Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00453)

LMH III wrote:

>A further clarification between Left and Right:
>
>The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity
>of the
>the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the
>vanguard
>of the proletariat).

Vanguard of the proletariat?  Uh, excuse me, that's communism, more
specifically, Leninism.  Lenin is now pushing up daisies, as is his philosophy.

And your statement "glorification of the majority and an elitism" is an
oxymoron in itself - the two are incompatible.

Elitism?  Pardon again, but that is conservatism's theory.  Conservatives
buy into the "irrational" concept of humanity - you know, the "gifted few"
should rule the masses because the masses are incapable of ruling themselves.

>The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal
>independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual
>(as versus the collective).

The Right doesn't entirely buy into that. The left buys into it, though -
they just think that it applies to ALL people, not just a few.  The left
believes in freedom for all, free and FAIR enterprise; private property
(again, FAIR opportunity for all to own homes and personal property);
respect for tradition (the right is very, very choosy about who's tradition
is to be preserved - multiculturalism doesn't sit well with conservatives);
- and, uh, excuse me here again - the "Right" thinks community is superior
to individuals - they believe in the "organic" (society as a unit) state,
not "atomism" (society as individuals) which the left ascribes to.

It is not uncommon for the Right to steal the Left's ideas and claim them as
their own.  'Tis, perhaps, a fault of Lefties, being so big-hearted and all,
to go ahead and let them.

>We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through
>the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve
>individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an
>amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a
>condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of
>Evolution.

Clever attempt at trying to weave the 'divine wisdom' into something to back
up your claims.  However, the bloopers are abundant.


Kym