Are the “Far Right” simply old-fashioned Leftists?

The post below is crossposted from Dissecting Leftism

I seem to be doomed to challenging conventional ideas about the nature of the political spectrum—most notably in that I often point out that Hitler was a Leftist. I also however, have done a thorough empirical examination (via survey research) of the libertarian idea that the political spectrum is two dimensional—and found that the evidence is against that as well. I now think I have a third rebellion to undertake. I think that the term “Far Right” is a misnomer altogether. The Far Right certainly does not describe Hitler and the Fascists but I don’t think it even describes accurately the present-day racist groups who tend to attract that label. I think that the people so called are only another flavour of the Far Left. The so-called Far Right may say that they are against “Jews” whereas the Far Left say they are against “Zionists” but both are talking about essentially the same people. And even the “Anti-Zionist” mask of the Left tends to slip rather readily to reveal the real Jew-hatred underneath.

I am of course far from original in noting that there are very considerable similarities between the present-day Far Right and Far Left in what they say. When I have the stomach for it, I do read bits of what both of them say—and on many occasions what the two groups say seems virtually interchangeable. And both of course have the same rage-filled tone. And both see themselves as a Herrenvolk, to use Hitler’s word (“Master people”). The justification that the Right give for their claimed superior status is racial whereas the Left claim not only superior intellect but also (quite incredibly in view of their chronic rage) superior “compassion”. But both see themselves as a misunderstood elite and as victims of conspiracies against them. It certainly shows Hitler’s cleverness in claiming BOTH greater compassion and racial superiority. He got the full range of nuts on his side that way. What I see is that the alleged Far Right are in fact simply old-fashioned Leftists—Leftists who have been stranded by history, if you like. What they believe would have made them normal Leftists in the early 20th and late 19th centuries. There is certainly nothing that they believe that cannot be found in Marx & Engels —even the call for racial unity is there and Engels was very nationalist and a believer in racial superiority. And of course Marx was vehement in his hatred of Jews.

And the Chomsky-like disrespect for facts is there in the “Rightists” too. A recent personal experience of mine illustrated that rather vividly for me: As well as posting to my own blogs, I also post to Majority Rights, which attracts frequent comments from vehement Far Rightists who constantly rave on about Jews. Being an awful tease, I posted something there recently under the heading “The neocons were right!” To both Far Left and Far Right, “neocons” = “Jews” so I expected eruptions in the comments boxes and I got them. And one of the eruptions was this: “Ray and Schwarz share an employer: David Horowitz Frontpage magazine”

Old guy though I am, I was still amazed that a lie could be so immediate, blatant, unfounded and shameless. For the record, David Horowitz has never paid me a cent, though in the last 12 months or so I have donated several times to appeals he has sent out in aid of his various causes. So rather than David paying me, I pay HIM! Just as Chomsky and his ilk do, however, my “Rightist” critic has taken a fact and distorted it. He sees deep meaning in the fact that David Horowitz did on five occasions in 2002 and 2003 publish articles that I wrote and then submitted to him. The idea that David had to pay me to write what I did is a laugh, though. We academics are thoroughly used to not being paid a cent for our writings and so it was with the articles I submitted to David Horowitz. So I don’t think that even the remarkably inventive U.S. Supreme Court would be able to use any of that to deduce that David is or was in any sense my “employer”.

I used to think that the “Far Right” differed from the Fascists and Communists in being anti-socialist. But when it comes to actual policy that is just not true. The “Far Right” are as heavily into autarky (national self-sufficiency) and against free-trade as the Fascists and Communists are. Both are thoroughly paternalistic economically.

I think the conclusion that I draw from it all is a very basic conservative one: All theories about society are oversimplifications and hence wrong but there is a great need that many people feel for oversimplifications and the the Left caters to that. So the oversimplifiers are all Leftists in the end, regardless of what their starting point may be and regardless of any claims to the contrary. And all the groups concerned seem to agree that if the facts don’t suit the oversimplification, change the facts!

