[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: The Two Boots of Authoritarianism The Two Boots of Authoritarianism By Gary Lloyd Mainstream political pundits waste endless amounts of time and effort condemning, criticizing, and categorizing one political movement or another as right-wing or left-wing. The merits (or otherwise) of one "wing" over another are a point of never-ending obsession with reporters, academics, and similar self-proclaimed experts. Supposedly, right-wingers are "for" the elitists and trend toward fascism: top- down control over an oppressed and helpless common people who are prevented from reaching their true potential. Supposedly, left-wingers are "for" the common people and trend toward socialism: top-down control to ensure equality amongst all people, even the elite. Like most mainstream discussions these days, such distinctions exist to provide only an illusion of true differentiation, whilst the underlying similarities (and therefore the points of legitimate concern) are ignored or dismissed. Thus the appearance of constructive debate is maintained while more fundamental issues remain almost completely unrecognized. What the mainstream media conveniently forgets is that inevitably, both right and left wing ideologies, taken to their logical conclusions, converge toward the same objective of totalitarianism - regardless of those ideological origins. This is because in order to enforce a stated objective, both fascism and socialism must exert greater and greater control over a nation's finances and social policies. In the end, the only difference is the label used to justify the force-backed oppression. Both socialism and fascism have the same ultimate objective of controlling people at the expense of their individual rights. Those who doubt this should be reminded that the traditionally condemned archetype for a fascist state was none other than Nazi Germany and paradoxically, the term "Nazi" comes from the name of Hitler's political machine "The National Socialist Party". Whether a dictator or a comrade, leaders of both wings aspire to the same Big Brother ideal. Therefore theleft-wing/right- wing two dimensional distinction is ultimately useless in attempting to define a political ideology and the evolution of a party (or candidate). A much better way to examine politics is to orient political ideologies along a state control/individual control axis. In other words, which entity (government or individual) has the most power under the prevailing regime? At one extreme of this new spectrum would be Big Brother's dream State of perfect government control over every conceivable action committed by the individuals under its power - in other words, unmitigated totalitarianism. At the other extreme would be a non-existent state where each individual is left to fend for himself/herself and construct his/her own code of conduct and law - in other words, complete anarchy. Now we have a reference point by which we can measure the "protection" offered by a political ideal vs. the "freedom" offered by the ideal. Maximum protection results in minimal freedom (and privacy), since the perfect high-security state is one in which Big Brother knows everything. In a free society unencumbered by the state, an individual has few if any state-backed emergency resources to utilize in an emergency, therefore there is little protection available. All political ideologies can be plotted somewhere along the state control/individual control axis. Libertarianism is without a doubt the one closest to complete individual control, and totalitarian regimes such as the ones imposed by Stalin or Mao would lie very close to the complete state control point. However, a problem arises when trying to compare ideologies with different types (but similar levels) of state intervention into personal affairs. This is most apparent when trying to evaluate the relative merits of conservatism vs. liberalism. In other words, the traditional argument of right wing vs. left wing. To accomodate such a distinction, we can add another dimension to our existing "straight line" definition measuring protection against freedom. Imagine a two-by-two matrix turned on its corner. In other words, a box divided internally into four smaller squares and turned 45 degrees so that it resembles a diamond. In the top square, write "Totalitarianism: High Degrees of State Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy." Examples: Soviet Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Communist China, and Communist Cuba. In the left hand square, write "Liberalism: High Degree of State Control Over Financial Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Social Policy." Examples: continental Europe. In the right hand square, write "Conservatism: High Degree of State Control Over Social Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Financial Policy." Examples: USA, Singapore. In the bottom square, write: "Libertarianism: Low Degrees of State Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy." Examples: No known libertarian countries at this time. Now we have a convenient picture onto which all political ideologies can be mapped, including the all-important "state control vs. individual control" variable. Just because a particular country may fall into (for example) the Conservative square does not mean it is identical to all other countries in that square, i.e. Singapore does not equal the US. They could both be plotted as different "points" within the Conservative square. And needless to say, those "points" are not fixed in place, but change position as a country's political ideology evolves. Most readers of this newsletter would heartily agree that the US is steadily sliding up and towards the left of the Conservative square, seemingly hell-bent on making the crossover to the odious Totalitarian square unless halted by more moderate forces. In fact, the worldwide trend right now seems to be that nations are steadily creeping upwards towards the "ideal" of total top- down control by the State. This is most disturbing to those of us who prize individual freedom and liberty, but there is one great hope. In opposition to "Totalitarian Creep" is the Internet. Of course, cyberspace is not true "nation", but it is nevertheless a large grouping of individuals with some common roots (which is close enough to be considered a "nation" for the purposes of this discussion). And of course the Internet is about as Libertarian a nation as is likely to exist anywhere, despite the efforts of certain control-minded governments in France, China, the Middle East, and other areas to restrict its content. So will the official dogma of "Big Brother is good for you!" win the day, or will the freewheeling Internet's explosive growth and dynamism (itself a testament to the power of individual freedom) be too much for the Statists to handle? We suspect that matters will get worse before they get better, largely because of the misinformation campaign waged by the Establishment to further its goals. Certainly one small weapon that could be used against this campaign is the willingness of political commentators to use the 2 X 2 Political Matrix in place of their idiotic and pointless Right vs. Left arguments. If the matrix picture is deemed too difficult to explain to a dumbed down population, using the simpler axis of State Control vs. Individual Control would at least be a far superioralternative than a right-left discussion that is ultimately meaningless. Those following the US election should realise that neither of the two major parties are oriented toward a lower level of State control. They are merely using different labels as they proceed upon the path of "Totalitarian Creep." Having said that, the Republicans are creeping more slowly than the Democrats (perhaps buying the freedom and liberty-minded a little more time), but ultimately it will all be the same unless they are stopped by an enlightened and motivated population. As goes the US, so goes the world, in our opinion. We are long-term very hopeful about the future of freedom and liberty, but we suspect that darker days are ahead in the short term. This is why we at Offshore Destiny are speaking out so strongly against Big Brother. We would like to believe (and empower our readers to believe) that together we can either diminish or shorten the Dark Age of Government Oppression before the eventual Renaissance and approaching Golden Age of Freedom. http://www.destinyuniversity.org [Destiny University is the educational arm of Destiny Worldwide Associates Foundation.] Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|