Cover photo: The “horseshoe theory” (source: angelobaiocchi.it, il capitalista.it)
A few months ago, at the approach of the Italian elections on March 4th, 2018, a message was circulating on WhatsApp (and who knows on how many other social networks) that seems like an innocent way of laughing about politics, something that has been fashionable for several years given the low quality of politics… But in reality it is a masterpiece of media manipulation with partisan political purposes.
di Guido De Simone
This is the text I received from a friend on my phone.
____________________________
Being a right-wing type, being a left type…
– When right-wing people are not hunters and do not like weapons, they do not go hunting or buy weapons;
– When left-wing people are not hunters and do not like weapons, they ask that hunting and sale of weapons be prohibited.
– When right-wing people are vegetarian, they do not eat meat;
– When left-wing people are a vegetarian, they campaign against meat foods and would like everyone stops eating meat.
– When right-wing people are a homosexual, they have a normal life.
– When left-wing people are homosexual, they take defense of homosexuality, go to the “gay pride” demonstrations and accuse of “homophobia” all those who do not think like them.
– When right-wing people lose their job, they think about how to get out of the situation and do everything to find a new job;
– When left-wing people lose their job, they go to complain to the union, waste time until the last day and go to all the demonstrations and strikes against the right and against entrepreneurs.
– When right-wing people do not like a TV program, they switch channels or turns off the TV;
– When left-wing people do not like a television program, they complain about it in social networks, report it to left’s newspapers, radio, television, political parties and promote an association to close the television channel that broadcasts that program.
– When right-wing people are atheist, they do not go to church.
– When left-wing people are atheist, they persecute all those who believe in God, denounce the school or the institution that exposes a crucifix, protest against any sign of religious identity, ask that the Church’s goods be expropriated, prohibit the Holy Week and every procession or pilgrimage (against Islam they do not do anything because they do not have the courage).
– When right-wing people have economic problems, they look for additional works to earn more or try to find financing to pay off their debts, and save money if they can.
– When left-wing people have economic problems, they blames the right-wing, the entrepreneurs, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, the neoconservatives, etc. etc., then they become assiduous visitors to a trade union, hoping that someone can put them in a political party, or wherever they can solve their problems.
– When right-wing people read this writing, they laugh and send it to their friends.
– When left-wing people read this writing, they rage and give the fascist and the retrograde to those who wrote it and sent it to them.
… I laughed and turned it to you….
____________________________________
Hereunder is how I replied to my friend:
—————————————————–
My dear,
Yes, I laughed, but rather bitterly.
In fact, the text that you received, and which you have forwarded to me, very well describes two archetypes:
– one *extremist*, defined as *left-wing*, but which more properly should be referred to as “extreme left-wing’s“,
– the other is objectively *moderate* and *constructive*, but is improperly attributed, with no limitation, to “right-wing” people in general.
As a matter of fact, this text cunningly proposes two manipulations:
1st MANIPULATION
It reduces the entire political universe to two categories. A simplification that, by convenience of the smart proposer, clearly partisan, erases everything else.
In fact, the variegated political landscape shows us many dozens of categories, each one with its own “forma mentis” (mental structure)… and yet even those tens categories are simplifications with respect to the evidence that each person is different, and therefore they aggregate only because they find something in common with others, despite that something is only a part of their self and mostly what at that moment of their lives emerges as a priority need.
If we really want to make our life simpler we could reduce to 5 the political macro-categories:
– “extreme left“,
– “center-left” or ” left-wing moderates“,
– “moderates without color“, wavering according to the moment and needs,
– “center-right” or “right-wing moderates“,
– “extreme right“.
2nd MANIPULATION
It attributes the typical behaviors of the political “center” (which, compared to the 5 categories above listed, ranges from “moderates of the left” to “moderates of the right” and are 80% of the electoral universe) to a vague category of “right” , thus clearing up the whole right-wing, including extremists, as “moderates”.
Nothing could be more false.
It is true that the extreme left, like ALL extremisms, has the arrogant tendency to forbid or cancel what it does not like or does not meet its criteria and dogmas.
