The Definition of Left, Liberal, Right, ain't right...

I keep hearing americans, especially in recent years, since Trump took office, misusing such terms, and i'm gradually seeing others across the world following suit like good little ventriloquist dummies with Uncle Sam's hand shoved so far up their backsides that it tickles their tonsils.  It is a thoroughly americocentric or eurocentric definition, and illustrates the shift of both the left and right to the right in the west.  Something like marching left-right, left-right, on the right-side of the road.  So allow me to clarify...
  

1. Left is - where the people own all the means of production, have full and free elections, can through referendums throw out a government anytime, and the government itself is more of an administrative body rather than a 'ruling' one.  It's only restriction is that capitalism cannot be reinstated as freedom cannot make allowance for the return of slavery.  

Supporting LGBT, Eurofeminism, etc, is not necessarily a part of 'being left' as these can be perversions and problematic views of things that are a product of the capitalist system itself.  To validate toxic byproducts of a system one opposes actually perpetuates the system that produces it.  So the True Left will never support it just because the word 'equality' is used to promote it. 

The western or white left has just fixated on the idea of 'freedom' and 'equality'.  That's ridiculous.  If they want to do that, they could also respect the 'equal' right and 'freedom' of the people to vie with each to climb the ladder and exploit the rest right? 

No.  The western left don't appreciate the fact that the capitalist consumerist system can itself throw up tendencies amongst the people that is as perverse as the system itself.  They don't realise that LGBT and other such perversions can be a consequence and complement of the capitalist ethos.  They don't realise that these movements and inclinations can be a product of cultural inbreeding, cultural hegemony, and the meaninglessness of the system that sees people reaching out to perversions to compensate for not having a more meaningful culture and life. 

Left-wing is supposed to be all-inclusive.  But that doesn't mean the destruction of all morality and embracing all perversions either.  If not, where does it stop?  When capitalism sets people of a thoroughly perverse and consumerist path, should the left be including anyone from the incestuous to mass orgies and bestiality?  On the one hand, the left understands that capitalism screws up people's minds.  On the other, they are welcoming these screw-ups as equals?  They are not connecting the dots.  If they are doing anything at all, they are just giving the left a bad name.  

It is no different from, and if, the left support equality and the rights of the downtrodden classes to become alcoholics and take drugs to put up with life within the meaningless capitalist milieu.  It is no different from the left making efforts to add respectability to the profession of prostitution by insisting that they be called 'sex workers' (as i witnessed in Trafalgar Square, London, some years ago).  It just serves to 'de-victimise' the victims and product of the capitalist system which they profess to oppose.  

Additionally, this also means that the white left is also eurocentric and white supremacist because they are validating movements in the west that are a result of ignoring the rest of the world's cultures and other ways of seeing things, and through that, actually promoting it throughout the globe and displacing other cultures, wisdoms and perspectives.  In that, the white left is basically owning the means of cultural reproduction, and subjugating the rest of the world to it.  It is no different if the Pope was to support the use of Latin as the lingua franca over all other languages in the world.  How on earth can such a 'left' be called a 'left', 'socialist', 'communist', 'anarchist'?  No.  Overarchingly, they are thus Eurocentrists, and that cancels out or compromises their claim to being 'left'.

2. Right is - pro-privilege, pro-class system, and basically pro-anything that will perpetuate them in power over others.  In this sense, both Trump and Big Tech, for instance, are right-wing.  They are both fighting for privilege.  It is something like choosing the rule of a king vs a bunch of aristoprats.  Basically, if you don't support the people's ownership of the means of production, you are right-wing. 

The right-wing will do anything, support anything, that will perpetuate their power and control of the people.  So in the case of the LGBT for instance, to support their right to hump anything that moves is fine because it will serve as a compensation for not being able to conduct meaningful revolutions, such as getting rid of the capitalist system.

But they do not define the right-wing.  The right-wing can also be those conservative sectors as well who clash against the LGBT, non-whites, immigrants, etc.  You could distinguish both as conservative vs liberal Right-wingers.  

3. Liberal is - not just 'freedom without boundaries'....or 'love without limits'

3.1. There are the Liberal Capitalists, who believe in freedom without boundaries so as to turn people into full-fledged consumerists.  They believe in the reign of the Corporation globally and the reduction of all human beings to unthinking consumers.

3.2. Then there are the Pragmatic Liberals, who believe in making the most of freedom within a socioeconomic system that is taken to be the norm or indisputable.  They seek to make liberal capitalism palatable by checking on its excesses so that life within such a milieu is livable and will not cause people to revolt.

