1. Metaphysically, equal in validity, wings
2. But not identical in role. Pedals
3. Left talking about real problems.
4. But sometimes monstrous solutions. Like scamdemic
5. Need the Right to course correct
6. Merely the most accute version. Goes further back. Big technocratic ideas like gnd, a.i., smart cities and 5g wont solve.
7. The what and the how. Not technology. Spirituality.
8. Left more susceptible to the enticements of technocracy.
9. Geopolitical to technological
11. Still listen. Right contributing to it.
The Earth Party presents:
Left And Right
to defeat technocracy
and restore balance to the world.
The Nature of Left and Right
The Earth Party welcomes everyone. From all parts of the spectrum.
Left and Right, near and far, and everything in between.
As long as you're an honest person, and you're willing to hear other people's points of view — you're welcome here.
Whoever is willing to communicate is on Team Good, as far as we're concerned. Regardless of ideology.
A person on the other team,
who's willing to talk to my team,
is better than a person on my team
who isn't willing to talk to the other team.
This is a place for people who want to listen, understand, and communicate with the "other team", and synthesize a solution that incorporates the wisdom of both Left and Right.
If you want to be a peacemaker, then the Earth Party is the place for you.
Left and Right Are
Most people believe that the Left and Right originated in the Jacobin parliament in revolutionary France - and before this, there was no such dichotomy.
But maybe they're more ancient than that.
Perhaps the 18th century was indeed when the idea started to congeal into political institutions and "parties." But what if this wasn't when they were created, but merely when they were identified? What if they were already there?
What if they're equal and complimentary opposites in a metaphysical dichotomy - like the poles of electromagnetism?
We proffer that the Left and Right are not actually political blocs, but rather intrinsic aspects of Consciousness.
At their most basic:
Left is the impetus toward a better world.
And Right is the caution instinct.
Left is the awareness that better is possible.
Right is the instinct to be sure better is actually better.
Left is the gas pedal. Right is the brake pedal.
Without the gas, you can't drive.
Without the brakes, you shouldn't even if you can.
They're each correct about one half of what it means to be a mature civilization.
Left is correct: We do want a better world. We do have problems to fix, and we can fix them, and we will. Our society can be more compassionate, more sustainable, more just, and more free. And everyone has the duty to help as best they can.
Right is also correct: We have to make sure that our solutions are actually the real ones! Otherwise, we could not only fail to solve the problems, but actually make them worse. And create whole new ones too.
The "Answer" is not to make one of them triumph over the other. It's to recognize the necessity of contributions from both to the societal dialogue. Like the wings of a bird, we need the both to fly.
We need the Left because every culture needs a vigorous debate about its problems and shortcomings, and how to fix them. It needs to face its shadows and examine the ways in which it has failed the downtrodden, and strive to improve. To evolve. To become more compassionate, and more free - and to do so in harmony with the ecology of the planet. The Left asserts this discussion, and moves us forward.
And we need the Right too, because sometimes the first solutions we hear about are not actually as smart as they sound. Perhaps they're clever, but not wise.
Just because something is new and different doesn't necessarily mean it's healthy.
Oftentimes, the heart can sense that something's off about an idea, even if the mind fails to come up with words to explain why. The Right is there to press the brakes in case that happens.
We have to think deeply about what kind of change we need, and really think it through - and not just immediately jump on any idea that sounds halfway decent. We've got to addresses the problems at a deep enough level.
This is especially true when facing the enticements of technocracy.
We could be balanced. And for centuries, we were balanced.
We advanced, but we made sure sure we were going in the right direction, and laying the proper foundations for progress, before progressing. We were slow to progress, yet progress we did. Left and Right danced with one another. The Left pushed forward, and the Right kept it at a steady, sustainable pace, steering clear of potholes.
But eventually the balance was disturbed, by a force called technocracy.
Technocracy threw an extra, complicating factor into the mix. It offers false solutions to problems They're not just "mistakes," but deliberate corruptions, with intention behind them.
