Left to Right is Leftist

1. Left to Right is Leftist

The Left-to-Right political spectrum measures the degree of progressiveness versus reaction.

The spectrum describing politics as left to right is, at this point in history, unavoidable. Alas, too many people use these terms, and no attempt to introduce a new way of describing the major factions is likely to become popular.

Nonetheless, it should be recognized that it is a propaganda tool of the Reds, it has no meaning outside that, and that it cannot be used consistent, or even a rational, fashion.

Attempting to place real political positions on it is as endless hence futile as placing comic book characters on the D&D alignment, and arguing whether Spider-Man is lawful-good or chaotic-good.

The spectrum is simply not complex enough to measure all things by how progressive they are.

For example, to say Nazis (National Socialists) are “right” of Commies (International Socialists) makes as much sense, or as little, as saying Shia are right of Sunni, or Lao Tzu is “left” of Confucius.

Internationalism, whether socialist or not, is not necessarily more progressive, nor less, than nationalism. Catholics, for example, are internationalist, since we oppose the establishment of national denominations by the secular power: but our worldview is more easily described as medievalist than leftist or rightist.

There is no place in the Marxist scheme of things for the Catholic Church, except perhaps as an appendage of the secular power structure of the Feudalism stage of political evolution, produced by the hand-mill. The Church is regarded by Marx, as are all things, as a secular power structure, aimed at power, used only for power. As such, the Church is deliberately excluded from Marxist analysis, dismissed as an opiate meant to keep the proles stupefied. Hence, there is no place on the Left-Right political spectrum for her: because this spectrum, like the idea of evolutionary progress via materialist dialectic itself, has no meaning outside the gnawing idiotic simplicities of the Marxist worldview.

The idea of the Far Right and Far Left bending together as a ring is even more obviously an artifact of socialist propaganda, for the ring-spectrum proposes that all men are either moderate Fabian socialists or extremist totalitarian socialists. Excluded from the ring are any form of classical liberal, constitutionalist, individualist, or Second-Amendmentarian advocate of gun ownership rights.

As for Nazi versus other factions of socialism, let me add that if the spectrum were measuring anything — which I doubt — a nationalist supporting progressive evolution to the international order would be to the left of an internationalist supporting the current international order.

The spectrum is useful for progressives to prioritize their enemies: “Far Right” is worse an enemy than “Moderate Right” hence Trump is “more Nazi” than Bush — albeit both are right, hence enemies, hence Nazis. Every enemy of the Red is a Nazi. It is just their word for “enemy.”

(This is ironic, since Nazi is simply another word for totalitarian socialist, indistinguishable without a microscope from other forms of socialism. The true enemy of the Left is Christ. Rarely do Leftist say so in public.)

Basically, in America, “Right” means GOP and “Left” means Dem, and in Europe, the terms refer to various factions of collectivism, socialism, and radicalism, whom Americans would all call “Left.”

But even in America, the terms have shifted meaning, since the GOP are now the populist Christian faction, and the Dems are the elitist death-cult faction, modern Albigensianism. These are religious denominations, not political factions.

2. The Windrose of Political Heresy

If one were to adopt a new political spectrum — which I am not advising, as I think it impractical, in this generation, to do so — it should be a two dimensional matrix, if not more, with the lamp of Catholicism at the center, and the various heresies in their various opposite forms radiating outward through ever darker forms until blending into the surrounding darkness of nihilism.

There are several taxonomic schemes one might adopt for classifying heresies: for example, to divide heresies into Christological, Sacra-spiritual, or Patristic, depending on whether they attack Son, the Holy Ghost, or Father, would divide the course of history into an ancient Arian-to-Mohammedan period, a medieval Filioque-to-Reformation period, and modern a Voltaire-to-Marx period, which is ongoing.

However, I find it more convenient to divide by a fourfold scheme reflected in the writings of Archmonk Serafine Rose. He proposes that men and societies fall away from the Church in one of four stages, which my windrose here assigns to four directions:

One: National fervor, or perhaps the ancient impulse to divinize leaders as Caesar or Pharaoh or Godking, puts the secular power above the spiritual. The Church divides into established national denominations.

