause, but not the effect.

    The filth survives courtesy of other people’s money. The spigot can be closed.

  20. John

    We need to change the name of ANTIFA. Given their background and peccidello for mob violence I would suggest ModStal, or NewCom or better yet ReTrots. Any others ?

  21. Dr Fred Lenin

    This morning watched an interview with the gangrene chief commisar of Darebin city council,the total lack of awareness amongst the left is breathtaking ,doesn’t matter what its of paper they have saying they have Mickey Mouse “degrees” , – they are total unmitigated liars , The “poll” they based their action was conducted amongst 81 taxpayer funded activites, lefties and blond blue eyed indigenius spongers .Even some of them voted against it , there are some good ones 164,000 people in this city ,that puts the Weatherill gerrymander to shame even the Bolsheviks were 10 percent of the population . Wanted ,two city Administrators for two Melbourne councils .applt Andrew Daniels Spring street,Melbourne .

  22. duncanm

    Any ‘far-something’ government that wants to do impose rules that the majority of the population don’t like ends up authoritarian.

    Beware any political movement that ‘knows better’ than the average joe.

  23. duncanm

    where did Spooner end up? Retired? The Oz should pick him up.

  24. stackja

    John
    #2477080, posted on August 23, 2017 at 11:09 am

    Chekist
    Nashism

  25. stackja

    duncanm
    #2477091, posted on August 23, 2017 at 11:30 am
    Ok – retired unfortunately.

    He left The Age in May 2016 along with others made redundant by Fairfax Media.

  26. Chris Harper

    Mills definition needs to be amended, because the left has now redefined harm.

    Use that definition in any humanities class today and, hurt feelings being classified as ‘harm’, Mill would be cited as justification for censorship.

  27. max

    “John Stuart Mill is an epigone of classical liberalism and, especially in his later years, under the influence of his wife, full of feeble compromises. He slips slowly into socialism and is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist ideas that led to the decline of English liberalism and to the undermining of the living standards of the English people.”
    Ludwig von Mises

    John Stuart Mill was the sort of man who, hearing or reading some view seemingly at utter variance with his own, would say, ‘Yes, there is something in that’, and proceed to incorporate this new inconsistent strand into his capacious and muddled world-view. Hence Mill’s ever expanding intellectual ‘synthesis’ was rather a vast kitchen midden of diverse and contradictory positions. As a result,. Mill has ever since provided a field day for young Ph.D’s caught in the game of publish or perish. Dispute over
    ‘what Mill really believed’ has become an unending cottage industry. Was Mill a laissez-faire liberal? A socialist? A romantic? A classicist? A civil libertarian? A believer in state-coerced morality? The answer is yes, every time. There is endless fodder for dispute because, in his long and prolific life, Mill was all of these and none, an ever-changing kaleidoscope of alteration, transformation and contradiction.
    Murray Rothbard

    Murray Rothbard was right. In his Classical Economics, he contrasts John Stuart Mill with his father James Mill: “Instead of possessing a hard-nosed cadre intellect, John Stuart was the quintessence of soft rather than hard core, a woolly minded man of mush in striking contrast to his steel-edged father…. Hence Mill’s ever-expanding `synthesis’ was rather a vast kitchen midden of diverse and contradictory positions” (Murray N. Rothbard, Classical Economics, Edward Elgar, 1995, p. 277).
    https://mises.org/library/john-stuart-mill-liberty-and-control-joseph-hamburger

    The Dark Side of Mill
    opposition to Christianity at the heart of Mill’s ethics.
    https://mises.org/library/john-stuart-mill-and-religion-humanity-linda-c-reader

    Much of the confusion prevailing in the historical study of liberalism can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who occupies a vastly inflated position in the conception of liberalism entertained by English-speaking peoples.

    https://mises.org/library/john-stuart-mill-and-new-liberalism

  28. Yohan

    Well, I oppose the far right in whatever form they take, be it that of extreme ethnic nationalism

    Most people on the right/conservative side who oppose extreme ethnic nationalism here, then support extreme ethnic nationalism for Israel. They are hypocrites.