An important implication of what I am saying is that I don’t think there CAN BE such a thing as an extreme conservative. Extremes are for theorists and conservatives are people whose modus operandi is to go by what can be shown to work for the good of people over the long haul, rather than going by any theories. And I just don’t see how you can be extreme about that. So my (slightly) revisionist view of the political spectrum is that it has conservatives at one end and a motley assortment of dreamers at the other.

Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 06:55 PM in Far Right
Comments (22) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Stephen Quick on February 03, 2005, 07:23 PM | #

So my (slightly) revisionist view of the political spectrum is that it has conservatives at one end and a motley assortment of dreamers at the other.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 03, 2005, 07:27 PM | #

Jon:

Even at your age you’d make a wonderful catamite for some strong neocon. Caeser was a catamite for Nicomedes, the King of Bithynia, did you know that, Jon?

I ran across this little rhyme last night, while reading Suetonius’s

The Twelve Ceasers

, tr. by Robert Graves.

Gaul was brought to shame by Caeser;
By King Nicomedes, He
Here comes Caeser, wreathed in triumph
For his Gallic victory!
Nicomedes wears no laurels,
Though the greatest of the three.

Another Roman described Caesar as the ‘Queen of Bithynia’, but you’re not from Bithynia; though from a land that does rhyme with Bithynia.

Posted by ernest young on February 03, 2005, 08:01 PM | #

To diagrammatically think of politics as a straight line, with a ‘left’ and a ‘right’ always seems incorrect, now if you think in terms of a circle it does seem to make more sense.

To go from a central position on a line, either left or right will ensure that never the twain shall meet, until there comes a point where there is no similarity between the two, you get two absolute extremes.

Whereas , if you start from a central point and go left or right on the perimeter of a circle, the two philosphies will eventually meet, appearing to the hoi-polloi to be identical.

Which when looked at in the cold light of day is exactly what happens, both philosphies - socialism and capitalism, - eventually end up taking more and more power to themselves, until the two are indistiguishable.

To both philosophies, it seems that the end justifies the means.

To identify fascists as to the ‘right’, is correct, only inasmuch as they are to the right of socialists, - being superficailly, socialists with a dash of capitalism.

It does seem that the so-described ‘left’ does have a rather more bloodthirsty and dogmatic attitude towards its citizens, both in achieving power and in maintaining it.

The ‘right’, that is the capitalist side of the circle, maybe less bloodthirsty, but has as little regard for its citizens, being more pragmatic, it sees them more as an disposable asset, to be used.

The ultimate goal for both seems to be ultimate power and domination of the population. Proving yet again that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely’.

Sorry to give such a simplistic explantion, but as you mention, so many still think of fascists as ‘far right’, and really have little idea of just what is the opposite of socialism.

Posted by Stephen Quick on February 03, 2005, 08:45 PM | #

Geoff, you are a boor. Your uncouth comment has no place here. If you meant to be funny, you weren’t.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 03, 2005, 09:03 PM | #

Hey Quick:

I’ve got a rhyme for you too. Knowing how bloodthirsty you are, wanting to kill Muslims, and attack Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Let see…how did you put it…

I want as many of them dead as it takes for their cult (islam) to die out.

Yes, I’d say, you’re right up there with Tiberius Caesar.

He is not thirsty for neat wine
As he was thirsty then,
But warms him up a tastier cup -
The blood of murdered men.

Posted by ben tillman on February 03, 2005, 09:29 PM | #

Your emphasis on terms like “left” and “right” as if they mattered means one of two things: either you’re a label fetishist, or you’re dissimulating.

In politics, a label matters only when you’re trying to make a sale. You evince no concern for right and wrong, or good and bad. You simply know that the target market rejects items with the “left” label and buys items with the “right” label. Thus, you label self-interest (antisemitism) as leftist and self-abnegation (philosemitism) as rightist. And you do a booming business with the cattle. A nifty trick. But an insidious one.

