A short overview of Left – Right Politics and Sociology
(subtitled "An individualist’s survival manual")
by Peter Rayfield-Staniek

It is obvious that many volumes of literature have been and will be devoted to this subject as well as to many of all its constituent parts – so large that whole buildings can be filled to the rafters with same. So why am I attempting to cut through all this thought in a few short pages ? Well, it simply occurred to me that a short synopsis may be a helpful catalyst for some – either for every day purposes or to inspire further and deeper study.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding let me first define some terminology and principles in the context of this presentation – at least as it is presently applied:



Left = liberal, socialist, larger government, permissiveness (gay rights, etc), the contradiction of
political correctness, collective rights ranking above individual rights, environmental
issues, legal restrictions on freedom of expression in order not to arouse offense, etc.
- positive aspects: encouraging creative potential and the development of a caring
consideration for our fellow man and all environment
- negative aspects: arrogance, judgmental, vindictiveness, dictatorial, utopian, agnostic,
large government bureaucracies
- extreme aspects: when this point is reached and all sensibilities are gone, liberalism
becomes a mental illness (I believe we may have just about reached that stage)

Right = conservative, free enterprise, smaller government, freedom of expression, individual
rights ranking above collective rights, social restraint, etc.
- positive aspects: protection, free spirited, entrepreneurial, respect for tradition,
supportive of all responsible religions
- negative aspects: non-imaginative, encrusted, engendering greed and exploitation,
disinterest in exploration for better alternatives
- extreme aspects: fascist dictatorships

First principle: A democracy cannot solve any problems efficiently (in fact, in most cases it will make them worse).

Second principle: Support the lesser evil (i.e. one of the presently available options instead of some impossibly idealistic goals) – this, if rigorously practiced would not have allowed our system to be part of the dumbing down of society on all levels over the last 50 years to its present state of ignorance, financial duplicity and decadence.

Third principle: System Dynamics – the system will resist any attempt at changing its behaviour; the more you push, the more it will resist – until critical mass has been reached. This applies to almost everything.

Our oppositional politics are the outcropping of a misplaced belief in democracy through voting within a system of established political parties. This system at first grew out of individuals promoting their ideas to the voting public and it was not long before people who supported the various viewpoints gathered together in antagonistic groups and which then coalesced into official parties and gradually but relatively quickly became entrenched into a system we now refer to as democracy with all its sacred cows. While this system is admittedly very clumsy and inefficient it is still assumed to be the only and best system in the light of all others (this is indeed unfortunate because it is purely based on one of Churchill’s comments which was taken out of context).

The belief here is that since the aristocratic elites were done away with, citizens will have freedom of choice to collectively make the right decisions and any necessary corrections could be made by means of the following election (… to live happily ever after …) – Well, as most of us by now know, this picture is far from the truth and fact is that the most horrendous mistakes and corruptions continue to take place and mostly at the expense of the general population whom it was at first thought to be benefit most. – Most western countries kept rushing into that direction and no thought was given to perhaps improve the system further and develop it somewhat more intelligently. But, lest I stray from the essence of my thoughts, this subject is here not under review.

It is self-evident that no one man nor one group or party has the complete or perfect answers to any given situation nor is the opposite the case that anyone of the opposite viewpoint, be that an individual or a party will be completely wrong or stupid; however, since we became entrenched in opposition politics intelligent consensus is rarely attempted and the fortunes of all aspects of a country wax and wane in accordance with the success or failure of the established parties and their outreach arms (the media) to indoctrinate a public incapable of comprehending the complexities of the issues on hand – by that it is not to be inferred that the politicians understand the issues any better, only that they have arbitrarily chosen their positions in order to sound convincing to themselves and to the public at large. Being charismatic and sounding “as if” one has a grasp of the situation is usually sufficient in achieving these results and so we seem to be stuck in a situation where the blind are leading the blind or at best where the one-eyed ones are king.

Shameful indeed – as most situations would require full consciousness and a clear vision from both eyes (in fact, a third eye if available would indeed be most helpful ….) – and as King Solomon already stated “where there is no vision, the people parish”.

So how did we get into this mess or better still, how do we get out of it ? Unfortunately, we won’t get out of it in the short run – but for the long run there are indeed some survival methods available to investigate and to review, particularly for individuals or small groups – but we need first to come to grips with how to swim in the present morass.

