Definition of Left and Right
Leftism
starts with envy and covetousness. Covetousness is that someone wants to knock over the apple cart to grab some apples. Envy is he just want to knock over the apple cart because he does not have one.
And, given that there are people who want to knock over the applecart, easier and safer to knock it over as part of a gang. So, priests: Someone comes up with a clever rationalisation why knocking over the applecart is wise, virtuous, and beneficial. Then, from priests, to a priesthood: Leftism gives rise to the left as an organised entity with a hierarchy and an official, though frequently changing, belief system.
What defines the belief system is not the beliefs, which are ever changing, (socialism, redistribution, global warming, sexism, Covidianity, diversity, inclusion, whatever) but that regardless of the what the beliefs supposedly consist of, someone else’s applecart is in the sights.
Leftism is the belief system that supplies rationales for knocking over whichever applecart is currently in the sights of the covetous and envious, it is the priests of that belief system, and
the left
is the priesthood of that belief system.
That the brownshirts were leftists is obvious. Hitler was considerably less left. But what made him still a leftist was National Socialism, and socialism manifested, as always, in shortages.
Price control plus money printing, resulted in food shortages in Germany almost immediately. He then attempted to transfer food from outgroups to ingroups by the command economy. Which meant not only not feeding the Jews but also not feeding the Greeks (who were national socialists) and not feeding the Dutch, who were a remarkable food production powerhouse, not to mention more Aryan than Germans. Which of course shut down food production in Greece, France, and the rest.
Socialism, command economy –> food shortage. So the party winds up making decisions to let people starve. Including the Dutch, who were more Aryan than the Germans and had very impressive food production.
Hitler’s problem, like that of King Louis the sixteenth, and like that of Napoleon, was food. The moral of all these stories and many others is that the state should not mess with the market in food production and distribution, and that if that market is failing, it needs to look after the property rights and personal safety of producers and distributors. The food desert problem in the big blue megalopoli could easily be fixed by shooting a few shoplifters. Public hangings followed by quartering the corpses and leaving the pieces of the bodies outside the shopping centers would also help.
If leftism’s ever changing beliefs are impossible to pin down,
rightism
has no beliefs. Rightism should be the party of order, or at least the party of existing order, but it is the party of applecart owners and people with an emotional attachment to Chesterton’s fence. Its existence is provoked by the party of the left. As a result, conservatives conserve yesterday’s leftism. The party of the left is a priesthood. The party of the right is not a priesthood, nor does it have a priesthood in its pocket. It does not actually have any beliefs to believe in, so it tends to wind up in the pocket of the priesthood of the left, which tends to give rise to the dynamics of the uniparty with an inner party wing, the official party of the left that is always in power even when the outer party happens to have a merely elected majority, and an outer party wing, which is always out of power because even when it is a majority of the merely elected government, it is a small and unpopular minority within the permanent and unelected government, and even if it was not, it would still lack intellectual sovereignty, worshipping at the shrines of the enemy priesthood. The uniparty is in substantial part the result of centralised conspiracy run from Harvard with tentacles in every satrapy of the global American empire, but that conspiracy is working with the natural and spontaneous grain of politics.