    In this example, at least the left are consistent and oppose it for everyone. Oh wait… they support extreme ethnic nationalism for black people. And American Indians. Actually for every people of colour. Weird eh?

  29. There’s not much chance of any realimprovement until we start taking a few of them out the back and shooting them behind the toilet block.

  30. Louis Hissink

    The split is not horizontal as in Left vs Right but vertical in terms of Liberty vs Slavery of whether ideology or theology.

    There are few free thinkers, however, for a free thinker is not bound by some intellectual habit of dogma.

    Given the principal protagonists are essentially monopolists, in the sense there is only one ultimate authority, theirs, and the rest illegitimate, no peace will happen until those belief systems are jettisoned.

  31. cuckoo

    extreme ethnic nationalism

    I finally think I’ve got this one worked out. Apparently if you’re a Scotsman or Scotswoman who wants to be proud and free, you’re a good thing. If you’re an Englishman or Englishwoman who identifies with your own homeland, and wants to be free of rule from Belgium/Berlin, you’re some kind of extreme ethnic nationalist. Or to use the more highbrow sneer-word, a nativist.

  32. classical_hero

    Yohan, what’s wrong with the right to self determination like the Jews having their own land for their own?

  33. Rabz

    Given their background and peccidello for mob violence I would suggest ModStal, or NewCom or better yet ReTrots. Any others ?

    CoCos – Collectivist Cockheads.

  34. Mother Lode

    ESPN pulls an Asian foorball announcer from calling a game because of events in Charlottesville.

    Why?

    His name was Robert Lee.

  35. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    The cartoon is dead wrong- decent jihadis would NOT use their left hand! That is for cleaning the bottom. So we can ignore the whole cartoon.
    Also, Anarcho-Capitalists would be extreme DEcentralists! Neither left nor right.

  36. mh

    Listening to Bolta last night on Steve Price’s radio show, I could tell that Bolt had been influenced by Steve Kates’ recent article titled The Taliban of the modern American left. It was as if Bolt did not want to plagiarize, but I would like to see that sort of commentary in one of Bolt’s published columns.

    Which reminds me, I was flicking through a hard copy of the Courier Mail on Monday, when I saw the piece on the departure of Steve Bannon. It mentioned that he would go back to working for Breitbart, which the CM described as Alt Right. It went on to say that Alt Right was a term loosely describing Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. *sigh*. The media narrative then goes to ridiculous extremes such as this:

    MSNBC: ‘You Still Have Actual Nazis’ in the White House

    If today’s population were the one’s watching Fonzie jump the shark all those years ago, they would tune in the next week to see if he would jump the shark again.

  37. Ruprecht

    The slight of hand is the assertion that fascism is a creature of the right. Its not, its just another godforsaken sect of the socialist ideology, just as sunnis and shia are opposing sects of the islamic ideology.
    if ‘Islamofascism’ is of the right why is the left making common cause with it? birds of a feather etc.

  38. classical_hero

    Blast, the bird word.

    Yohan, what’s wrong with the right to self determination like the Dhus having their own land for their own?

  39. Walter Plinge

    Daniel Hannan is The Telegraph in 2014:

    Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

    So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism: It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

    The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said. Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.

    Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against
    industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”

  40. jupes

    Most people on the right/conservative side who oppose extreme ethnic nationalism here, then support extreme ethnic nationalism for Israel. They are hypocrites.

    If I am a hypocrite, what are you?

    “Extreme ethnic nationalism” for Israel means survival for Israel.

    If you don’t support that then you are on the side of the Muslims who want to exterminate not just Israel but every J*w. Have a good look in the mirror then give yourself an uppercut.

  41. Occupy Centrelink

    Mother Lode
    #2477156, posted on August 23, 2017 at 12:28 pm
    ESPN pulls an Asian foorball announcer from calling a game because of events in Charlottesville.

    Why?

    His name was Robert Lee.

    Nameism! Lol

  42. Mother Lode

    Woops.

    Wrong thread.

