Extreme right ( people with overly dominant left lobes) create extremely single minded but strong groupings ( religious fanaticism , extreme order , tight hierarchy , strict ritualistic division of the sexes ) that is signalled by the general right-handedness of the society( dominant left lobes).These people create societies…On the other hand….easy going people , left handers , less extreme in anything , will have fewer of the requisites to create a large group from nothing even though as individuals they may thrive once the group gets going.So all the hall marks of societies is the leftovers from the inital “right-wing” creation…hence an inexplicable taboo on left handedness amongst more explicable ones ( such as the restriction of women’s sexuality , public announced monogamy.. ” marriage ” which all help to create more stable and larger groupings)
Essentially….the extreme right lends itself to society creation…and then the slide to the left as a result of success ensues. Through success…much is tolerated ….rights and freedoms for more people , less repression and sexual / hierarchy / group taboos begin to change.
essentially the move to the Right creates ..the .Left humanizes.
Society in meltdown will find the Right the nucleus of re-creation ( Post-Soviet Taleban in Afghanistan,The Islamic courts in Somalia etc…Meltdowns that are happening principally in the ME orbit of countries want to re-nucleate around this principle of a hard-Right birthing. Note tribalism and clannism and even communism can’t compete with societies that were created originally by the right or are being created by the right.If Somalia and Afghanistan had kept themselves to themselves ( and not involved themselves in geo-politics ) I believe they would have been the perfect examples of a right-created society and than that would be evolving leftwards after initial success.Afghanistan ,post-Taleban , remains as a feuda,l tribal , clan based society that has a veneer of democracy and is a fragile state that will succumb to a right-nucleating force eventually.
But today..theres seems to be a insistence that these countries evolve straight away into a more mixed Right/Left combo to begin with at birth.This has failed and proves my point.
Liberal democracies are not the creative forces that can create a society..they are the Left/Right balance left over from hard Right- creative force.They will fail as templates for new societies.Japan and South Korea all went from Right-wing based single party rule before becoming liberal/conservative democracies.
This where we need to be more Machiavellian about the world around us…but that’s another story.But the fact that Democracies can dictate and project so much power , that can prevent Right-nucleating societies ( however uselessly that power is wielded) is intriguging about the paridgm shift that may be Democracy.
The success of society from the evolution ( right to right/left) will eventually consume/destroy the resources of that society.And that society will fail ..fall apart until a nucleus of right-wingers ( nut-jobs) start another successfully stable band of people into a new society.
Could democracies be the end of this cycle because they can cycle between the Right and Left.I am not so sure.A hard Right could suspend democracy as a neccessary pre-requisite for survival as this has happened before in many democracies ( the Army takes over…the purest distilled entity of right-handedness in any society) and return control or not.Is this an intrinisc flaw that helps the democratic experiment to continue?Without this flexibility ..would democracies essentially fail more often than succeed ..or is it failure fullstop.
In the past e.g Sparta style societies initiate a stable group structure that can effectively master the resource ( that includes people ..others as well e.g slavery ) landscape and then a more Athenian society sucessfully evolves that becomes too big in it resources footprint and than fails.And the cycle continues.
Is democracy the end to it?
Not sure.The only great sacrafices that mature Democracies do is more to do with nationalism…i.e we can be fat lazy playstation chip guzzling ripe for the cycle end…but we will still wage war on any scale if we can afford to.
(I am tired and am lost now.If you got this far..well done to you.Too many questions and too few brain cells.)
History is a fake subject
Islam expanded quickly over the ME becasue there was no geographical impediment to the Arabs …in Europe ..the distance and impediment was great and so they would never have taken over Europe unless the people of Europe chose Islam out of choice ( political expediency by the leaders ) e.g Prince Rus of Russia pondering turning over Russia to Islam.
Yet there is a whole queue of people who believe it was them that stopped the Arabs in their tracks ( in reality ..just plain over stretch + geography) and take credit for the whole of Western Civilisation ( Maltese-1545 siege …Serbs in some bloody field that they can’t help not forgetting ..French at Poitiers …Spaniards at ..well…Spain.I’m sure there are others ).
Wrong!!
History is complete BS.Arabs could’nt take Europe for the same reasons that Europeans had difficulty taking over themselves….it is a geographical hodge-podge of a chessboard…
and even if the leaders did find it expedient to become Muslims ( changing from one Arab inspired sect =Christianity …to another Arab based + inspired sect =Islam …yeah..yo-aah…BIG DEAL)..they would never have accepted political control ( just like Protestantism would have evolved regardless ..some form of dissent against political over-reach by the Mediterranean states trying to capture the Baltic/North sea trading regions was inevitable….ummm that geography cropping up again ) .The lesson of history is that there is’nt one.Its a completely bogus subject thats just about self-reflection and deceit.Geography explains half of everything and group behaviour the rest.History is just a conversation a group is having with itself and is about as intellectually robust as a fable.