Posted by ben tillman on February 03, 2005, 10:46 PM | #

I glanced at your essay purporting to show that the political “spectrum” is one-dimensional, and note that you did not even define what the one dimension is supposed to be! Just Left-Right with no definition of either!

Some proof. I suppose you’re alluding to who owns the means of production or some such.

The key dimension you omit is…

Internationalism-Nationalism

Posted by Stephen Quick on February 03, 2005, 11:11 PM | #

Ben Tillman said:

I glanced at your essay purporting to show that the political “spectrum” is one-dimensional, [..]

in which he purported to have read this:

I also however, have done a thorough empirical examination (via survey research) of the libertarian idea that the political spectrum is two dimensional—and found that the evidence is against that as well. I now think I have a third rebellion to undertake.

If you are going to criticize something you claim to have read, you at least ought to have read it first. You look soooo much more intelligent that way.

Posted by ben tillman on February 03, 2005, 11:20 PM | #

Is that supposed to make sense?

Posted by ben tillman on February 03, 2005, 11:23 PM | #

I mean, I didn’t *purport* to have read the passage you quoted, but I did read it, and it’s consistent with my comment. He *rejected* the two-dimensional model.

Posted by Stephen Quick on February 03, 2005, 11:47 PM | #

I didn’t *purport* to have read the passage you quoted

Yes you did. You said:

I glanced at your essay

In colloquial English that means you read it. Or don’t you understand English either?

As for “rejecting” the two-dimensional model—maybe. But what he said was that it was an oversimplification,i.e. it is multi-dimensional, not one dimensional as you assert. Jon finally ends with:

So my (slightly) revisionist view of the political spectrum is that it has conservatives at one end and a motley assortment of dreamers at the other.

Which certainly bears no resemblance to your characterization of his remarks.

Posted by John S Bolton on February 04, 2005, 01:45 AM | #

The left isn’t going to go away, just because says let’s do away with the traditional terms. If you want to confuse people and paralyze them politically against the government schools’ continued push towards mass murder as the ideal, pretend that there is no meaning to the term leftist.

Posted by John S Bolton on February 04, 2005, 01:55 AM | #

And it is especially good to have these uncoverings of potent affinities and interchangeabilities between the fascist and communistic left. If there were an exception to the line of left to right, it might be an axis for theocracy. Yet that is also capable of being described as fascism with spirituality.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 04, 2005, 06:17 AM | #

First of all, a public apology for the state of the site. We have received three spamming attacks over the last couple of days - a situation which will quickly deteriate if not attended to early. So EE is giving us a security update.

With John’s post I am much in agreement. Like him, I contend that Conservatism, a practical art which includes within its ouevre individual freedom and a liberal political dispensation, stands apart from the manifold variations on a liberal theme we see elsewhere.

I go further than John in two respects. First, I do not believe that Conservatism is (or can be) practised in the modern liberal zeitgeist. It’s effect, were it to be so, would be transformative of that zeitgeist. This is an important point which is rarely understood by those who call themselves Conservatives today - not least, one suspects, because they don’t want the label to fall off.

Secondly, I believe that what John calls the Far Right, and which calls itself Nationalism, is a Hydra. Fundamentally, though, I think the heads can be cleaved between:-

a) Those who have their eyes open to the demographic future and therefore express the essentially Conservative desire that their homelands remain in the keeping of their own people.

b) Those who analyse the same issue from a liberal political perspective, albeit it nominally “far right”.

In other words, a large proportion of those attracted to WNism are there purely because the zeitgeist has shifted leftwards. If Conservatism was extanct as a politic they would be Conservatives. They would properly eschew the extremes, association with which currently tars them.

Finally, I will also put myself on record regarding the JQ. I don’t see it overall as the litmus test John seems to think it is. What I mean by this is that understanding the purpose and impact of organised Jewry in Western societies is necessary and helpful. There is no virtue in not understanding it OR in not opposing its interests where those run contrary to our own. The litmus test enters the equasion in the way we treat Jews. Here again, the split in WN is plain to see.