Two: Opposed to the establishmentarian conflict, men grow worldly, and embrace the laicism of the Enlightenment, classical liberalism or republicanism, in the name of individual natural rights. Worldly men turn their efforts toward money-making, and support the free market and free trade. The denominations become individual.

Three: Opposed to worldliness, men seek ideology. Ideology is an ersatz religion, a materialistic version of otherworldliness, as it were, seeking for meaning in life in collectivism and communism. The Church is outlawed.

Four: Opposed to communist and capitalist alike, or any materialistic concern, men seek spiritual fulfilment in theosophy, neopaganism, hermeticism, perhaps seeking the mystical abolition of the self or mystical union with an ill-defined life-force. The theosophist tends to be esoteric and gnostic. The Church is the demiurge, the sole enemy.

Let us call the first direction ‘south’ as this is the traditional direction of the paynim, who abolish distinction between spiritual and secular leader, admit no church hierarchy, practice radical iconoclasm.

Let the second be ‘north’ as the enlightenment theories of individualism, not to mention industrialization, are aptly associated with northern Europe, England and Germany.

Let the third be ‘east’ as the nations beyond the Iron Curtain were the clearest expression of ideology and utopia.

The final direction is ‘west’ the direction of sunset. In Buddhist lore, the pure land beyond the sorrows of the world. The esoteric spiritualist would be at home here.

Theology shapes psychological as well as political views, and so both can be mapped onto the same windrose without much ado:

Psychologically speaking, the northward impulse is pragmatic, and appeals to hard-headed, hard-nosed men who see politics as basically an engineering problem: how to arrange incentives to promote public policy, and see to the peaceful transfer of power.

Southward is romantic and chivalrous, where patriotic love of King or Caesar elevates him to Pope or Caliph. The Southerner sees the relation of subject to king, on earth, as a beautiful microcosm or model of the relation of man to heaven. In more extreme cases, the chrism of anointed kingship is elevated from a sacred office to a sacred person, and the Great Leader is regarded as a godlike being, a Pharaoh, or the incarnation of the national will.

Eastward is the monastic impulse, the desire to live without hierarchy and without property. Political economics is de-pragmatized, turned instead into a crusade, a holy war, seeking heaven on earth, creating Eden by brute bloodshed and sadism. The Terror is never far from the heart of the Jacobin.

Westward is quietism. It seeks inward Eden, with no heavenly help.

Politically speaking, Southerners are establishmentarians, upholding kingship as a sacred office, supporting union of throne and altar. Here are Reformationists granting parliament the right to establish national church doctrine. Beyond are Caesaropapism and Theocracy, or rule by the Prophet, be it Calvinist or Caliphate.

Northerners are constitutionalists, followers of Hobbes, Locke, and the Federalist papers. Beyond are libertarians and objectivists.

East are socialists, and, beyond them, utopians.

West there is no political stance, as this is the direction of entire spiritual abandonment of quotidian concerns of life. Anarchy is the only political philosophy that preaches abolition of the state. Beyond is Albigensianism, which, in effect, preaches the abolition of man.

This political windrose, since it is written in two dimensions rather than one, allows for the nuance of cardinal diagonals.

Fascism, being allegedly more pragmatic than utopianism, is northeast.

Marxism, which is theocratic in scope and aim, is southeast.

Cultural Marxism or “Wokeness” which is mystical and otherworldly in approach and theme, while being no less totalitarian and theocratic than The Caliphate, is southwest.

The corrosive individualism of libertarianism and the empty-headed mysticism of anarchy overlap in the doctrine of multiculturalism, which seeks the dissolution, not of the state, but of the virtues and priorities, traditions and spirit on which the state rests.

This political windrose is awkward in its own way, but at least it is not purposefully and stupidly pro-Marxist in its use and in its assumptions.