  43. DaveR

    I wonder if the west is seeing similar circumstances to the run up to the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939? That was ultimately Nationalists (conservatives, aristocrats, far right) vs Republicans (socialists, internationalists, anarchists, communists, far left).

    In our times its the Nationalists (conservatives, alt right) vs the Socialists (Greens, NGOs, far left). I wonder where the war will break out?

  44. bollux

    The first thing the Left does is corrupt the language, as in saying “progressive” instead of “regressive” etc.
    The easy way to defeat the Left is to take the language back, at least from those who still have it, and take away their government funding. They’d be gone in a year. Those that survived we should shoot.

  45. Roger

    Most people on the right/conservative side who oppose extreme ethnic nationalism here, then support extreme ethnic nationalism for Israel. They are hypocrites.

    ?

    Israel is not ethnically monolithic.

    20% of their citizenry is Palestinian Arab.

  46. Occupy Centrelink

    Louis Hissink
    #2477137, posted on August 23, 2017 at 12:06 pm
    The split is not horizontal as in Left vs Right but vertical in terms of Liberty vs Slavery of whether ideology or theology.

    My understanding of the extremes of the old left-right paradigm ..

    extreme left (communism) – revolution driven by class warfare
    extreme right (fascism) – revolution driven by culture warfare/tradition

    Theoretically in the text books perhaps they are opposites. Living under one or the other you may not be able to tell them apart.

    If you want to enrich the left/right understanding with a liberty/authoritarian measure the best model I’ve seen is the Nolan Chart.

  47. duncanm

    He left The Age in May 2016 along with others made redundant by Fairfax Media.

    yes – but took the opportunity to retire.

  48. .

    Politics is about insiders v outsiders now. Net taxpayers are outsiders, corporate, middle class and lower/underclass welfare recipients, along with politicians and overly paid, dynastic public servants are insiders.

    As for Israel, we can make an exception as it is generally pluralist, a genuine democracy with a fairly good human rights record and its Talmudic scholars are the only people that Europeans, Africans, Arabs have tried to systemically exterminate, with Iranians and Malaysians in tow as well with ideas about 10 million suns rising over Tel Aviv as the Aluf sleeps and Iron Dome is disabled by EW/ECM.

  49. stackja

    duncanm
    #2477188, posted on August 23, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    He left The Age in May 2016 along with others made redundant by Fairfax Media.

    yes – but took the opportunity to retire.

    Tired of MSM?

  50. Rohan

    Occupy Centrelink, the Nolan chart is seriously flawed.

    How can you have economic freedom without the personal freedom to pursue it?

    The chart is garbage if you follow it through to the logical conclusion, the far left (ie Communism as per Karl Marx’s wet dream) would have had more individual freedoms than you could poke a stick at. The reality was the very opposite.

  51. max

    History has meaning, contrary to Eastern mysticism. The world is not maya: illusion. Reality is not an illusion. There is cause and effect in history. There are also non-causes and effects.

    The American Empire
    We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night; the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: “You now are entering Imperium.”

    Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

  52. Louis Hissink

    It helps to understand that it was the Communists who coined the phrase “fascist” as a pejorative, much in the way Karl Marx coined the term capitalist as a pejorative, if only to label their opponents as being ‘different’ when in reality they weren’t.

    Communism is international socialism, Fascism is national socialism, and both are essentially identical save for the outward appearances. Monotheistic religions remain in proselytising mode until everyone else is converted or saved.

    Reduced to its core properties, socialism is authority determining human action, via top down orders from the ultimate authority. Freedom is the opposite and ironically the very existence of freedom needs the other in order to be perceived as a choice.

    But both are products of the human thinking process in its habituation of one or other ideas, and that’s where the problem lies in – the way humans think.

  53. stackja

    Louis Hissink
    #2477245, posted on August 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Fasces
    From Wikipedia

    The image has survived in the modern world as a representation of magisterial or collective power, law and governance. The fasces frequently occurs as a charge in heraldry, it is present on an older design of the Mercury dime and behind the podium in the United States House of Representatives, it is used as the symbol of a number of Italian syndicalist groups, including the Unione Sindacale Italiana, and it was the origin of the name of the National Fascist Party in Italy (from which the term fascism is derived).