But, In fact, this is also what the extreme right does. History, even very recent, is full of examples, even too many, by both sides.
The degeneration of the extreme left
The difference between the two is that the left does it openly, with a disconcerting arrogance, perhaps between popular festivals and sarcastic jokes, and then, after taking power, it arrives to impose, “in the name of the people”, its own doctrine, obviously dogmatic and indisputable, bearer of absolute and incontrovertible truth … like all dogmatic doctrines and, just to change, imposed also with violence.
Last example in time? Venezuela.
It all began with “Hurray Socialism!”, opposing the evident injustices of a capitalist system that had little to do with liberalism, which had much enriched a few, and exploited other, So that, with popular acclaim, Chavez went to power. Problems arise when, instead of simply correcting the system’s defects, he literally smashed it. Then, partly with the purpose to drop on someone else the fault of the disaster, partly due to the paranoia, not entirely unmotivated, that the US could anytime order 
a coup, he closed the country to everything and everyone, sinking into a heavy autarky that, not being a producer of goods and technologies or medicines, in a short time made everything lack. Today, the situation has even worsened following the succession of Maduro to Chavez, who died of cancer, given that Maduro is not worth even a fingernail of Chavez. Hence Venezuela, a country that possesses one the largest reserves of high-quality oil in the world, so much so that all the people could live comfortably, has literally sunk to starvation and, paradox of the paradoxes, the oil that now the producer country is no longer able to refine (the plants are collapsing) is given to the “hated Americans” who sells it back to Venezuela in the form of gasoline at 10 times the price it costed before. People’s rebellion, now also of the populace that formerly supported the socialist government, are often sedated in the blood and attributed to attempts by “anti-revolutionary” foreign forces who want to destroy the “conquests” of socialism … therefore insulting the founding principles of true socialism.
The degeneration of the extreme right
But let’s get to the techniques usually applied by the right faction. The right-wing makes it much more astutely, less blatantly. First, its leaders present themselves as moderate, often “God-fearing”. Then, when they have convinced the true “moderates”, who like this attitude, and therefore after having conquered power thanks to the vote of moderates who fell for it, they begin to show their true face, imposing their “doctrine” on them too. Obviously, also they do it “in the name of God” or “in the name of the People”, which also in this case suffers because submitted with violence, psychological (fear is enough to inhibit any reaction) and physical, if necessary.
One of the last examples (but there are many others in progress on various continents, cases that abound in the Christian “field”, and lately have even polluted the Buddhist doctrine) is ISIS: the black men of Al-Baghdadi, initially presented themselves to the inhabitants of each community between Iraq and Syria (and then to Libya, Nigeria, Somalia , etc.) as “peaceful moderates”, defenders of Allah and the Prophet’s
teachings, who wanted to help the population out of their state of poverty and the (evident) lack of public assistance. As soon as they were in power they began to impose strict rules and laws that most of all grant death penalty if one does not obey, with cruel public executions… and for those populations the nightmare began. Unfortunately, beasts of that kind only hurl them with violence, as it is happening now… and as happened for the Nazis and the Fascists, etc., etc. .
Better not to deny or however neglect the existence of extremes, otherwise you will discover too late where they arrived
I have the good habit of listening to everyone, even those who think, speak and act with extremist forms and contents, because it is good to understand what has led them to this attitude. But, above all, being smart people too, there is no need to underestimate some of their proposals. But I would never give him a country.
It is wise to listen to everyone, even those who think, speak and act with extremist forms and contents, because it is good to understand what has led them to this attitude and what strategies they are adopting. But, above all, being intelligent people too, it is better not to underestimate, even more than their proposals, often extremist, the problems they would like to answer to, because once these problems are solved, the excuse they had to propose extreme solutions is over.
One thing is certain: you cannot give a country in the hands of extremists; it’s its end.
The point of view of a true moderate with a working brain and a sharp mind (we are now a good part of that 80%, you’ve better not forget it)
So, dear friend, that text you forwarded to me should be rewritten as follows:
——————————–
The Difference Between Right And Left And What Is In The Middle
(Being right’s, being left’s, and being moderate…)
– When *moderate* people are not hunters and do not like weapons, they do not go hunting or buy weapons;
– When *left-wing* people are not hunters and do not like weapons, they ask that hunting and sale of weapons be prohibited.
