On Political *Polarity*

I wonder if anyone will find this quote as jarring as I did when I first read it (because of who said it):

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” – Adolf Hitler 1927.

Analysis of extreme politics on a two dimensional ‘continuum’ has already led me to abandon the 2D political model. There is ‘wraparound’ from all directions, like geodesics on the globe. At the time prior to his capture of head of state, Hitler probably was still a political ‘leftist’. However, in his ascendancy to and consolidation of power, he moved further and further ‘north’ (totalitarian) on this global scale, literally ‘crossed the pole’ and his politics went from totalitarian left to totalitarian right (he was moving rightward the whole time). How did this happen? I would argue that the tendency toward totalitarianism has a natural rightward ‘spin’ (call this a fourth dimension – so even 3D model is somewhat inadequate). Why? Because social purity as opposed to social diversity is inherently a right wing concept (Stalin moved rightward as well, just not as quickly). The reason Hitler moved more quickly rightward, is because he doubled down on the social purity (adding in the instrinsic purity of race) and was far more disciplined and less whimsical about it (he increased his rightward spin, much like Fox News does for us today).

By contrast, you could see that a tendency toward anarchy or extreme diversity as ‘leftward’ spin. The tea party movement was a preemptive attempt at diffusing true leftward spin (like a leaderless, spontaneous, increasingly diverse OWS), fully conceived and grown by wealthy oligarchic totalitarians. The Tea Party is the virtual mirror image of Hilterist or Stalinist totalitarian rightward spin, not an actualized counterpart. The same oligarchic group/mentality which generated it awaits its acceptance as real, whereupon it stands ready to assume power (contemporary libertarianism doesn’t claim power for itself) in a curious coup, where all they need to do is flip the spin (from leftward to rightward). This is why it is so important for a movement like OWS to remain ‘real’, and reject all attempts to infiltrate and ‘purify’ or dogmatize it (this both disrupts it and seeks to flip its spin bias) and increase its diversity; it needs to remain leaderless and somewhat disorganized. It needs to increase its confidence. It needs to remain spontaneous. Perhaps most importantly, it must not be dogmatized in any conventional way (this includes any conventional leftist¬† ‘non-violent’, ‘feminist’, ‘statist’, way). I know this gives many who identify with the movement hemorrhoids, especially the dogmatic feminists, dogmatic egalitarians and dogmatically non-violent, but it is the only way to keep it alive and on the move. There are simply times when violence *is* called for or times when anti-feminism is called for, for example. And these need to be organically grown within the movement, or the ‘other side’ which knows full well how to utilize and wield their power (they have been doing it for centuries and are fully aware of where all political poles lie, because they created them in most cases!), will simply keep creating *virtual images* of these to derail the movement, creating and overall impression or belief that true libertarian leftward spin is always illusory.

It really must be realized that dogma itself is a political ‘pole’. Its complementary pole is thus un-dogma. It is the powers that be that seek to eliminate this undogma pole. It wants to be a monopole, for which there never has been a viable precedent (either virtually or physically). This is done in myriad of ways. Exacerbating the uncomfortability and uncertainty of un-dogmas. By intensifying its own dogma. By forcing a hierarchical organization of dogmas based on their strength (capacity to impose virtual order). False associations are generally used to accomplish these aims as they not only impose a kind of order and to force a hierarchical showing of hands, but to generate the most ‘confusion’ at the un-dogma ‘pole’ (it should be noted here that un-dogma is probably the closest synonym to political freedom conceivable). False associations are ‘transmitted’¬† by so-called conventional wisdom (I regard ‘convential wisdom’ as a kind of Nietzschean herd-animal mentality) most would accept without reflection: equating socialism to totalitarianism, religiosity to freedom, atheism to militancy, freedom to wealth, feminism to equality, inflation to employment, communism to evil, terrorism to dissent, finance to faith. Political theory holds that If enough of these false associations can be generated, it doesn’t matter if they are accepted in totality so long as a critical number of subjects accept a critical percentage of them. This is why there is no difference first between the major parties and even secondarily to the ‘third parties’. Even third parties tend to hierarchic-ize or re-hierarchic-ize (re-order) already false associations.

I hereby publicly reaffirm and claim my right to free-think, and to reject false associations and dichotomies wherever possible and necessary. Only from free thought can free actions follow. My only wish is to be more of an example of that to others. I intentionally attempt to disassociate things I consider to be misassociated. I also have the tendency to re-associate, but I try to let this happen organically, naturally and personally, and because raw dissociation is ultimately a schizophrenic worldview. I suspect most consider this intention to re-associate as a kind of will to power of my own, but I doubt they read it as it truly is: a will to power of myself. I have no delusions of a potential cult of personality around myself; in other words, I have no assumptions of others re-associating in my individualized way or crediting me for anything. If you understand me you are already enough like me. If you don’t, you are probably somebody’s unwitting drone, which is not to say I want you as mine (I try not to surround myself with drones of any kind).