Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Left and Right

Concerning what everyone knows, or should know, about politics, the game of life, and the important role of lies and deception.

Left–right politics:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties.

The left/right duality seems baked into the White psyche. It springs, I think, from an Old European instinct for egalitarianism and Aryan instinct for hierarchy.

Rather than a synthesis of these essential instincts, producing an orderly movement forward, Whites are instead polarized and divided by jewish influence, resulting in a disorderly shuffle toward oblivion.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

7 Responses

  1. Markus

    The Jews were all for equality when the Aryan nobility had privileges over them, but are constantly repeating their chosen destiny when possible, now that they dominate.

    They are still in quasi-hiding but it is clear that they are just a little more equal than the rest of us.

  2. Armor

    Half our ancestors belonged to the old European stock of hunters-gatherers who later became farmers. They had an egalitarian mindset. Then, they were invaded by the Aryans, who raised cattle and believed in hierarchy and slavery. The Aryans, who brought the Indo-European languages, are the second half of our ancestors.

    So, we have both Aryan genes and old European genes, and it could explain the coexistence of two different mindsets among white people, one of them old European and leftist, the other one Aryan and rightist.

    The problem with that theory is that Nordic Europeans, who are supposed to be more Aryan than Southern Europeans (it says so here) seem more inclined to leftism and egalitarianism than Southern Europeans. For example, Sweden and England have probably more crazy radical feminists than France, Spain and Italy. If the Swedes are more Aryan, you would expect them to be less inclined to leftism.

  3. Agreed. Apparently either the hierarchical tendency is not so rooted in Aryan biology, or Nordics are not all that biologically Aryan. I think instead the underlying biological tendencies are moderated and even overcome by other factors.

    For example, even Aryans may tend toward egalitarianism where they are relatively outbred and homogenous, whereas hierarchy arises where the populace is more heterogenous, e.g. where Aryans conquered but remained a minority.

    Also, let’s not forget the jews, whose “conquest” and dominance are furtive. Much of what is credited to native Nordic egalitarianism is actually virulence – the harmful product of poisonous parasitic influence. Propagandized memes can and do overcome genes.

  4. Nick Dean

    Nice show. I posted a comment somewhere or other recently that agreed with one of your points:

    … our peoples have been divided right vs left, pretty much right down the middle for generations now. What better evidence could there be that the right/left polarity is precisely a well-crafted tactic of a divide and conquer strategy? When fully half the population rejects either the right or the left on sight then neither can be any good for society as a whole and nationalists, by definition concerned with the people as a whole, should speak over that petty, divisive discussion. / end

    I read two posts at counter-current today (by Andrew Hamilton and Jack Donovan), that quite needlessly (and falsely) kept harping on the leftist origin of all they were complaining about. When they are complaining about anti-White programs it’s silly to try and blame an expressly universalist philosophy, much more sensible is to look at other ethnic groups.


    I’m not at all convinced by this Old European/Aryan hypothesis to explain right/left characteristics. However you would break right and left down I think those attitudes and tendencies will be found across all ethnic groups, including of course within Old Europeans and Aryans (I find it hard to imagine slavery did not exist among the Old Europeans or that egalitarians were unknown among Aryans – whoever they were). These both seem to me to be human universals. We have a human nature that is much more wide and deep and than any supposed ethnic specific characteristic.

  5. Nick Dean

    On lying and deception and subterfuge, I like this from Kocku von Stuckrad (Ed.), The Brill Dictionary of Religion [Revised edition of Metzler Lexikon Religion edited by Christoph Auffarth, Jutta Bernard and Hubert Mohr, translated from the German by Robert R. Barr] (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006):

    1. Secrecy as an Evolutionary Strategy
    Secrecy is a strategy developed by evolution, in the case of beast and human alike within the biological food chain, that attains an elevated degree of individual opportunities and possibilities for survival and reproduction by way of the accumulation of various informational prospects. The person or animal with a successful disguise does not become prey, the one that hides his/her/its food survives times of want, the creature of restrained impulses and hidden intents can secretly dodge competitors for nourishment, sexual partners, and territory, and the one that protects progeny to the third generation ensures the safe transport of her/his/its genes. The greater the concealment and silence vis-à-vis the competing side (‘information reduction’), or the more that that side is deceived and ‘tricked’ (‘disinformation’), the greater the chances of reproduction on one’s own side. A shortcoming with regard to secrecy can mean death. Fear and triumph, therefore, are the constant companions of secrecy. The invisibility of one is the insecurity of the other.