3.3. Then we have the Cultural Liberals, whom are a product of ignoring all cultures and civilisations and their wisdoms, philosophies, alternative, etc.  Being left with next to nothing when it comes to meaning, they push for the kind of freedom that people whom have had all meaning exsanguinated from their culture are thus left to go for.  

So for example, LGBT and Eurofeminism is a phenomenon borne, not of the impulse to be free of oppression, but the impulse to be free whilst being ignorant of all more meaningful cultures and ways of being free, and thus being devoid of depth in personality to seek it.  

It is from there that movements from the Right to Kill Babies in the Womb, aka, Prochoice, to LGBT take their cue.  And this is overarchingly supported by a culture that supplies and gorges on depraved and gory 'entertainment' as well.  The same goes for psychopaths.  I'm not saying that LGBT/Eurofeminists and Psychopaths are the same, but they are certainly of that side of the spectrum where morality, ethics, are just 'subjective' and to be ignored, and everything is purposed for self and immediate gratification.  Where there is nothing left of meaning within and without, people will descend to even eating shit to feel something.  And that perfectly describes western 'culture' of the past couple of decades.  Death, debauchery, depravity and dismemberment are condiments in the daily diet of most westerners.    

It is like being held captive with nothing in the room, and finding freedom in playing with yourself to the point that when the door is left open, you will 'choose' to remain.  The younger generations are the most susceptible to this as they have no knowledge or interest in the past given the Corporate media's constant efforts to demonise parents, elders, and other cultures.

That is cultural liberalism, in hell that is.  To Buddha, Jesus, Guru Nanak, Mahavira, amongst others, idea of Cultural Liberalism means something else altogether.  While the western cultural liberals find freedom in depravity, these luminaries seek to be free off so that they can truly be free.  So in that sense, the cultural liberalism of the west, yet again, is a thoroughly Eurocentric enterprise. 

3.4. And then finally, there are the Idealist Liberals, whom are a breakaway from the above 2 as they view the idea of liberal, and the human being, as being corrupted and made far less within a socioeconomic system which is based on subjugation.  They know that people like what they like because they are deprived of more meaningful upbringing.  They seek to enquire after, or bring about a system, that enables people to make the most of themselves so that people aren't made less by making as much as they can with the little they have - like in capitalist society.  Such people comprise the True Left, as opposed to the western or white left.


Sum

It is important that we appreciate that the definitions of left, right, liberal, as we see becoming more pervasive at present, is a eurocentric movement in itself.  It is not just a matter of definition, but a redefinition of phenomena on the basis of the continuing limited cultural experience of people in the west in general given their eurocentric and colonial white supremacist history. 

A political spectrum has to take on board the perspectives and histories of the entirety of human civilisation in order to fully illustrate its extremes and all betwixt, as opposed to being imposed on the entirety of humanity from just one point of the human cultural spectrum.

All the left, right, and liberals of the west are eurocentric, and it is that which determines how left, right, and liberal is defined as opposed to how it ought to be defined in full appreciation of reality.  Their left-wing question the economic system whilst supporting the culture it produces.  Their right-wing support the economic system whilst questioning the culture it produces.  And their liberals support both the economic system and the culture it produces.  And none of them give a hoot and a half about the rest of the planet's standards and measures of anything.  And in this sense, they are all on the far right of the political and cultural spectrum. 

A political spectrum has to take on board the perspectives and histories of the entirety of human civilisation in order to fully illustrate its extremes and all betwixt, as opposed to being imposed on the entirety of humanity from just one point of the human cultural spectrum. 

People are all about 'gender fluidity' or 'sexual fluidity' these days - which i term 'sexual incontinence' - but none are into multicultural fluidity.  If they were, the idea of left, right, liberal, would have taken the perspectives of very much ancient civilisations and developed themselves, and their perspectives along with it, and thus ensure that the left, right, and liberal, are truly what it is, instead of being what they can make sense of it after they've become far less by ignoring all alternatives.   

My aim here is not to get you to respect other cultures, but to respect your potentials to imagine, understand, and grow beyond what your historically and culturally-induced definitions of anything can accommodate.

Look at it this way.  Many in the west are all about men becoming women and vice versa, but nobody wants to be black.  If they did, they would have discovered more of themselves to the point they wouldn't feel the need to fight for the right to piss in the other gender's toilet to feel free, or produce such eurocentric definitions of the political spectrum.  

At the end of the day, my aim here is not to get you to respect other cultures, but to respect your potentials to imagine, understand, and grow beyond what your historically and culturally-induced definitions of anything can accommodate.

edX