While 'Left and Right' ought to be in essence the two sides of the same coin, in the reality of present day politics this is always a shoddy compromise between the two and so it is important to always support the lesser evil and not reaching for too idealistic an outcome as such goals are not attainable. – Also, what needs to be avoided and where most of us make the mistake is to throw their support lock, stock and barrel to one side or the other instead of weighing each issue very carefully – as we have stated in the beginning, nobody or no party has the right answers on all issues (often parties have and will continue to hijack any issue that appeals to them or their supporters at the moment and this issue may indeed be the correct one – but as we have become psychologically positioned to one side or the other, this contradiction often escapes the best of us).

To begin with it is best to investigate the psychology of mankind, both individually and collectively and we will see that essentially we still have the mark of the tribe in us (and correctly so) at the same time we have learned to also identify with a larger context such as a nation and some even with the world at large and beyond – all these facets need to be psychologically harmonized and honed into functional tools so that we can individually and collectively evolve – while we still have to take our cue from a position of ‘harmony through conflict’ – and by conflict, I do not (necessarily) mean violence. Conflict is usually a very useful catalyst to unhinge entrenched comfort and resistance to progress but once unhinged it can become a very effective tool to investigate and experiment towards the next level of achieved synthesis (conflict resolution) – providing both sides of a conflict (within ourselves or without) are willing to rise to the challenge. Obviously this latter thought is as yet not possible within the context of our oppositional and competitive politics.

1) Free enterprise (I don’t like the term capitalism) versus socialist interference: This is a primary problem area frequently under discussion, and one which produced the initial social confrontations. - In order to arrive at a suitable tool with which to approach this subject it would be best to investigate the human being first as an individual – and I assume to be in agreement with most readers to assign to man and woman a certain streak of in-built survival to perform any task to the best of their abilities and to be rewarded for same by either good trade or good wages. If we were properly trained by our parents or the collective consciousness (the tribe) this would be the proper mode of functioning for most individuals – on the other hand if we were used to handouts from the beginning of our lives, then there would be little incentive for us to produce on our own and our qualities for survival or at best the ability to make a contribution to the collective would atrophy. This therefore would tell us that socialist interference in this area is psychologically as well as sociologically counter-productive (the recent events in Greece come here to mind). Individuals should nevertheless be free to function in a voluntary community, such as a kibutz, which is akin to a modern tribe. Also, we are indeed our brothers keepers and so support systems from insurance companies or governments for temporary assistance program (unemployment, sickness, etc) should be encouraged as they also reflect part of our tribal inheritance – and so are worker protection programs. All other forms of seemingly excessive socialist measures are to be avoided at all costs as they are not part of the psychology of mankind – no matter what any party is attempting to promote in order to access the voters ear. (Collective bail outs of companies or whole industries fall into the same category).

2) Religion: I hope again that I have the agreement of the reader that this is an area that has all throughout history always been at first approached through individuals adhering to some teaching with respect to their metaphysical essences (souls) and how they should consequently interact with their fellow men. Since most were advocating good and solid values such should be encouraged – the mistakes were made when an organized structure was built around such teachings with possible external controls and acceptance of such by the rulers of tribes and countries and subsequently imposed collectively on the population at large – present day governments of any kind still practicing such methodology are actually counter productive to the religious and psychological spirit of mankind. It is also necessary to appreciate that humanity has evolved through many religious and political systems that were suitable for its time and place which may or may not be any longer applicable to our present stage of development. Such would and does indeed become a problem when some may still think that such is appropriate and the only way to assess the correctness of same is to see whether this is achieved only by means of rigid control of the population or through violent exportation of its ideology – in which case they become political and sociological pariahs on the world scene and aught to be dealt with accordingly. You may ask the question as to how to do this and I will answer with a counter question ‘How do you deal with delinquent behaviour of a child or adult in general ? The answer that you will give to this question will also be the answer to the previous question. To summarize, all governments are to stay out of religious matters as long as the community and population maintains its harmony – all interference of such by various groups ought to be promptly dispatched with. (This should not interfere with thorough scientific investigations into space and for that matter into the consequent research of appropriate levels on the subject of metaphysics).

3) Tradition and social values: Under the rule of not doing undue harm to any individual or animal, none should be subjected to undue legal interference with their desired social interactions (the government should stay out of the bedrooms of the people) – however, in order to respect all traditions in general (and I do realize that stupidity is also a tradition of mankind) any behaviour that crassly falls outside traditional norms should not be encouraged while preserving the freedom of the individual – thus, it would make logical sense to have decriminalized gay lifestyles and it should not be allowed to castigate people who choose to practice such a lifestyle – on the other hand it ought not to be permissible to encourage such behaviour and most certainly not to legalize same in terms of gay marriage (as this would interfere with the traditional and natural concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman – and society has been favouring such bonding in order to substantiate the family and the procreation of the species – whether or not such an arrangement is of a kind or loving nature is not the business of the government). – Pornography: Not so long ago, any publication of such nature were disallowed even in all so-called democratic countries – at the risk of disintegrating the existing moral standards; such caution has fallen by the wayside and is unfortunately now only practiced in more regimented countries such as China on one hand and Singapore on the other.