Overall, I believe that Conservatism must have a nationalist component. Without such, Conservatism is little more than economism. Without such, liberalism is leading us towards the destruction of the West.

Posted by John Ray on February 04, 2005, 08:49 AM | #

I am delighted that people have taken the trouble to look into my post despite the present sad state of the site. I guess it was helpful that I gave a link to where it could be read without trouble.

The claim that I have not defined what I understand by the Left/Right dimension is perhaps reasonable. I have in fact given a thorough historical coverage of that topic previously and referred to it a number of times previously on this site but I was remiss not to have given a link to it above. The link is:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/rightism.html

Posted by Svigor on February 04, 2005, 04:15 PM | #

I’ve given up on trying to neatly classify myself politically. For one thing, I’m of two or more minds on various subjects (usually because I don’t know enough about them, as with economics). For another, I find specific issues more salient than general classifications.

That said, I do bandy about shorthand like leftist and WN because they save time and do generally hold true.

I’ve taken several of those political orientation tests (the ones with two axes) and always place (very) slightly left and south of center.

The closest thing I can think of to an ideal government would be a technologically updated form of the U.S. republic. I’m not pro-socialist, although I would rather White National Socialism for America than what we have now, which is an increasingly authoritarian multiracial mess.

I don’t see how national self-sufficiency and anti-globalism equals socialism. Maybe you can explain that one to me. Maybe you can also explain why your logic is so frequently sloppy.

I do agree with you that National Socialism and Communism both belong on the left of the spectrum, however flawed that spectrum may be. Each is essentially a (very distinct) manifestation of the same basic thing. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

Posted by Svigor on February 04, 2005, 04:17 PM | #

To answer my own question, I think your logic is often sloppy because you’re too interested in certitude; we’re dealing with human behavior, and it’s hard to boil such a large portion of it (politics) down to easy terms.

Posted by Svigor on February 04, 2005, 04:27 PM | #

Secondly, I believe that what John calls the Far Right, and which calls itself Nationalism, is a Hydra. Fundamentally, though, I think the heads can be cleaved between:-

a) Those who have their eyes open to the demographic future and therefore express the essentially Conservative desire that their homelands remain in the keeping of their own people.

b) Those who analyse the same issue from a liberal political perspective, albeit it nominally “far right”.

That’s all pretty astute. Again I’m returned to the fact that there’s no word for what I am. It really boils down to issues, if my WNism is removed for the purposes of argument (because WNism is a popular excuse to dismiss a person and just throw him to the “far right.”). My beliefs on the issues are further complicated by ifs, buts, and a plethora of caveats. In my experience shorthand just doesn’t serve (without the aforementioned “WN factor” that is).

Posted by Svigor on February 04, 2005, 04:27 PM | #

Then again, maybe not; “moderate” seems to serve well.

Posted by Svigor on February 04, 2005, 04:35 PM | #

Oh, I’m also compelled to blather on a bit about collectivism and its relationship to socialism - the two aren’t necessarily coterminous, and collectivism isn’t necessarily the antithesis of individualism. My take is that of the dual standard, i.e. ingroup morality. Put simply, a group shows solidarity towards the outgroup and individualism within the group.

Posted by John S Bolton on February 04, 2005, 09:44 PM | #

What is needed is to conserve individualism and solidarity of the nation against hostile outsiders. Hostility should be defined broadly enough to include even petty net public subsidy-grabbing. Thus, when the left tries to hold a nation of some achievements, to individualism regarding such and such hostile foreigners, all the people self-consciously reject that attempt, knowing that this is the area where solidarity must be absolute.

Posted by JSBolton on February 04, 2005, 09:55 PM | #

Another deeply suppressed historical point, which is apropos of the above: how many know that the communists of Germany, in 1933, voted for Hitler’s NSDAP, on the oders of Stalin himself?

Next entry: So she’s white and sweet and lives in Chateau Bastard … but is she a globalist?

Previous entry: SOTU Social Security: Confiscation is Confiscation

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa