The So-Called Left-Right Paradigm Isn’t Just Useless; It’s a Trap!


The historical origins of the left-right political dualism famously lead us back to the early stages of the French Revolution, when King Louis XVI, under growing pressure from his Parlement and with rebellion brewing throughout the kingdom, summoned in January 1789, after a pause of 175 years, once again an Estates-General, to be held in May of the same year. Louis’ attempt to sort things out (that were aggravated particularly by France’s then-disastrous state finances) and preserve his absolutist reign failed, and what started out as an orderly Estates-General soon turned into a revolutionary “National Assembly” driven by the Third Estate, i.e., the Commons, which were soon joined by an ever-increasing number of nobles. (No doubt, the Masonically inspired Enlightenment, promoted by the likes of Voltaire, Rousseau and the Encyclopédistes, had prepared the ground for revolution, to begin with.) At first, France remained – in theory – a monarchy, albeit seemingly on a path to becoming a constitutional monarchy. In reality, after the Storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the king essentially became a captive of the revolution, was finally overthrown altogether in September 1792 (which was the foundation of the First French Republic), tried, and executed like a criminal on January 21, 1793.

Now, as far as the left-right paradigm is concerned, it stems from a seating arrangement that developed in the first weeks of the French National Assembly in June 1789: To the left of the chairman (and thus of the king) sat the Third Estate, the Commons, the revolutionaries (also known as the “bourgeoisie”). To his right sat the First and Second Estates, i.e. the clergy and the nobility, who were loyal to the king. (The biblical analogy to sitting “at the right hand of God” is striking.) Hence, being “on the left” means being part of the revolution (or the eternal rebellion, if you will). Being on the right, in contrast, means standing on the side of, literally, righteousness and goodness. The English/Latin word “sinister”, by the way, as the Latin original means: “left”!

Over the years and centuries this political dualism has constantly shifted further left, with the “bourgeoisie”, at the time of the French Revolution representing the “revolution”, later becoming the so-called “reaction”, challenged by a new set of revolutionaries (spoilt upperclass kids, all of them), who claimed to be speaking up for the “exploited”, the “downtrodden”, for the “proletariat”. Needless to say, these political adventurers (nay: political criminals) have never delivered “progress” or any sort of improvement of people’s lives, but have brought with them solely death and destruction and infinite misery. It all boils down to being a recipe for complete overthrow of any traditional (lawful and God-given) order whatsoever. Everything else is sweet and deceptive rhetoric.

But why is the classification of left and right, as stated in the header of this piece, useless and even a trap? Not only because of the obvious fact that not everyone posing as a conservative is indeed a conservative. There is a much more complicated element involved in all of this, which should make us think: In the course of the 20th century, the political label of being on the “right” (meaning, being conservative and traditional or royalist) all of a sudden acquired a completely new, additional meaning; a meaning which has nothing to do with conservatism at all. It now (confusingly) could also mean being a National Socialist (a.k.a. “Nazi”) or a fascist (along the lines of Mussolini’s fascism, first of all). Were Hitler and Mussolini (both, mad totalitarians) conservatives and “reactionaries”, warranting the same political label to be applied to them and to traditionally-minded conservatives (who, by the way, if their traditionalism is sincere, are never atheists or nihilists, but believers in God)? There is a horrible and scandalous contradiction between being “on the right” in the sense of being conservative, and being allegedly “on the right” in the sense of following the detestable ideologies of either Nazi Germany’s “Führer” Adolf Hitler or Fascist Italy’s “Duce” Benito Mussolini! This confusion has not come about by chance. It’s been the result of a deliberate defamation effort on the part of the revolution (meaning, of communists) to discredit conservatives by more or less equating them to Nazis and fascists! It’s a semantic trick! And there even is the brand “far-right” or “extreme right”, which is funny, because since when have traditional conservatives been into extremism? After all, one can’t be more conservative than conservative! Either one is conservative, or one isn’t. To say somebody is “a bit” conservative is as non-sensical as to say someone is “extremely” conservative, or he is a “conservative extremist”. Either you are conservative (valueing tradition, family, God and country), or you aren’t! There is no possibility of “extremism” in being conservative, only the question of being genuinely conservative, yes or no! And yet, “right” – according to the script given to us by Marxist Orwellians – is supposed to mean conservative, and “far right” or “extreme right” is supposed to mean National Socialism or fascism. They have even invented the term “religious right” – very dangerous! – to make sure every “decent conservative” stays away from religion, even though there is no conservatism without acknowledging that the foundation, not only of our entire civilisation, but of life in the first place, is God, the Creator of you and me and everything on earth and in the heavens!

Both Hitler and Mussolini were rabid progressives and revolutionaries! They held no sympathies whatsoever for the old elites (even though they cleverly manipulated them). They were just as much against the aristocracy, the Church and, yes, against conservatives at large, like the Bolsheviks were in the Soviet Union! And although the Hitlerian programme was primarily based on race rather than class (with the Jews and other groups in their genodical focus), the “Deutsche Volksgemeinschaft” nonetheless represented a form of fierce collectivism, as well! Hitler and Mussolini weren’t reactionaries, but ambitious competitors inside the wider camp of the revolution – which is why we can observe today Russia’s fake-nationalist, still-communist regime under Putin and China’s chauvinist-communist regime under Xi adopt, with great ease, elements of Hitler’s National Socialism! After all, the Nazis and the fascists were, in essence, Marxist heretics, but in no way anti-Marxists! (The Nazis didn’t call themselves “National Socialists” without reason, while Mussolini started out initially as an official socialist!) And so, Nazis and fascists are NOT on the right AT ALL, but of course on the left!!!

Leading this thought to its logical conclusion, this author would suggest that conservatives stop using or even accepting the label “right” precisely because of the misleading double meaning of the word, as it’s being used nowadays. Conservatism isn’t a position halfway toward National Socialism or fascism! On the contrary, conservatives are threatened by communists and fascists (whoever they may be) alike! Call yourselves conservatives, or (as for the American context) Constitutionalists, or patriots, or all of the above, but please, please stop embracing the killer label of “right-wingers”, which places you in the same corner with Nazis and fascists (while the communist thugs, and their overlords, sailing under the banner of “anti-fascism” are the true elephants in the room of fascism, and no one else).

We need to stop using the manipulative language of the enemy (and communists ARE every living being’s enemy), which is designed to distort the truth and ultimately brand us as the dangerous totalitarians that they are (this applies not only to the term “political right”, but to a whole array of words, including the word “capitalism”, which is actually a communist smear word). With regard to “live-and-let-live” libertarians, who don’t care much about values and principles, may they wake up in time to the reality that without recognising the difference between right and wrong, ultimately between good and evil, freedom becomes, first a joke, and then destroyed.



© The Contemplative Observer 2021                     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s