4) Immigration: We don’t need more cab drivers or gas station attendants ! Also, the cold war is over – so no more refugees please, individual exemptions upon review. Still, let’s not even doubt for a moment, there are plenty of people willing to come to our shores who will work in our country on our terms – so let’s define our terms (and not in language of some airy-fairy, multi-culti rubbish) and only invite those individuals who are willing to do just that – all others can stay where they are and those who are already here and complain about something or other, let’s offer them the freedom to return to their place of origin – and we’ll pay their return fare. (So you should know: I’m only dreaming …..)

5) Foreign Relations: Priority must be given to our war effort … what am I talking about ? Are we at war with some country or region ? Well, yes indeed ! (and I am not speaking about Afghanistan). Just in case it has escaped your attention, we are involved in a civilizational survival war, declared or otherwise – one that will be of much greater consequences for our future than any previous wars this country volunteered to fight. The self-declared enemy is international Islamo-Fascist Jihadism – and the enemy is already within our country. Can we win this war ? In theory, if our (the forces of the dedicated West and its allies) hearts and minds were in the right place this war would be over within two years. Unfortunately, such will not be the case – my predictions are that it will be long and drawn out and our people will not have the resilience and awareness to fight for their survival – perhaps the US, Canada and Australia will be spared the final catastrophe – but ultimately the enemy will have won. Thereafter, a new energy will sweep the world and Islamo-Fascism will either collapse from within or from the strong and unquestioning will of the Chinese forces who by that time will have realized who the real enemy is – and they will not have our qualms in confronting it – remember Tian’anmen Square !

6) Freedom: Ultimate freedom here on earth is an illusion. When we speak about freedom in our context, which by its nature is always 'relative', we consequently ought to mean 'relative freedom'. Therefore, any consideration in this arena would consequently depend on the given context and thus any reference to such would need to be explained within a specific frame in order to further expand its relevant thoughts.

7) Equality and intelligence: Since we live in a relative world we are all only relatively equal and relatively intelligent – which means that in actual terms we are all unequal and have different levels of intelligence. That being the case, it would not make much sense to allow any high quality work of human endeavour to be performed by a person of a lesser intelligence than is required for such performance. This presumably having been agreed upon, it naturally follows that we are all at different levels of intelligence – and therefore, using our political voting system as an example it would behoove us either to understand that the outcome of any election would thus only represent the level of the intelligence of the average citizen – which therefore must be fairly low and most certainly inadequate to elect the best people to run the government – at least as seen from the perspective of voter intelligence.

8) Human Rights: This is an area I am not very familiar with and I would invite others to make their contributions as with all other parts to this tract. - Yes indeed, all human being have the right to earn a living in dignity according to their capabilities – also each one ought to be responsible for his share to the greater whole. Rights must be balanced with responsibilities.


Conclusion:

While the left (liberal) and right (conservative) aspect in a government ought to be functioning in harmony and balance like the tail and head of a coin – this, unfortunately, has proven to be illusionary within the context of competing parties in a democracy in the long run; Switzerland being the exception that proves the rule – but then again it is not a democracy like any other, and it could be used as a hybrid model on which to develop a republican governmental system that takes the presently competing liberal/conservative aspects into account and institutionalizes the interests of the population indirectly through the presently existing professional guilds of a country (professional associations, labour unions, academe, etc) within the framework of a constitution. (This will then be the natural successor and akin to a tribal government by the elected elders and lead to a non-dictatorial system that will fulfill the needs of a population in war and peace).

This brings me to the end of my tract and I hope some of you will be able to expand further on the various subjects under consideration. That I am at this stage of the worlds situation (particularly in the West) generally supporting in most cases (but not all) the Right as the lesser evil, is perhaps known to most readers – I would just like to mention that I am doing so out of my firm believe that Liberalism has reached the state of mental illness. A temporary support of the conservative side will be important in cushioning the ultimate collapse of a decayed and degenerated political structure and enable the rising of the Phoenix. - However, theoretically I can also understand that someone else of sincere and intellectual disposition (but naïve credentials) will choose the other side as his lesser evil (President Obama, et al and their supporters comes here to mind – most of them being of thoughtless opinion or still in their psychological ”Sturm und Drang” state – and this in the face when a solid case could readily be made for dismantling most every facet of our encrusted present political and social institutions).

To better days – in some unforeseen future - FIN