From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
       Particularly in the Anglophone world, the terms "Right wing," "New   
   Right," and "conservative" have become synonymous with free trade,   
   libertarianism,  and  the  "free  market." Hence, when a government,   
   such as that of the National Party in New  Zealand  or  the   
   Conservative  Party in Britain embarks on "privatization,"  cutbacks   
   on  welfare,  fiscal  austerity,  and  the  withdrawal  of  the  state   
   from  intervening  in  the  economy  in favor  of  "market  forces,"   
   such  actions  are  usually  described  as  pursuing a  "Right-wing"   
   agenda.    Welfare   recipients   are   scapegoats  in  times  of   
   governmental  economic  ineptitude,  as  though welfarism  is-in   
   general-a  cause  rather  than  a  symptom.  Hence,  for  example, a   
   popular target for supposedly "center-right" governments, are single   
   parents, with a hurrah chorus from those considered "conservative"   
   when a government spouts its rhetoric on imposing sanctions   
   on  single  parents,  should  they  not  go   out   to   find   
   non-existent   jobs (thanks to the "free market") in addition to   
   trying to raise children on their  own?   
      
       What is lost on such paragons of  "conservatism"  and  the   
   "center-right" is that this mentality, which gives priority to the   
   integration of women into the labor force rather than raising   
   children, is fundamentally Bolshevik. Trotsky would have   
   wholeheartedly  approved.   
      
        Trotsky  lamented  the undoing  by  Stalin  of  the work  that   
   the  early  Bolshevik  regime  had  undertaken  in destroying  the   
   "family  hearth"  by  consigning  children  to  the  factory  crèche   
   and  women to the factory floor, as per the present-day  demands  of   
   Republican  and  other  oddly named  "conservatives."  Not   
   surprisingly,  many  Trotskyites  went  over  to  American   
   liberalism  during  the  Cold  War.   
      
        Though the contrast between Marxism and capitalism is constantly   
   being discussed, the similarities actually far outweigh the differ-   
   ences.  Though  they  entrust  the  control  of  property  to   
   different hands, their basic philosophy is the  same.  Both  systems   
   attach  a  central importance to economics, to production. Both are,   
   in the last analysis, materialistic, and regard economic laws as the   
   basic laws of society. Both are not genuinely "social"-though Marxism   
   has  frequently  misused  the  word  socialism  for  its  own   
   purposes.   
      
        For "social" as the word itself tells us, means putting man in   
   the centre,  while  both  Marxism  and  capitalism are primarily   
   concerned with material considerations.   
      
       The  Republican  Party  in  the  United  States  has  been   
   described  in  the same terms, as "conservative" and "Right-wing,"   
   when advocating neo-Whig  liberalism.    Even  on  the  European   
   continent, many of the parties that  are  regarded  as  "Right-wing"   
   because  they  campaign  for  Third World immigration restriction or   
   demand an assimilationist ("one nation") policy towards immigrants,   
   embrace  free  market  economic  policies.  At  least  some  of  these   
   parties  are clear-sighted enough as to their own identity to refer to   
   themselves as  "classical  liberal"  rather  than  as "Right-wing" -a   
   label applied to them by journalists and academics.   
      
        In  the  economic  and  social  realms,  traditionalist (i.e.,   
   Right-wing) social and moral ethics are reflected in  the   
   socio-economic-moral  structure of the guild that ruled both the   
   ancient  and  medieval  worlds  for  centuries, prior to capitalism.   
   The  "organic  society,"  a  social  order  based  on the model of the   
   living human organism, reflected what Italian Traditionalist   
   philosopher Julius Evola called the "normal way of looking at   
   things," by which he meant the traditional  way.  The  idea  of   
   contending economic   classes   appears   during   cycles   of   
   cultural   decay.   Oswald Spengler pointed out the rebellion of   
   Tiberius Gracchus as an early example  of  the  party  of  money   
   backing  a revolt in the name of "the people":   
      
        It was the Equites, the big-money party, which made Tiberius   
   Gracchus's popular movement possible at all; and as soon as that part   
   of the reforms that was advantageous to themselves   had   been   
   successfully   legalized,  they  withdrew  and  the movement   
   collapsed.   
      
        Spengler  explains  further  that  in  analogous  terms,  "the   
   Jacobins  had destroyed the old obligations of the blood [noblesse   
   oblige]  and  so  had emancipated  money."  Further,  "there  is  no   
   proletarian,  not  even  a Communist, movement that has not operated   
   in the interest of money."   Hence the "revolutionary party," i.e.,   
   the  "Left-wing  party,"  is  the party  of  money  against tradition.   
   The  Right  advocated  a  reorganization of society that was founded   
   on the return to an organic conception of society that is of a   
   perennial character, insofar as the perennial type of social   
   organization that has been maintained throughout history since   
   ancient  Rome  is  based  on  a  corporate  society. Here the body   
   politic (a most apt term in this instance) sees  the  individual  as   
   analogous  to  the cell of a living organism, each social or   
   professional group as an organ and  the  state  as  the  brain.  In   
   performing its distinct function, each cell and organ contributes to   
   the well-being of the whole organism. This was reflected in the guild   
   structure of the  traditional  order,  from  ancient Rome onwards.   
      
       The  doctrine  was  revived  by  the  Right in the crisis of the   
   post-1918 world in the form of corporatist states  from  the  Austria   
   of  Dollfuss,  to  Salazar's "New State," to Mussolini's Italy, and   
   Brazil under Vargas.   
      
        Insofar as the traditional conception of the state is organic,   
   sectional interests arising from economics, and manifested  in  party   
   and  class  divisions can literally be seen as cancerous: they are   
   attacks upon the cells and organs of the body politic. As we shall see   
   below, the Right constitutes the organic approach to society; the Left   
   a cancerous approach which is reflected in capitalism as much as in   
   Marxism and other such class  war  notions.  As  Habsburg,  Spengler,   
   et al., pointed out, Marxism and  "class  war"  doctrines  cannot   
   even  be regarded as "socialist," as the term implies organic unity,   
   not division; Spengler even referred to his politics  as  "Prussian   
   socialism."   
      
        The anti-traditional, subversive character of liberal capitalism   
   is intrinsically opposed to any form of organic social bond, such as   
   that of nationality or ethnicity. Marx and Engels pointed out in The   
   Communist Manifesto  that  the  internationalizing  impact  of   
   capitalism,  which  we  now call "globalization," would undermine any   
   concept of nation or nationality,  and  hence  classes  would  become   
   internationally  oriented.   
      
       This is why the tax-free  foundations,  globalist  think tanks,   
   and indeed the weight of the United  States  and  its  allies,  will   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)