Technocracy has an agenda - an agenda to advance itself - and it takes advantage of anyone and anything available, in the furtherance of that agenda.
In order to "sell" its agenda to us, it has to disguise it as "solutions to problems."
To make a long story short, technocracy's true goals are so gruesome and frightening that the vast majority of humanity would never agree to them, if we have the choice. So the only way for technocracy to advance is through some type of trickery. And that trickery usually takes the form of promising solutions to problems. To "improve the world."
And that sounds mighty tempting to a Leftie!
"Improving the world? Sure, let's do it!"
The Left is always the first side to embrace newness, because newness is very near the core of the Left's basic drive. And technocracy knows this, so it targets the Left for its enticements. The Left is therefore the vanguard, not just of positive social progress, but of the negative as well. When technocracy enters, it enters through Stage Left.
Technocracy's solutions never truly fix the problems, and they always screw things up worse. Every time.
And that's because they're not really meant to solve the problems in the first place. They're only meant to advance technocracy.
The Left Is the Side
Through Which Technocracy Enters
The Left is the side of newness. New ideas, new practices, new systems.
This is useful - vital, in fact - when it comes to spiritual advancement of society, into greater kindness, better justice, more care for others, and a widening of the Circle of Compassion to include a greater variety of others under its protection. These are the positive societal changes the Left Wing brings about, when it's functioning normally.
But where it starts causing problems is technology.
Since the Left is the side of newness, it's also the side that more readily embraces new tech. When new tech comes in, it enters through Stage Left.
And this includes social systems, like bureaucracies, sets of legislation, school curricula, and so on. Any social practice that is purposely designed, and deliberately coordinated from a central location, is a form of technology, and a dimension of the creeping technocracy.
There's actual objective standards of what is a good change and what is a bad change. Does it lead to more social happiness? A more sustainable economy? The blossoming of the spirit? Kindness? Compassion? Trust? Stability? Fulfillment?
There's ways to measure whether a change is good or not. But too many just latch on to changes without taking the time to evaluate whether they're good or not. And thus they tend to fall into the temptations of technocracy.
The Importance of the Brakes
Illustrated by a Familiar Example: Pollution
Throughout history, whenever cultures are presented with radical new technologies, there are two sets of voices:
1. Those who warn of the dangers of changing everything up so quickly...
2. ...and those who press on and ignore them. (Often with disparagement and snark).
The former don't necessarily know the exact mechanism by which the detrimental effects of the new technology or system will manifest — but they "feel it in their bones" that the new system will cause more problems than it solves. Often this is because science has not yet advanced to the level where it understands the harms involved.
A good example is fossil fuel.
When these were first introduced, there must have been people warning about the dangers. The black smoke and soot must have provided strong hints. They must have seen it and thought, "I don't trust these newfangled steam engines (or petrol-motors). I don't like that smoke. Something vile will come o' these machines if Man keeps building them."
And they must have complained about it, to anyone who'd listen.
And their warnings obviously weren't heeded.
And now those very machines have produced a global ecological crisis of existential proportions.
They didn't know how it would be bad. They just knew.
It was intuition, which, despite what followers of scientistism will tell you, is actually a legitimate form of epistemology.
Imagine if you took a time machine and went back to the 1700's when the first steam engines were being built, and the first coal-furnaces were burning. Imagine if you then warned people, "If you develop this coal technology, then the oceans will rise and swallow coastal cities 300 years from now."
They would have laughed at you. Called you nuts.
That's because they didn't know what carbon is. They didn't even know about atoms. They didn't know what a greenhouse gas is, or what an icecap-albedo feedback loop is, or a methane permafrost feedback loop. The word feedback loop had not even appeared in the English lexicon yet. They'd never even heard of Antarctica, which was not discovered by the Empire until 1821.
They didn't know about all the deforestation and destruction that would eventually be powered and driven by those fossil fuels. They didn't foresee the desiccation of the Amazon, or the bleaching of the coral reefs.