    2. Human Secrecy: Intelligence
    a) Double-Coded Secret Signs
    The basis of all of these phenomena is that, through cultural evolution, the human brain has become specialized in the practice of signs, and in intelligent, secretive ways of dealing with reality. Signs stand for something that, in itself, is invisible, insensible, and inaudible. Olfactory, optical, and acoustical behavior, in the sense of positing markers, here forms the evolutionary basis, but is the prisoner of the materiality of things. Only the achievement of a transformation from the openly communicative marking to the exclusive secret sign sparks the evolutionary breakthrough. In order to introduce the sign durably and reliably, a practice of secrecy, by means of a positing of signs, must represent the absent, secret thing in the present sign in such wise that it is double-coded — coded as an ‘open secret sign.’ All see or hear the sign; however, only some recognize, know, and take charge of that which the sign indicates (wild game depicted on rocks, the early Christian fish symbol, the Zen garden).

    b) Co-Evolution of Secrecy and Revelation
    Simultaneous esoteric and exoteric secrecy arouses not only the curiosity and craving of the excluded, but also the temptation of a profitable betrayal. The dynamic co-evolution of secrecy and revelation, thus launched, has today produced several tamper-resistant strategies of secrecy:
    • Semantic double-coding, in word and image, divides reality into a visible-and-real world and an invisible-and-virtual one. (→ masks, whizzing-sticks, bread and wine in cults of life-renewal; allegories and the narration of parables in speech and writing).
    • Performative initiation and introduction that make the individual a member of a closed chain (years-long rites of initiation in men’s associations and brotherhoods; exclusive teacher-pupil and master-disciple relations; trials of courage).
    • Unexaminable vehicles of information, such as ancestors, dreams, visions, divination, omens, oracles, miracles, and charms (→ Esotericism; Occultism).
    • Unverifiable histories (narratives of → origin, ascensions to heaven, after-death reports and near-death experiences, eschatological histories and → apocalypses).
    • Magical secret rituals that can be successful only when held without witnesses (→ Voodoo cults, spiritual alchemy, black → magic).
    • Secret cults that render secrecy an immediate, ecstatic, and extraordinary experience of wholeness (ancient → mystery cults, Australian → Aborigines’ corroborees).
    • Hierarchical structures, in which the organization’s secret can be known and used only by the invisible master-superior (certain Rosicrucian groups, the “Esoteric Section” of the → Theosophical Society, Opus Dei, → Scientology).
    • Transformation of the—as yet—unknown or unknowable to the status of the ‘secret’ (mysteries of faith; promises of revelation; speculations on cosmology or on the theory of evolution; TV cult-series “The X-Files”).
    • Self-reliance and independence, which keep nothing secret except this fact (traffic in secrets; esoteric mania for betraying secrets; many secret societies after the abandonment of their original purpose of their organization, e.g., German Masonic Lodges in the nineteenth century).

    These forms of secrecy are characteristic of all religions. They function on the principle that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Only those in control of the whole are in charge of the secret. Individual participants in the secret, integrated but subordinate, cannot destroy the operational force of the secrecy. In the extreme case, the secret becomes a mystery of faith, and of self-bewitching imagination, impenetrable to all.

    3. Of such elements, religious acts build up a world invisible and out of reach, a world of the spiritual and believed, an ‘otherwise world,’ a ‘world behind,’ behind the world of outward facts and conditions. Secrecy protects and immunizes this second world, which determines life here and hereafter, together with the well-being of those who deal with the world of secrecy. The unequal chances for life and well-being, presented this way in gerontocracies, caste societies, patriarchates, or other forms of government has, as a rule, very stable credibility. It makes religions the connective tissue of human socialization. A self-reflexive piety of silence, and falling silent, can, on the contrary, become the catalyst and motor of cultural evolution, or make survival possible in an environment of deadly enemies (Jewish and Christian → gnosticism; Taquia and Sufi brotherhoods [→ Sufism]; ‘Marranos’).