  54. .

    The chart is garbage if you follow it through to the logical conclusion, the far left (ie Communism as per Karl Marx’s wet dream) would have had more individual freedoms than you could poke a stick at. The reality was the very opposite.

    I think you have conflated the Nolan chart which is utterly reliable with the absurd “political compass”.

  55. ArthurB

    To me, the difference between Communism and Fascism is that Communist regimes abolish private property, and exert total control over everything. Fascists control most things, but allow private businesses to operate, on the condition that they obey the dictates of the State. Under the Bolsheviks, you could not even operate a corner shop, and agriculture was collectivised, with the inevitable result that the ensuing famines (which the Bolsheviks saw as a method of subduing the peasantry) caused many millions to die from starvation.

    Australia has some of the characteristics of a fascist state, in that there is some collusion between big business, big unions and the Government. I suspect that the process will accelerate when the CFMEU’s puppet moves into the Lodge after the next election.

  56. test pattern

    ‘Militant Islam is on the right!’

    Yes. It is. Islam is intrinsically of the right and produces rightwing polities. Islamic Theocracy is on the extreme right.

    The great J historian of Fascism George Mosse once wrote that Fascism is a totalitarianism of the Centre. Racism, often mentioned by historians as one of the markers of Fascism, is not exclusive to Right or Left. In Australia it thrives in the Centre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mosse

  57. ArgyBargy

    The problem with all the name calling between left and right is that there is no singular linear differentiation between political views. The simplest position I can see is, a minimum of, two axes:-

    1) Who regulates behavior? The Individual or the Group?; and

    2) Who benefits from that regulation? The Individual or the Group?

    When the linear is taken as “Who regulates behavior?” Conservatives and Libertarians both appear on the “right” as they believe the individual regulates their own behavior, while Socialists and Nationalists (Nazis, Fascists et al) are to the “Left” as both believe the the group, through the enlightened elite, should regulate behavior.

    On the other axis, Conservatives and Nationalists occupy the same position as they regulate for the benefit of the group, while Socialists and Libertarians are at the other end as they regulate to benefit the individual.

    Thus a conservative will at times be lumped in with both Libertarians and Nationalists, but cannot ever see eye to eye with either.

  58. Louis Hissink

    Socialists regulate for the benefit of the individual?

    Since when? Individualism is anathema to socialism.

  59. cohenite

    Louis Hissink

    #2477137, posted on August 23, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    The split is not horizontal as in Left vs Right but vertical in terms of Liberty vs Slavery of whether ideology or theology.

    Yes, it is a continuum with oppression by whatever name at one end and freedom for individuals at the other.

    The issue is to beat the oppressors do you have to become like them to some extent.

  60. classical_hero

    The fact that the unions supported Hitler until his betrayal, shows where it really lines up.

  61. ArgyBargy

    Louis Hissink
    #2477311, posted on August 23, 2017 at 3:24 pm

    Socialists regulate for the benefit of the individual?

    Since when? Individualism is anathema to socialism.

    Socialism as an idea is about the individual, that is why all the supposedly socialist movements like words like “fairness” “equalidee” and “rights”. But socialism is but a fairytale in the real world. EVERY movement which claims to be socialist merely uses the mythmaking of Marx to justify the regulation of every aspect of peoples lives for the benefit of the group as represented by themselves.

  62. Deplorable

    The easy way to defeat the Left is to take the language back, at least from those who still have it, and take away their government funding. They’d be gone in a year. Those that survived we should shoot.

    There’s not much chance of any real improvement until we start taking a few of them out the back and shooting them behind the toilet block.

    Well you two have my vote if you stand for parliament. Pansy Brandis is too frightened of upsetting those who would harm us. Pauline is on a roll.