Science at the time did not have the language to explain WHY fossil fuels were a bad idea. So it would have been impossible to explain. They'd ask you "Why are fossil fuels bad?", and then, (provided you're a real 18th century person and not a 21st century time-traveler), you'd just have to shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know why - I just have a feeling we shouldn't use them."
And then the rest of the tavern would crack up in laughter.
But the cautious folks were right in the end.
And if the cautious folks were right back then... they might be right again now. Don't you think?
And they've been right about all the previous stages of technocracy, too. Whenever a society accepts a radically new technology, they always lead to worse outcomes, as we've explored in Technocracy's False Promises.
With such a good record of foreseeing the woe technology would cause, do you think it might be wise to listen to the cautious folks and techno-skeptics and "luddites" among us?
Even if they don't have the scientific language to explain why they're cautious - even if science itself is not yet advanced enough to understand the mechanisms by which the intuitively foreseen harm might come - the intuition is still right.
So we should listen.
And that's what the Right Wing is for. The Righties are the main reservoir of techno-skepticism at the moment.
And this is especially important, now of all times, because of the intensity with which technocracy is pushing to intrude into our world. Never has there been greater danger from runaway technological development.
The Elite Are Conducting a Transfer of Power from the Right to the Left, and It's for a Reason
The technocrats are making the biggest push they've ever made, and the Left is the side they're doing it through.
This isn't a "knock" on the Left. It's not the Left's "fault" that it's being exploited this way. But it is happening, and Lefties must become aware.
It's a mistake to view the battle of imperialism vs. anti-imperialism as strictly synonymous with Right vs. Left.
Decades ago, the Right was the side most valuable to the elites. This was because the main vehicle of technocratic imperialism was primarily geopolitical. It involved a geographically-focused Empire (headquartered in Western Europe and eastern North America) expanding to conquer and infiltrate other lands and societies. Through "traditional means", like armies.
And the Right was the political tribe most amenable to this expansion, due to its adherence to the old systems of mind control, like nationalism, militarism, Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, Abrahamic eschatology and missionary zeal, national and religious exceptionalism, racial supremacism, and so on. Meanwhile, the Left was the thorn in the Empire's side, because it challenges these systems.
But it's not like that anymore. Today, the roles are reversed.
This is because the new dimension of technocratic imperialism is not military or geopolitical - it's strictly about technological innovation. The Empire has already conquered the world, geographically speaking. There is no country that it has not reached, no society it has not penetrated, no culture it has not already obtained the power to influence and steer. Geography is no longer the stage upon which this play is unfolding.
Now, it's just pure tech. It's about developing and introducing new dystopian tech, and achieving as much population-compliance as possible, as quickly as possible. Instead of conquering lands, the Empire is now conquering us. Instead of subjugating peoples, it's now subjugating the aspects of being a person. Instead of taking over national capitals, it's taking over the actual day-to-day systems of living. Just like tribes and nations used to fall into the Empire's clutches, one by one the facets of human life are falling to technocracy. The war is no longer geographical; it's social, personal, and spiritual. And it's not waged on the map, but within our communities, and even our bodies.
And the Left is now the side that's most useful to this agenda.
The Left is the side that most readily embraces new technologies. It embraces new ideas in general, and tech is no exception. Whatever new adjustment the technocrats want to make, they can count on the Left to more readily accept it than the Right.
They're the first to stand in line for the new iphone, they worship tech gurus and they just have this overall collective assumption that tech people are good. Maybe it's because tech people tend to be younger, hipper, wear t shirts to work, and are cooler looking... or maybe just because tech is by definition new. And anyone pioneering something new, the left automatically has a tendency to respect and admire that person, simply because they're pioneering something new. But whatever the reason, the Left is indisputably the tribe that's more ready to embrace new tech.
And for this reason, the Left is now the side that's more valuable to the elites. Meanwhile, the Right presents the main obstacle, since the Right is more skeptical of change - which includes new tech.
So the technocratic elite have engineered a power transfer from the Right to the Left. It's true that the Left wasn't in power before, but now the elite is trying to empower the Left over the right. That's what they did during the Obama presidency, it was a transfer of powe,r (the cultural kind, if not necessarily the economic kind), from the Right to the Left in anticipation of the Left becoming more useful to technocracy and therefore more prudent for them to empower.
You can't just assume that the Left is not in power just because it wasn't during the Bush administration.
Lefties, you have got to understand that you're being used.
You've got to understand that you're more susceptible to the enticements of technocracy. Not your fault — but your responsibility to become aware of.
You have strengths and upsides; society needs you; but you also have weaknesses and downsides, and this is the main one.
You've got you understand that the "solutions" that you've settled on, to various problems, were actually handed to you by the technocrats, and that they're not designed to solve the problems you think they solve — but for other purposes, ulterior purposes. Many ideas currently popular on the Left are not really about fixing the problems that they purport to be about fixing.
And no offense, but people have been duped. Duped by technocracy into embracing social changes that advance the goals of technocracy under the false guise of solving problems.
The Left is Correct About The What,
But Confused About the How
The current situation, in world politics, can be summed up like this:
The Left is correct about the What, but wrong about the How.
And the Right, while all-too-often apathetic about most of the What, nevertheless has the answers to course-correct the How (if they can be persuaded to care, and/or if the Left can be persuaded to reach out to them to sincerely listen to their insight).
In other words, the Left is correct about the existence of the issues, and the dire need to solve them.
The issues are real. And they need to be fixed. Pronto.
The planet is burning, the oceans are acidifying, and species are going extinct at 10,000 times the background rate. The ecological crisis does present an existenetial threat to civilization.
Innocent people are indeed dying at the hands of hyper-militarized police.
The gap between rich and poor is corroding our society from the inside out, and poverty has become extreme.
Our society is treating animals in horrific and heartbreaking ways.
Private capital has taken over our media and electoral processes.
All of these problems are real, and it's the duty of every person on Earth to do whatever we can to solve them, as soon as possible.
But the solutions on which the Lefties have settled are wrong solutions, because they're technocratic, and such "solutions" inherently fail to understand the true nature of the problem they're attempting to solve.
The problem is not lack of technology. It's inside us. It's our inner condition. It's psychological. It's spiritual. The world-in-chaos we see on the outside is a reflection of the chaos inside of us.
And since the problems come from within, so do the solutions.
How does this play out? What are some real-world examples?
We'll dive deep on the next page:
No longer can we afford to remain alienated from one another - not by race or color, nor by religion or lifestyle - nor by nationality or culture, nor by sex or lifestyle, and certainly, definitely, absolutely not by political tribe.
The Left and Right must come together. This was the most arbitrary and illusory division of all. It cannot continue, if we're to be Free.
These were never supposed to be tribes. They're mindsets. They're attitudes. They're functions of a healthy civic discourse. They're the two wings that together make flight.
Our society has issues. It's consuming the planet it lives on. People everywhere are plunging into poverty. Freedom is eroding, and authoritarianism is creeping. Governments have become calcified, totally unable to respond to the needs of their people. We need change.
But we also have to think deeply about what kind of change we need, and really think it through - and not just immediately jump on any idea that sounds halfway decent. We've got to really come up with a plan - one which addresses the problems at a deep enough level.
What happens when we buy into false solutions? The ill-thought-out "coronavirus" lockdowns showed us exactly what happens when we're too quick to believe the oligarch media and obey the orders of governments, without thinking about the actual logic and science (or lack thereof) behind those orders, and without examining the larger agendas at work, or the long-term consequences of the strategies we adopt.
A whole generation with a whole new field of trauma. It doesn't even have a name yet, it's so new. What to call it?
Many people didn't think about what kind of soulless society we were building in our panic, and whether or not a medical fascist global dictatorship, with contact tracing, medical police forces, "Immunity Passports", forced vaccinations, internet censorship, and top-down control by an un-elected labcoat mafia might actually be worse than whatever virus they were claiming to be fighting.
And it's a good thing the Right is slamming on those brakes, isn't it?
The pattern is older, however.
Take the "Green New Deal", for instance. Many people jump for joy upon hearing the mere mention of it, because we assume that "all ideas for a better world are inherently good ideas."
But what if they're not?
What if they don't address problems at a deep enough level, and therefore end up being counterproductive?
What if they push the wrong kind of change entirely?
If you really think hard about electric cars, and self-driving cars, you can see that they're terrible ideas. Really, they're awful. Electric cars would start a new race for rare-earth mineral mining concessions and unleash terror upon the living land perhaps even worse than fossil fuel drilling, and self-driving cars are a technocratic dystopia filled with microwave radiation and utterly at the mercy of computers to a degree that's even now unimaginable to most people.
And neither of these admits the deeper truth that the roads themselves are a bigger ecological burden on the planet than the cars are! The future has to be one where we evolve beyond cars. Not by inventing some new dazzling transport vehicle that flies - but rather by restructuring society itself to be local again, so that we no longer need individual vehicles for every single little task.
The problem has to be addressed on a level of depth sufficient to actually solve it, or what's the point?
We can't just go with any shiny new idea. We have to really think this through. Just because some policy or invention promises to improve our lives... doesn't mean it will.
Especially when technocracy gets thrown in.
Its promises always turn out to be empty, yet it keeps whispering to us, and enough of us keep believing it, that it keeps advancing. And it almost always comes in via the Left, which is the easier side to co-opt.
The Left is the side of new ideas and change, and that's why it's inherently more susceptible to the enticements of technocracy.
And technocracy has done quite a number on the Left.
We used to fight against racism, against segregation, and against government discrimination based on race. We envisioned a world where laws don't mention races. A world in which your race has no bearing on your right to speak, or the value of your opinion. A world in which, to paraphrase Dr. King, "a person is judged not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character."
We believed that people were individuals - not categories.
But now, it's the opposite. We're supposed to be in favor of rigid categorizations by identity, with entirely different sets of rules, different standards, and even different laws, for different races, and different levels of respect for opinions based on the race and/or gender of the speaker. We're supposed to see a person's categories and classifications first, and his or her individual choices second.
It's no longer about principles - only identity. Racism and anti-racism are no longer belief systems - they're merely tribes.
Identity politics came from the infiltration of postmodernism into academia. In postmodernism, there is no objectivity - no free-standing definition of right and wrong. Everything is subjective. And in the absence of moral principles, the mind still needs something to latch onto for moral differentiation. And it latches onto identity. Morality is no longer about what you do - it's simply about who you are while you do it.
And it's not just on issues of race. The Left has turned upside down on everything.
We're now expected to be against freedom of speech (under the guise of "fighting fascism", failing to notice the irony in the fact that restricting speech is fascism).
Again, it's all about who you are. If you're in the "good tribe", you can say whatever you want - including hate - whereas if you're in the "bad tribe", anything you say is interpreted as hate, and censored.
A troll used to be someone who sabotages a conversation, while an admin was someone whose job was to keep it flowing. But now, a troll is someone who tries to have a conversation, and the admin's job is to prevent it.
The Left used to fight for recognition of the rights of the vulnerable, but now it's furiously cranking out arguments to justify the outright denial of personhood to the most vulnerable people in the world.
The Left used to distrust those who claim to be "authorities". Now it demands total subordination to the whimsical dictates of un-elected nerds in lab-coats just because they have plaques on their walls and abbreviations after their names.
It used to be about natural health, and people making independent choices about our own bodies. Now Lefty discussion spaces are blasé about calls for vaccines to be imposed on whole populations by force.
It used to be about Loving And Accepting Yourself Exactly As You Are.
But now, it insists that some people will never - indeed, can never - be happy until their genitals are cut off and folded inside-out, and their blood is pumped full of synthetic hormones made from the byproducts of petrochemical refineries.
Postmodernism, and the identity politics it spawns, have ruined the credibility of the Left, and account for the main reason why it's not winning political power anymore.
And technocracy is the deeper culprit.
Postmodernism serves the technocratic agenda because it divorces the human mind from any objective standards - not only of morality - but of truth itself. In the postmodernist mind, nothing is true and nothing is false, and everything is based on the current feelings and whims of whoever is doing the evaluating. And if this is the case, then there is no sacredness.
And sacredness is what protects Life from technocracy's assaults. With no sacredness, there is no hesitance to screw around with Life and Life's systems. Everything is interchangeable, everything can be swapped in and out, and technocracy has free rein to modify the living world in any way it sees fit.
It used to be all about Mother Nature. Now, we promise each other salvation at the prospect of implanting microchips in brains and linking every brain together via 5G microwaves into a second internet that overlaps the entire physical surface of the planet and then eventually becomes an omnipotent deity, which can then assimilate humanity, and all of biological life, into itself.
What a monstrous corruption.
We must reverse these trends now, not only because they're harmful in and of themselves, but also because they ruin the credibility of the Left, and undermine its ability to win hearts, minds, supporters, and elections.
We need the Left - a healthy one - to start winning and gaining power again, and soon, because our civilization has some major problems, many of which are serious enough to collapse the whole thing if left unaddressed, and the Right is doing nothing to address them.
We need the Left to lead, but first we must reverse the postmodernist, technocratic trends in its ideology, so that it goes in a healthy direction.
And the key to reversing these trends is so simple! It's simply communication.
The Left needs to listen to the Right. Stop dismissing it. Stop using epithets like "Luddite" or "anti-vaxxer" or "knuckledragger" or "nutjob", or "conspiracy theorist", and actually have a conversation.
Do that, and the Right can help to facilitate a course-correction. That's its whole job. The reason it exists. To interject at precisely these kinds of moments, and steer us away from the technocratic path, and towards something more natural and wholesome.
And when such a conversation takes place, it also provides the added opportunity for the Right to listen, and let the Left explain the issues that exist, and why they matter. And together, the two can come up with real solutions.
Because the Right needs to do some listening, too.
Listen to the Left
Just because the Left is using bad tactics to communicate its message, does not mean that there isn't a valid message to communicate. There is.
Yes, they're clueless to the art of persuasion.
Yes, they embody the same authoritarian qualities they claim to oppose.
But the issues they're revolting over
are REAL ISSUES, nevertheless.
The Right is currently making a big mistake assuming that the issues aren't real, don't matter, or aren't that serious.
Economic inequality is growing exponentially, and our society has become a feudal hierarchy again.
The planet is on fire, the oceans are acidifying, extinctions are proceeding at 10,000 times the background rate, and the biosphere is collapsing at the same free-fall speed as Building 7.
Animals are suffering from the worst torture our civilization can muster.
Racism does exist, and still affects a lot of people.
The working class is unable to afford basic necessities, and the oligarchs are squeezing ever tighter and tighter.
While violent rioting is beyond useless in fixing any of this, the fact remains that it needs to be fixed. All of it. Completely. And soon.
The fact that some people are going the wrong way about fixing it doesn't mean there's nothing that needs fixing.
The rioters are an expression of the pain, fear, and increasing desperation in mass-consciousness resulting from the forced extension of the power-based social paradigm reigning over this world for far longer than the planet or the human spirit can handle.
When people are in pain, they lash out. When spirit is repressed, it bursts out, dysfunctionally and violently.
If you resolve to double-down on ignoring the underlying issues just to spite the messengers for their desperation-induced poverty of communication skills, then all you're doing is making it worse.
Those who feel themselved to be "outside" these protest movements, looking in, still need to LISTEN, and resolve to be part of the solution, and devote time and energy to helping. This is YOUR PLANET TOO.
The word "Listen" doesn't mean "reflexively agree to every potential solution anyone proposes." You don't have to "follow."
But you do have to LISTEN, and seek genuinely to understand the issues they're trying to tell you about.
* * * * *
The Right must listen to the Left, to learn about the very real issues that are threatening the stability of our civilization.
And the Left must listen to the Right, to make sure the solutions offered are actually solutions, and to hit the brakes and course-correct, if not.