    [For me, the final paragraph is remarkable coming from an academic dictionary – ND:)

    4. The world’s retransformation into an enchanted garden of occultism and esotericism, parliamentarily uncontrollable bank secrets, and new enchantment at the hands of the media, is at full speed. In this situation, secrecy still deserves the self-reflexive elucidation of who it is who produces which secrets, in what situation and against whom, for what reason and to what end, and how and by means of what procedure or operation. / endquote

  6. Armor

    A few ideas about left and right…

    As Tan said, the opposition between left and right works like this :

    leftist mentality / rightist mentality

    novelty & change / tradition
    urban living, cities / countryside
    hope & dream / pragmatic & realistic
    marxism / fascism
    . . .

    It is also said that the leftist mentality is more feminine, and the rightist mentality more masculine.

    We know that leftism is encouraged by school and the media. But it doesn’t explain why, now and then, we find a real hard-core leftist in our own families, just like sometimes, some parents are surprised to find that their new born child is a redhead. So, maybe the leftist mindset is partly in the genes. But I think that only few people are real leftists. In the population, there isn’t a regular continuum from right to left with half the people on the right and half of them on the left. Rather, I think most people are conservatives, and a small minority is “leftist”, with a markedly different mindset. I think the real leftists are less than 10% of the population, but it is difficult to tell a natural-born leftist from someone who simply goes along with what the media preaches.

    I don’t think that support for immigration can be in the genes of leftist people. There is no reason we cannot find leftists who want to defend the white lower class, and who strongly disagree with the race-replacement program. We need them on our side. A century ago, very few leftists would have agreed with our replacement with non-whites. But race replacement is now the main element in the Jewish political program, and the Jews are the backbone of the institutional left.

    Even though the leftists are a minority, it seems that everything in our public political life proceeds from the left. In fact, it is the Jewish media that gets to define everyone else on the political spectrum. So, they classify anyone who stands against race-replacement as right-wing, far-right, nazi, racist, supremacist, evil.

    I agree with this comment made by Thomas Bertonneau, on the Brussels Journal blog (2010) :

    May I contribute a paradox to the debate? A self-described rightist and reactionary, I actually believe that there is no such thing as “the right.” Rather “the right” is a delusion – a projection, as Jung used to say – of the Left. What the Left calls “the right” is, as I put it in my previous post, merely the “vast heterogeneous category” of ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people who want to live their inoffensive lives unmolested by righteous saints. Manichaean divisions belong to the socio-pathology of fanatics – and the non-Left is the same thing as the non-fanatic, the pluralist, and those who participate in the continuous one-on-one negotiations of the market.

    My own opinion is that the right is simply made of normal people with the most common mindset. Opposition to immigration isn’t right-wing, it is a matter of common sense. Being called right-wing is like being called antisemite. It is like firemen being called anti-arsonist. Actually, the problem isn’t anti-arsonism.

    I disagree with Bertonneau’s comment on one point: the problem doesn’t exactly come from the left. It comes from the Jewish-dominated FAR-LEFT. And in fact, the far-left doesn’t even belong to the left. The left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and egalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the “far-left” that controls the media isn’t compassionate. The Jews don’t care about equality. Their motivation is racial and anti-white.

    Just like right-wing voters, most people who vote for the left are ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people. I don’t think that voting for the left is in their genes. Most of them probably vote for the left because they believe it is in their financial interest to do so. And most of them are against immigration. Or if they are stupid, they may agree with immigration, out of conformism and sympathy for the immigrants, but they still disagree with race-replacement.

    The Jews have assembled very different types of people in their left-wing coalition. Some of them are real leftists, some are simply thugs who like to practice intimidation. Some others are Jews, which means they don’t have the same motivations as White liberals.

