The

Left

And

The

Right

Part 1:

The Nature of Left and Right

​​

The Earth Party presents:

 

Uniting


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 who's genuinely seeking real conversations, and you want to make the world a better place — and you're willing to listen to others (to make sure you know what better really means, and what's the best way to actually get there) - and you're open to hearing other people's points of view — you're welcome here.   

This is key.  The line between good and evil is not drawn down any particular part of the political spectrum.  The line is simply between those who are willing to communicate and those who aren't.

Whoever is willing to communicate is on Team Good, and those unwilling to communicate are on Team Bad.  Regardless of ideology.

"A person who disagrees with me, but is still willing to talk to me, is better than a person who agrees with me but isn't willing to talk to our opponents."

"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."

If you can recognize these truths, then you're on Team Good, whether you're a Leftie or a Rightie, or a Middle-ie.  

The Earth Party 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.

 

 

Not Merely "Acceptable",

but Indispensable

Both the left and the right are essential.

 

Like a bird, we can only fly if we use both wings.  Both have a part to play. Both have a role.

A wholesome society needs both of them.  They're both indispensable.  They both have a vital function to fulfill.

 

You can think of them like the pedals in a car.  The Left is the gas, and the Right is the brake.

Without the gas, you get nowhere.

 

Without the brakes, you shouldn't drive at all.

The Left evolves society, and makes it better.  More compassionate.  More sustainable.  More just.  More free.

 

The right exercises caution, to make sure the changes proposed are actually good, before going ahead with them.

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.

​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 harmonious coexistence with the ecological life-support systems that make civilization possible.  This is the purpose of the Left.  To assert this discussion, and move us forward, continuing the progress of Consciousness.

But sometimes, in haste, the Left jumps onto ideas that are ill-thought-out.  Illogical.  Not well-planned.  Ideas that may cause negative side effects that we didn't foresee, and create entirely new problems, even while failing to solve the previous ones.  Just because something is new and different doesn't necessarily mean it's healthy.  Oftentimes, the gut or the heart can sense that something's off about an idea, even if the mind fails to come up with words to explain why.  And that's why we need the Right.  To press the brakes in case that happens.

​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.

"New and Different"

Doesn't Always Mean

"Better."


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.

 

But what many don't understand yet is that new doesn't necessarily mean good, different doesn't necessarily mean good.  There's actual objective standards of what is a good change and what is a bad change, actually ways to measure this.  Does it lead to more social happiness?   A more sustainable economy/  The blossoming of the spirit/  Kindness compassion, trust, fulfillment?

 

There's ways to measure whether a change is good or not.  But too many lefties 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.

 



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.

Weren't they...?

Big time.

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.

Technocratic Exploitation of the Left

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.

You see...


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.

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.

 

Get it?

 

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 What and 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:


True and False Solutions

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!

To donate,

visit our Patreon Page.

 

Questions?  Comments?

Email: TheEarthParty@outlook.com

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now