  63. truth

    On every occasion that we’re reminded of or alerted to the Communists/Socialists working right now to subvert Western Democracy from within… the Fabian Socialists of the ALP [ replete with their cosmetic makeover for the purpose of gaining power and control over the fate and future of this and other capitalist countries ]… dismiss them in order to distance themselves from the odium of their ideology’s murderous past.…waving them away as ‘just the mad Trots still at it’.

    But in reality all of the brutal—expansionist… Socialist collectivist Left are ‘still at it’…or at it with more power and more success than ever before.

    It’s just that the more completely Western education was infiltrated at every level and eventually succumbed to their death grip…and the more comprehensively they were able to make the Western media their own …almost impervious… closed shop collective …the easier it became for them…with their Fabian tactics… to cloak the destruction of Western democracy in the sheep’s clothing of benevolent government and phoney noble causes.

    Trump with his mum and dad supporters ..and FOX …both under unprecedented attack from the Left ….probably offer America’s last ditch chance to save itself from the chaos and war within that’s always a precursor to …and enabler of …all-enveloping Socialism.

    Here…IMO…our only chance is the reinstatement of Tony Abbott as PM…the only politician with the guts , prescience and character to resist the seductions of virtue-signalling and fake compassion… in order to do what’s really best for Australia.

    We have to expunge the atrocity of 2015 that was a massive leap to the Left…a LW media-orchestrated and facilitated coup to oust a democratically-elected PM who had won in a landslide…who had in a short 15 months before the assassins accelerated their slow-burn hit…achieved more than any other newly-elected PM in Australian history.

  64. Nerblnob

    You might as well forget left and right unless you want to lose permanently. It’s over.

    Right = bad to the new generation.

    It doesn’t matter what you thought it meant.

    Get back to the real battles:
    Freedom vs control
    enterprise vs bureaucracy
    chance of prosperity vs certain poverty
    life vs death

  65. Benaud

    Walter pinge, makes sense Social Justice was first popularised by Charles Coughlin a US cleric who had a radio show and newspaper in the 1930’s & 40’s.

    He was a fascist and supported the Germans and Italians during WWII.

  66. Yohan

    If I am a hypocrite, what are you?

    “Extreme ethnic nationalism” for Israel means survival for Israel.

    If you don’t support that then you are on the side of the Muslims who want to exterminate not just Israel but every J*w. Have a good look in the mirror then give yourself an uppercut.

    Your not getting this joke are you jupes? Of course I support ethnic nationalism for Israel.

    But I disagree that having it means ‘survival’ for Israel. Israel could open its border to the 3rd world, become a wonderful multicultural country of every religion and race. It would still be called Israel.

    Sure it would not be an ethnic jewish state anymore, and bombs would be going off every 5 minutes, but according to our overlords, a country is not defined by its culture or racial makeup, but simply by those currently standing in it.

    Do you get the joke now?

  67. Mike of mollymook

    Absolutely correct. The terms left and right are meaningless. There are just a few like JSMill that advocate liberty ….but most want to take our money and freedom.
    The first use of the terms was in the French Revolution. The left were not really for liberty. That was a giant con. And still continues.

  68. Andrew M.

    The punctuation mark said:

    I think you have conflated the Nolan chart which is utterly reliable with the absurd “political compass”.

    That is a contradiction, because the Nolan chart and the Political Compass have exactly the same two political propositions as their orthogonal axes. They both use economic freedom for one axis, such that Leftism is on the non-free left hand side. They both use freedom versus conformity of personal moral opinion within society as their second axis, and although the Political Compass calls this the “social” dimension it has the same meaning as Nolan’s “personal” dimension. Aside from rendering differences such as the Nolan chart’s bizarre 45 degree rotation and the Political Compass’ authoritarian inversion, the two charts are functionally equivalent. Either they are both absurd or they are both reliable.

    Whether the political quizzes attached to the diagrams are fair and unbiased is a different issue.

    Nolan created his chart as a propaganda device to distinguish his Libertarian Party from the rest of the traditional Conservatives, and the Political Compass also succeeds in doing this by locating Donald Trump and Gary Johnson on opposite ends of the authoritarian axis whilst sharing a promotion of economic freedom.

    Understand first, criticise second.

Comments are closed.