Fascism, Socialism, Communism--statism by any of its many names--has been a progressive liberal "Left Wing" ideology since the Jacobins under Robespierre were attempting to purify French society with the guillotine.
(Trivia note: the Right/Left nomenclature applied to the political spectrum is derived from the seati…
Fascism, Socialism, Communism--statism by any of its many names--has been a progressive liberal "Left Wing" ideology since the Jacobins under Robespierre were attempting to purify French society with the guillotine.
(Trivia note: the Right/Left nomenclature applied to the political spectrum is derived from the seating positions of the various factions within the National Assembly of the First Republic. The more revolutionary and radical types were seated on the left of the chamber, with the more conservative elements seated on the right).
Trying to link the NAZI ideology and "The Right" is a never-ending left wing pursuit by the Democratic Marxist Socialists as well as the current and "former' Communists world wide.
People forget that in the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis were not perceived as the monsters we have since come to regard them as being. The British aristocracy of the time was rather taken with Hitler's authoritarianism (there's an intriguing video clip of Edward VIII after his abdication mimicking the Nazi salute as a wave to a crowd of Germans during a visit to Nazi Germany). One reason the nation of Israel almost HAD to be created in the British Mandate of Palestine (i.e., the "Holy Land"), was because the uncomfortable truth of European history is that the Nazis' ideology of ethnonationalism and anti-Semitism was rather well received from France to Poland. (France, remember, was the country that sentenced a Jewish officer--Alfred Dreyfus--to life imprisonment on Devil's Island rather than acknowledge that his superior was in fact the one who was guilty of espionage and potentially treason).
It was only after the horrors of the concentration camps were thrust into the world's collective consciousness that the liberal elites grasped just how badly they had misjudged the situation (not that they repented of their affections for Hitler, only that the global opprobrium meant they had to quickly cover their tracks), and so post WW2 authoritarianism magically become conflated with "right wing" monarchism (the conservative political tradition in Europe at the time).
However, an understanding of monarchism reveals that it is distinctly different from authoritarianism, for in nearly every European monarchy, the tradition of the monarch being beholden to a larger comprehension of law dates back to well before the signing of the Magna Carta.
True authoritarians, from Oliver Cromwell onward, have generally rejected the structural limitations of monarchy (which is the likely reason Cromwell himself preferred to be "Lord Protector" of England rather than "King Oliver I" of England--as monarch he would be subject to all the traditions and restrictions attendant upon the Crown at the time).
You can trace the arc of thought among notional "elites" all the way back to Plato's "Republic", wherein the idea of a meritocratic rule by "experts" was first articulated within Western Thought. Roughly one hundred years later, the First Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, would build his rule on the Chinese principles of Legalism, which, broadly speaking, made the permanent administrative State the moral arbiter in all things.
Show me an intellectual elite and I'll show you a fanatical authoritarian who truly believes he has the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. It's been that way literally for millennia.
Believe it or not, it's only "work" in the sense that I self identify as an "independent journalist" (I don't think that requires its own pronouns--although I'm never in step with political correctness so I might be mistaken there).
"Right Wing"? Puhlease.
Fascism, Socialism, Communism--statism by any of its many names--has been a progressive liberal "Left Wing" ideology since the Jacobins under Robespierre were attempting to purify French society with the guillotine.
(Trivia note: the Right/Left nomenclature applied to the political spectrum is derived from the seating positions of the various factions within the National Assembly of the First Republic. The more revolutionary and radical types were seated on the left of the chamber, with the more conservative elements seated on the right).
https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
Exactly, "collectivism" by any other names.
Trying to link the NAZI ideology and "The Right" is a never-ending left wing pursuit by the Democratic Marxist Socialists as well as the current and "former' Communists world wide.
We should expend some thought on why?
Oh there's no mystery as to why.
People forget that in the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis were not perceived as the monsters we have since come to regard them as being. The British aristocracy of the time was rather taken with Hitler's authoritarianism (there's an intriguing video clip of Edward VIII after his abdication mimicking the Nazi salute as a wave to a crowd of Germans during a visit to Nazi Germany). One reason the nation of Israel almost HAD to be created in the British Mandate of Palestine (i.e., the "Holy Land"), was because the uncomfortable truth of European history is that the Nazis' ideology of ethnonationalism and anti-Semitism was rather well received from France to Poland. (France, remember, was the country that sentenced a Jewish officer--Alfred Dreyfus--to life imprisonment on Devil's Island rather than acknowledge that his superior was in fact the one who was guilty of espionage and potentially treason).
It was only after the horrors of the concentration camps were thrust into the world's collective consciousness that the liberal elites grasped just how badly they had misjudged the situation (not that they repented of their affections for Hitler, only that the global opprobrium meant they had to quickly cover their tracks), and so post WW2 authoritarianism magically become conflated with "right wing" monarchism (the conservative political tradition in Europe at the time).
However, an understanding of monarchism reveals that it is distinctly different from authoritarianism, for in nearly every European monarchy, the tradition of the monarch being beholden to a larger comprehension of law dates back to well before the signing of the Magna Carta.
True authoritarians, from Oliver Cromwell onward, have generally rejected the structural limitations of monarchy (which is the likely reason Cromwell himself preferred to be "Lord Protector" of England rather than "King Oliver I" of England--as monarch he would be subject to all the traditions and restrictions attendant upon the Crown at the time).
You can trace the arc of thought among notional "elites" all the way back to Plato's "Republic", wherein the idea of a meritocratic rule by "experts" was first articulated within Western Thought. Roughly one hundred years later, the First Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, would build his rule on the Chinese principles of Legalism, which, broadly speaking, made the permanent administrative State the moral arbiter in all things.
Show me an intellectual elite and I'll show you a fanatical authoritarian who truly believes he has the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. It's been that way literally for millennia.
BRAVO
Peter, you are unusually well informed, perceptive and your view or analysis of past events is a welcome breath of fresh and free air.
Thank you, Sir!
I'm a history geek. I read about this stuff for fun.
(And then I write about it on Substack!)
You should "double down."
Just kidding, you work load and production are inspiring as well as sharp as a new razor.
Believe it or not, it's only "work" in the sense that I self identify as an "independent journalist" (I don't think that requires its own pronouns--although I'm never in step with political correctness so I might be mistaken there).
Truthfully....it's fun! :D
"The Truth Is Out There."
You just have to let go of your personal 'investments' and emotional connections to "see it."
" For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." -- Matthew, 16:25