The Left Has Become the New Right

[TomSea]

The Left Has Become the New Right

November 7, 2016 5:53 am By Michael Devolin

After the death of Jozef Pilsudski in 1935, anti-Semitism increased in Poland and particularly in the universities. Right-wing students attacked Jews and demanded ‘ghetto benches’ in the lecture halls to segregate Jewish students. Although many eminent Polish scholars protested, the situation continued to worsen.” — Samuel D. Kassow, from Who will write our history? (rediscovering a hidden archive from the Warsaw Ghetto)

If orange is the new black, then, if one notices the examples given us by history, the Left has become the new Right. Today, Left-wing students (and in some cases faculty) are leading the way in inciting hatred and violence against Jews in much the same way that Right-wing students incited hatred and violence against Jews in the 1930s. The Right-wing students of yesterday, who demanded “ghetto benches in the lecture halls to segregate Jewish students,” are today the Left-wing thugs who harass Jewish students in the hallways of our universities, blaming them for all the evils in the world, but especially for the statelessness of the so-called Palestinian people.  ...

Continued: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/11/the-left-has-become-the-new-right

[skeeter]

This is why the terms left and right are worthless.

Much more descriptively accurate is statists vs. sovereign individuals. Everything begins to make sense.

[r9etb]

This is why the terms left and right are worthless.

Much more descriptively accurate is statists vs. sovereign individuals. Everything begins to make sense.

I would go with "mob" over "statists" -- because that's what we're really dealing with at street level. 

And you need to add a third class -- those who whip up and give direction to the mobs.

I would also argue against the idea that the mob is necessarily opposed to "sovereign individuals"  (http://www.sovereignlife.com/sovereign-individual.html). From the link, some of the defining characteristics of a "sovereign individual" include:

a belief in the concept of self-ownership; a strong commitment to individual rights; a distrust of political democracy; a market-anarchist or natural order mindset; a belief in the right to financial and personal privacy; a willingness to think and act outside the square - as regards being beholden to existing nation states; an active strategy of banking offshore and using various structures to protect one's assets.

Some of those are very good qualities.  However, experience suggests that "sovereign individuality" is opposed to such necessary virtues as duty to others, and that certain selflessness that is to be found in the better class of statesmen.  One also detects in the description a whiff of the Clintons or Mr. Trump -- not to mention the abysmal silliness of Ayn Rand.  It's only an overarching moral foundation (such as is provided by religion) -- not mentioned and probably not desired -- that prevents those who style themselves "sovereign individuals" from becoming utter bastards. 

Moreover, I'd suggest that those who fancy themselves as "sovereign individuals" are perhaps more susceptible to the temptations of the mob bosses, who are extremely good at playing to the vanity of those who, because they are "sovereign," think themselves better than others.

[skeeter]

I would go with "mob" over "statists" -- because that's what we're really dealing with at street level. 

And you need to add a third class -- those who whip up and give direction to the mobs.

I would also argue against the idea that the mob is necessarily opposed to "sovereign individuals"  (http://www.sovereignlife.com/sovereign-individual.html). From the link, some of the defining characteristics of a "sovereign individual" include:

Some of those are very good qualities.  However, experience suggests that "sovereign individuality" is opposed to such necessary virtues as duty to others, and that certain selflessness that is to be found in the better class of statesmen.  One also detects in the description a whiff of the Clintons or Mr. Trump -- not to mention the abysmal silliness of Ayn Rand.  It's only an overarching moral foundation (such as is provided by religion) -- not mentioned and probably not desired -- that prevents those who style themselves "sovereign individuals" from becoming utter bastards. 

Moreover, I'd suggest that those who fancy themselves as "sovereign individuals" are perhaps more susceptible to the temptations of the mob bosses, who are extremely good at playing to the vanity of those who, because they are "sovereign," think themselves better than others.

 
I realize labels imply black and white, but that in reality ideologies are points on a continuum. I tend towards the individual side, but obviously understand and agree that there is a role for the state. We currently are headed in the other direction fast, and I think the labels are useful in making the case that there is a danger there.

Given the historical record of states with regard to the people they govern I think we're far better off - safer - erring on the sovereign individual side of the line.

And yes, the founders were correct that a republic like our's can be made to work only by a moral and just people. But what other alternative is there?

Don't think I agree at all with your second paragraph. People who value their independence by definition eschew the herd mentality that define mobs.

[skeeter]

I realize labels imply black and white, but that in reality ideologies are points on a continuum. I tend towards the individual side, but obviously understand and agree that there is a role for the state. We currently are headed in the other direction fast, and I think the labels are useful in making the case that there is a danger there.

Given the historical record of states with regard to the people they govern I think we're far better off - safer - erring on the sovereign individual side of the line.

And yes, the founders were correct that a republic like our's can be made to work only by a moral and just people. But what other alternative is there?

Don't think I agree at all with your second paragraph. People who value their independence by definition eschew the herd mentality that define mobs. Its why conservatives, who happen to tend more to the independent side, keep losing at politics, BTW.

[dfwgator]

Students today more resemble the "Red Guards" during Mao's Cultural Revolution.

[r9etb]

Don't think I agree at all with your second paragraph. People who value their independence by definition eschew the herd mentality that define mobs.

That doesn't mean they're not susceptible to being seduced by a demagogue.  One need only look at phenomena such as "hipsterism" or "lumbersexuality" to see how people who wish to express their individuality can be lured into a mob mentality.

The idea that one can unite in smug irony with others of superior intellect ... it's a tremendous temptation. 

[INVAR]

And the New Right is the Old Left, championing those things once only promoted by the Left in the Democrat party.

Now they have a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat who funded and praised publicly - the very people he is now supposedly running against - running on their party ticket as Prez Nominee.  And like trained clapping seals I'm watching and reading them excuse and justify trade and business policies that are to the Left of both Hildabeast and Bernie Sanders.

The people in this country WANT Statism, and only champion individuality when they get what they want or to stick the aberrant in the face of everyone else.

[skeeter]

That doesn't mean they're not susceptible to being seduced by a demagogue.  One need only look at phenomena such as "hipsterism" or "lumbersexuality" to see how people who wish to express their individuality can be lured into a mob mentality.

The idea that one can unite in smug irony with others of superior intellect ... it's a tremendous temptation.

Probably, but then there's no demographic that is exempt from that.

[r9etb]

Probably, but then there's no demographic that is exempt from that.

Agreed.  I guess I'm just cynical about the susceptibilities of those who identify themselves in self-aggrandizing ways. 

[Mod1]

Moved to the "opinion" category.

[goatprairie]

Students today more resemble the "Red Guards" during Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Yes.

[Doug Loss]

This is why the terms left and right are worthless.

Much more descriptively accurate is statists vs. sovereign individuals. Everything begins to make sense.

The article is using the European definitions of "left" and "right."  By our standards, pretty much everyone in Europe is on the left.  To them, "left" means "internationalist socialist," while "right" means "nationalist socialist."  They have no category for individualism, which they'd probably classify as "anarchist" or some such.