And you will become “the righteous one”
Jacek Tomczak
Concept ‘the utmost right’ is 1 of those propaganda qualifying-warning signs over which a informing lamp is shining suggesting that we are dealing with a peculiarly dangerous case. How many publicist concepts aspiring to the rank of political terms only seemingly have the reality to describe, and in fact its task is to influence people's thinking. The characteristic feature of specified concepts is their crucial understatement, allowing arbitrariness in their use.
The word ‘extreme right“ is far more dangerous than many others, that it suggests at least a superficial discernment of the full spectrum and, based on analysis, to execute specified a qualification. In the palette of left-wing words, spells and word-signs are distinguished from “fascist” or “populist”.
RIGHT AS ‘FASHIST’
The "fascist" is not only contaminated with its genesis, that is, being a product of communist propaganda, ordering all non-communist to specify it that way, not only compromised by the widespread presence in leftist publications for reasons specified as the perception in the opponent of a patriot or advocate of a restrictive migration policy. It is besides absurd, considering what “real” fascism was, and that in Polce he never found fertile dirt to make – let us remind you that the leader of 1 of the more extremist nationalist organizations in the Second Polish Republic, Jan Mosdorf of the National and extremist Camp, died in the German Auschwitz-Birkenau camp saving a Jew.
The absurdity of the epithet "fascist" completes the inclusion in a set of attributes attributed to the individual named racism, although Italian racial fascism was not. Of course, the usage of this word is accompanied by quite a few manipulations and perversions, which we can consider insignificant if we consider the degree of lying to the epithet itself. For example, suggesting fascism is accompanied by portraying people with right-wing views as the bakers of a nation in cultural terms, even if many identify with the concept of a cultural nation. This is to be served most frequently by showing the right-wing or nationalist as the perfect origin of German national socialists. Meritarian arguments are defenseless against propaganda of mud dumping – it is not unreasonable for a condemning-moralistic typhoon to wipe out all material attempts at translation.
The curiosity of being a “fascist” has become so obvious, and the blade of those who usage specified stigmatisation is so blunt that any of the right-wing representatives began to specify themselves. This serves as a mockery of the propaganda of changing this word by all cases by opponents, and it follows from the cognition that it has come from being a concept of strict meaning to becoming a sterile and empty slogan. Of course, the ironic auto-deconspiration of the "fascist" besides helps to knock the saber out of the hands of any left-wingers, after all, since individual himself calls himself a "fascist" it is hard to number on depreciating it, calling it that.
In the case of a "fascist", there are 3 interesting consequences of utilizing this word in situations that are completely inadequate. In this regard, a parallel can be seen to the consequences of the abuse of the word “outright right”.
Firstly, the consequence of striving to origin horror by constantly reaching for the concept describing the phenomena of fear is not what is intended to consequence in – that is, the viewer's fear. On the contrary, the abuse of the concept removes the fear from it. If Fascism is everywhere and you don't live well, then what's there to fear...
Second, “fascists” of giving the left may be those who preach completely different views – from supporters of the ubiquitous state to people about the convictions of the closest libertarianism, who consider the state a threat, specified as Janusz Korwin-Mikke. So – this concept does not only have much to do with what fascism was, but besides does not stay in connection with any coherent, redefined word in modern times. Suffice it to say that erstwhile a leftist writer wants to describe individual in fact referring to Mussolini's or Hitler's heritage, he uses the word “neofascist“It itself undermines the credibility of his declared belief that his political opponents are actually fascists. The co-optation of further properties to the definition of “fascism” should actually take place each time, after the sharp eye of the leftist sighting of the disturbing phenomenon.
Third, the overzealous pursuit of Fascism usually ends with a similarity to the imagined object of its hunt. "Fascist" is not made due to the act of violence, the drafting of regulations limiting certain cultural groups to certain places or reaching for totalitarian symbolism. The “fascist” is known by words, or alternatively after the overzealous huntsman interprets them—the basic charge against the “fascist” is that he has different views. After all, tolerance does not let you to have another views – the fact that people have different views leads to fascism. Or something like that.
For me, the alleged Brunat Book of “Never More” magazine was always an unsurpassed model of fascist “anti-fascism”. Its authors regularly study on people who have different views from them, even if the connection of these views to fascism (even erstwhile identifying it with Nazism or racism – which is evidently a mistake) is like the village dweller through whom Wehrmacht soldiers marched with Nazism.