    I like this excerpt of a speech by Jonathan Bowden :

    Now Marxists on the whole form two camps in my mind, politically and ideologically. In all Marxist groups you get the rather weak, pacifistic, loving, humanistic people. The vicar’s daughter who believes human nature isn’t . . . right. If only we could be nicer to each other, if only we could spread more love. You get these people always in ultra left and communist groups, and next to them on the podium, next to them in the auditorium, [are] your utterly nihilistic, ruthless, virtually criminal types who want to use the structure of power when they get it to crush those underneath them, don’t give a damn about ideology, and are actually amongst the most misanthropic people you could ever meet. And you have these extremes of the innocent lovey and the sort of sadistic amoralist in the same group.

    That’s why when a Communist regime comes in they have enormous purges because they have to start by purging their own, to get rid of all the idiots! (…)

    It is remarkable how effectively the Jews manipulate the White leftist minority. White people with natural leftist tendencies are not naturally anti-White, but they seem very suggestible. They are bombarded with Jewish propaganda through the schools and the media, and there is no counter-propaganda by the right. People who go along with the Jews are encouraged to see themselves as rebels and really cool people. What they don’t realize is that the Jewish-leftist agenda is being enforced by the largely Jewish government, while the “antifas” are used to intimidate the opposition. How can they be rebels if they are used as an auxiliary police force by the government?

    The truth is that we are ruled by the Jews, not by the leftists. Similarly, I see the French revolution as a series of political coups led by small circles of political activists. Maybe the revolutionaries had a leftist streak, but their main characteristic was ruthlessness. That is how they managed to seize power at the top. As was said by Eustache-Antoine Hua (1759-1836) a member of the French Assembly, “revolutions are achieved by force against the will of the people because boldness tends to carry the day”.

    I think that television and school books still try to maintain the fiction that the French revolutionaries represented the opinion of the left-wing half of the population, as opposed to the right-wing half of the population. Similarly today, we are supposed to believe that the Jewish “liberals” adequately represent the left-wing half of the White population.

    It is only natural that the leaders of the revolution would claim that they represent the left and the oppressed population of the country. What is more surprising is that the monarchy, when it was re-established, did not erase the empty slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity” on the town halls and the schools, and did not ask the new leaders of the left to dissociate themselves from the 1789 head-choppers. The vocabulary of the French revolution is still used today by left-wing politicians, especially the word “citizen”.

    Even in normal times, and in a country without Jews, the main political parties do not really represent the opinion of millions of people. But the French revolutionaries were particularly unrepresentative of the country. Their revolution actually turned into a murderous dictatorship.

    Today, the Jews who rule over the Western countries and head the left-wing institutions are just as unrepresentative of White people and of “left-wing” ideals, since their priority is to replace us with other races. The White leftist minority has been pushed forward and used as a front by the Jews. It gives the impression that the progression of leftism in our society has gradually led to pro-immigration policies being implemented by the government.

    Actually, the mass immigration policy has been imposed on us by the Jewish lobby. And the Jews didn’t get in power thanks to the rising influence of liberalism. They used all kinds of dirty tricks. They bought the media, they bought corrupt politicians, they hid their identities and kept secretly supporting each other… Today, they are in power, and they don’t care what the real leftists think. They have their own people at the head of practically every leftist organization. So, they just speak in the name of the left. And more and more, they also speak in the name of the right. The result is more immigration, even though most people both left and right are against it. So, in the end, today’s disastrous situation is not directly linked to the left. The problem, as said in the podcast, is that the manipulated left/right opposition makes is harder for White nationalists to unite against the anti-White lobby.

  7. Armor

    Tanstaafl: “Much of what is credited to native Nordic egalitarianism is actually virulence – the harmful product of poisonous parasitic influence. Propagandized memes can and do overcome genes.”

    Yes, but the Swedes really seem to be egalitarians. Income equality is greater in Scandinavia than in Southern Europe. Also, we know that the Swedes have a right to go for walks everywhere in the countryside, even on privately owned land. And we don’t really associate Scandinavia with ostentatiousness and the taste of luxury.

© the White network