RIGHT AS ‘POPULEIST’
Populism was fundamentally defined in 2 ways. It either meant appealing to the will of the people or reaching for simple slogans that described hard problems and offering easy solutions to complex cases. Of course, these definitions are alternatively vague, as politicians' proposals are necessarily not aimed at walls or trees, and the media message must be designed to convince, not necessarily peculiarly absorbing. However, there was a consensus that it was symptomatic of populism to diametrically grow areas of social assistance, called the distribution of public money.
Today, erstwhile we hear the word “populist”, they are most frequently written by the same people who erstwhile tracked “fascists” and the subject of the description is more or little those who were late “fascists”. Of course, there is simply a final laundering of the "populist" from the vague content – due to the fact that since most likely "populists" can be even politicians of the only 1 calling for a simplification in the social assistance of the parliamentary party, that is, the Confederation is "and you will become a populist".
At the same time, populism has no unambiguously negative connotations, and populists have been referred to as not a dose of ridicule. Neither the past of the concept nor the meaning nor the etymology make it the most convenient tool to hit opponents. It is interesting that as part of a debate in which everyone chooses the intent of his "normal man" sighs, so many want to make another charge of listening to "the voice of the people."
One paradox is that the users of the cepa of "populism" indicate as 1 of its characteristics the opposition of the people to elites, namely the affirmation of "ordinary people" and the avenging of the "sold" elites – and at the same time, possibly unconsciously, their very existences prove the existence of a situation precisely opposite, or dislike of the elites (or simply those who are utilized to referring to higher social position or education level) to anyone who looks at them with criticism (which leaves – from their broadcast – a ‘populist’).
From the position of these considerations, a short conclusion should be drawn – both cepes, or "fascist" and "populist" are not peculiarly dangerous, although for other, in a sense even opposing reasons.
The force of the first is akin to the power of the revolver brought to the archery competition – but that the revolver is plastic.
The second cep can be compared to a man who moves around the working territory in a suit and reprisals everyone around under-sleek clothes – these look at him with confusion of surprise with dislike. The first cep is weak with its force pushed to the limits of absurdity, and the second is weak due to the fact that it hits the protective armor.
NOT "WORTH" OR "WORTH"? COUNCILCALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM
What about the “straight right”? This expressive scraper seemingly describes, and in fact marks, simulates precision, being overflowing with understatements, suggests its origin within political science, serving as a tool of propaganda.
Let us point out that this is not about sophistry, semantic games or puzzles – words not only describe reality, but besides influence its formation.
At first glance, the "extreme right", assuming common dependence on this concept of words, can be defined in 2 ways – 1 definition makes it impossible to accuse of extremes, while the another 1 does not let to place described on the right. So – either the ‘straight right’ is not utmost or not the right.
In the first sense, "the utmost right" is simply a formation that implements all paradigms of right-wing thinking, identifying with all component of the right-wing worldview. If we are dealing with a man who sacrifices himself for his fellowmen, he has never cheated, he has always helped, erstwhile individual asks him, we do not specify him as a "very good" man. Consistently implementing its right-wing agenda, politicians should not be described with this adjective, as the expressive support for all right-wing postulates of the publicist is not "extreme"—unless consistency or fidelity to values leads to this edge.
A much more logical conclusion from the border between political and semantics would simply be to describe politicians and formations to the left of the above-mentioned right-wing word "centre-right", in addition without remaining both components in relation to dependence, but as independent of each other.
Let us mention the etymology of the word “radicalism” – it comes from the Latin word radix meaning root. Which is – radical views could be described as powerfully rooted. If we consider the etymology of the word itself, radicalism is something related to fundamentalism. Political past introduced any complications, due to the fact that it allowed radicalism to be associated with subversive or revolutionary activity. The problem is that as a consequence of the evolution of knowing the word "radical" its etymological meaning fills the word "fundamentalistic".
Why are these semantics? Well, the appropriate knowing of the word "the utmost right" should be accentuated by radicalism in an etymological sense or fundamentalism. specified a right is not "extreme" – it is simply the right.
The second takes the order to describe “the utmost right” as “more than the right”, so specified “the right” is utmost but is no longer the right. In practice, "the utmost right" is defined by the prism of radicalism in the common sense – even if this radicalism does not interact with any elements of right-wing thinking.
At the same time, this radicalism can happen at the level of content and at the level of form itself. That is, “the utmost right” is individual who uses terms specified as “traitors”, “transmitters”, “set up a wall” or individual who touches Ukrainians on the street or who scribbles after a synagogue.
Well – would you like to say – but what does it mean that specified words and specified actions are a improvement of the right-wing worldview? These are utmost words and actions, but going beyond what any right says. If we are to scope for 2 concepts consisting of the word catcher discussed here, we could at most usage the word "extreme and right-wing" – if people who usage specified rhetoric or authors of specified acts, apart from this rhetoric and these acts mention to the ideas of the right.
The above mentioned people could more frequently be referred to as "pseudo-rights" – as a rioter of a sports show is not referred to as "a utmost fan", due to the fact that it does not detract from the concept of rooting, so the views constituting the caricature of right-wing beliefs should not be referred to as "extremely right-wing".
What logic would it be that – assuming the right defines patriotic values – racism is simply a improvement of patriotism or patriotism brought to extremes?
Such a conclusion can only be reached by adopting a left-wing explanation of right-wing reasoning – within it there is recognition of all kinds of feeling belonging to a group. It is besides possible to adopt specified an optics as a consequence of an assessment of the effects of certain views, not their origins (of course, we are simply dealing with manipulation here) – For example, in fact, right-wing views consequence in a restrictive policy regarding the admission of people of black skin, only that the reason is not the colour of the skin, but the behaviour of those mentioned.
Of course, the most common polemic argument with the specified nomination to be right-wing fascism or Nazism is the antifreedom, anti-Christian and fetishizing nature of these systems. They were not the consequence of bringing to any knowing the extremes of right thinking, as their revolutionary explanation and practice besides proves.
If individual truly wants to find a connection between attachment to tradition and racism, they could look for it in 1 of the creators of the ideology of racism, that is, Arthur de Gobineau. Only that this "marriage of tradition with racism" was due to a resentitiousness without the privileges of the French aristocrat, who sought a fresh justification for his peculiar role, not to see doctrinal convergence between conservatism and affirmative doctrines.
IS “SURVEILLANCE” DETERMINED BY REVIEW?
Here we come to usage the word "the utmost right" – assuming that the usage of it actually wants to describe reality – to any right-wing parties. Well, as has been mentioned, while the radicalism of the adopted means of expression alone is adequate to become a “offright right”, it does not mean that it is not.
What is characteristic of the Confederate's media message – interestingly enough, it can compete with it in this respect only Together – is the advanced frequency of "yes, but". In another words, representatives of this party, judging events on the Polish political phase are usually free from the "total" look, in which part of the actors of public life is always good and the another part is always bad – it is simply a look from TVN or tv Republika. In fact, it can be said that in terms of how to build the message (but besides the organisation of interior functioning) The Confederation is the most democratic (please forgive the usage of the next term, which has taken all possible propaganda on the chain today) parliamentary party.
Of course, moderation and distance do not concern the question of value, due to the fact that there is no area for compromise in this – understandable – issue. The key to specified a view of the political phase is the perception of politics by the prism (writing top-notch) values just whether (writing completely not top-notch) tasks to perform, not individual disputes or environmental loyalty.
Against this background, it seems utmost to identify the supporters of the 2 main parties with the absolute good and, above all, their opponents with absolute evil, which pushes the Manichean way of life in a ‘neutral worldview’ state, in which, however, “the support of good and evil” has taken place. 1 of the symptoms of specified reasoning is to usage the word "symerism" for all those who have the nerve to criticize "their" and to see the advantages of the "enemy". After all, specified a word is only applicable for the "totalization" of political thinking, or delimitation.
CONTEXTUALITY OF THE ‘RAW’ AND THE ‘UNIVERSALITY’ OF THE ‘RAY RIGHT’
The “Earth Right” is simply a word that can be given completely arbitraryly by many different meanings, besides due to its contextuality.
I would like to point out here that 3 concepts are frequently utilized interchangeably in public debate: fact, fact and objectivity. Meanwhile, a fewer facts can make a lie – it is adequate that a fewer another facts are omitted. Objectiveism, however, is simply a concept distinguishing – contrary to appearances or not – from the another 2 1 essential feature: it depends on circumstances.
‘Right’ means something different in both vertical and horizontal terms – different in years, different in different cultural spaces. Of course, in different countries the concept of "rights" is objective, but on a global scale it is comparative – being right is not due to the fulfilment of peculiar ideological criteria, but alternatively to being the most right in discourse. At the same time – being the most right in discourse inside 1 country, could sit in the center or even on the left side elsewhere.
Incidentally, it seems interesting to examine changes in the election decisions of people after moving to another country – 1 where the discourse looks different. In addition to the possible revision of the reality resulting from being in a different cultural circle, it is worth considering whether people match the views to the programme of the organization that is closest to them or support the formation that is in the same place of discourse as the organization that they voted for in the country of birth. If the second answer is true, it could turn out that the voter becomes much more left-wing as a consequence of only leaving Poland (unless he leaves for Iran for example).
In France National Front, qualified as "the utmost right" is presently working with any LGBT movements, and the main hallmark of this organization has become anti-Islamicity, with criticism of spiritual fundamentalism ordering to scope for arguments utilized so far by the left. There are plenty of akin examples – rather adequate to say that in Germany it was the chadecia that led to legalising alleged partnerships.
At the same time, in parallel with the alignment of the right with left-wing demands, in many countries we are dealing with the movement of centre voters to the electorate of "high-right" parties. This is due to the fact that many of the demands of the leftist parties are considered so utmost that they simply do not want to identify with them.
Writing a small perversely, you can freely lice and exposure your openness to immigrants or fetishize the multicultural mosaic until your own children feel truly threatened by force on their part. The legalization of the union of 2 men may be recognized, but if 1 of them demands that it be described as "one" in authoritative documents, then even in the reception of people with centre views we are dealing with what we colloquially mention to as an exaggeration.
A credible analysis of the motivations behind the centre voters, writing about problems with immigrants, was presented by Łukasz Sakowski in the left-wing "New Citizen" (text: "When the left leaves matter, demons awaken" in issue 46(97) "New Citizen"): "When a common citizen of France, Poland, Italy or Germany wants to defend himself against this problem in a direct way, it can not only be called ‘islamophobe’ and ‘fascist’, but, even in Germany, it can have legal problems. So he has nothing left but to quit voting for social democratic, environmental or Chadetic parties, which have become very liberal in the last decade and to start supporting the left and anti-systemists. Vote for AfD, Brothers of Italy, Swedish Democrats, Confederation or National Unity. Not due to the fact that it is against EU integration or due to the fact that it likes the general climate of the right or its demands". So – the left offers nothing but to call you "the utmost right", as you criticise it. You are to sacrifice the safety of your children in the name of “tolerance” or you will become a “fascist”.
The author adds: "These actions of mainstream liberal and leftist parties, among others, in the issues of culture, lead to ‘normals’ to desperation, which means that they abstain or choose the right or populists".
"SCARE LAW" IS WIDE – "SCARE LEVEL" IS NOT
It seems to be an almost complete departure from the usage of the notion of “the utmost left” by the same people who with specified a hardening track of “the utmost right”. This is the case, even though it is evident that the leftist communities are proclaiming it increasingly "original", amazing and dissimilar from the usual normality of postulates.
Of course, this is not explained by another diagnosis of the facts, but by the very intent of utilizing the word “the utmost right”. Honest intentions would simply foster problems in creating a clear definition of this word – since we have doubts about what is and what is not the right, they become all the more so erstwhile we consider what is and what is not the “extreme right” (i.e. the delimitation of the right as the “extreme right”.
Of course, 1 can cast this frivolity in the nomination to be a "extreme right" on the background of the fact that publicism or politics are not science, and they leave the strict definition of concepts in them. Only that the reflection of cases in which individual becomes a "high right" leads to another conclusions.
First of all, it is improbable to be utilized for monarchs or traditionalists, and if they are so classified, it is not due to the fact that they request the return of the reign of a king or a spiritual state, but for example for the usage of the word “Holocaust” (created by a Jew) By 1 of them. Yet, if we were to mention to individual as "the utmost right", it would be monarchs or traditionalists alternatively than national socialists.
Secondly, even assuming this frivolity in defining concepts utilized in public debate, the man or phenomenon described usually has to meet respective criteria and to be distant from respective others to be named in a certain way.
What about the “straight right”? In order to become one, let us put it this way, light respective informing lamps, which are peculiarly delicate to the eyes of the leftist or simply the Hunwaybin "political correctness". Algorithms could be utilized to research “the utmost right” – with the words-keys being: “Jewish influences”, “funder’s conspiracy”, “masonry”, “more pedophiles among homosexuals”, “more rapists among immigrants”, “for large social Ukrainians”. You can only reproduce the views of another person, you can have nothing to do with the right in all another views. We already know who you are. And if you deny it, it means you're hiding well.
The classical said that a lie is considered actual erstwhile spoken by a individual considered to be an authority. Propaganda is considered actual erstwhile pretending to be science.
Jacek Tomczak (Right side of Warsaw)