– When *right-wing* people are not hunters and do not like weapons, they do not ask for the hunting and sale of weapons to be prohibited, but they get to power and then prohibit them.
– When *moderate* people are vegetarian, they do not eat meat;
– When *left-wing* people are vegetarian, they campaign against meat foods and would like everyone to stop eating meat.
– When *right-wing* people are vegetarian, they disgust who is not, but do not make it public. Then they gain power and, in no uncertain terms, prohibit eating meat.
– When *moderate* people are homosexual, they make a normal life and respect heterosexuals.
– When *left-wing* people are homosexual, they make apology for homosexuality, go to the “gay pride” demonstrations and accuse of “homophobia” all those who do not think like them.
– When *right-wing* people are homosexual, they hide it well, then get to power and prosecute the “homosexuals”, so as to prove that they are not (Hitler was Jewish).
… But there is no problem, the extremists are such both if *left-winged* and *right-winged*, so both carry out persecutions in the name of their “ideology” (like Hitler, also Stalin was a champion in that kind of “skill”).
– When *moderate* people lose their job, they think about how to get out of the situation and do everything to find a new job;
– When *left-wing* people lose their job, they go to complain to the unions, spend until the last day to go to all the demonstrations and strikes against the *right* and against the entrepreneurs.
– When *right-wing* people lose their job, they turn to their party’s powerful friends and get it, in the face of all those of *left* who are demonstrating and striking against entrepreneurs.
– When *moderate* people do not like a TV program, they change channel or turn off the TV; and if such a program is truly exceeding the limits of decency, beyond the edge of extremism and denying the word to the counterparts, they protest with the competent institutions, asking them to bring the system back into balance, without denying visibility to different opinions.
– When *left-wing* people do not like a television program, they complain about it in newspapers, reports it in newspapers, radio, television, * left-wing* political parties, and promote an association to close the television channel which broadcasts that program… but, of course, if it comes to power, it closes that television program or the TV itself and all its similar “in the name of the people”.
– When *right-wing* people do not like a television program, they destroy it in *right-winged* newspapers, radios and televisions and, when in power, they close that program or even the television channel that transmits it, with no “ifs” or “buts”.
– When *moderate* people are atheist, they do not go to church.
– When *left-wing* people are atheist, they persecute all those who believe in God, denounce the school or the institution that exposes a crucifix, protest against any sign of religious identity, ask that the Church’s goods be expropriated, prohibit the Holy Week and every procession or pilgrimage (against Islam they do not do anything because they do not have the courage).
– When *right-wing* people are atheist, they avoid making it appear, then, once in power, thanks to the votes of believers to whom they have sold the story of being like them, they ask the religious representatives to support their regime to guarantee (impose) the order and, if they refuse, decree the ban on this religion (or all) as “a danger to the people”, and remove its symbols from the whole country (… ops, that is the same that the extreme left usually does).
In some cases, they establish a new (regime’s) religion and their leader self-proclaim himself its “religious head” (this is what happened in England a few centuries ago, but it is only the best known of the examples in the course of History).
Huh, they resolve the problem of Islam in a radical manner: they slam all its believers out of the country, even those, the vast majority, that all were but extremists. So it makes them angry and react publicly against Westerners, and this becomes the justification for pointing them out as “the evident danger of which they have freed the country”.
– When *moderate* people have economic problems, they look for opportunity to work and earn more, or try to find a loan to pay their debts, and, if they can, they save money.
– When *left-wing* people have economic problems, they blame the *right*, the entrepreneurs, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, the neoconservatives, etc. etc., then they join a union hoping their executives will put them in a political party or wherever they can solve their economic problems.
– When *right-wing* people have economic problems in their heart and among a few acquaintances they blame the *left*, unions and foreigners (including EU) (it’s a classic attitude: it’s always and only the fault of others) that destroyed the economy and the country, and then ask for help from entrepreneurs or banks or friends close to their party.
– Both of them, *left-winged* and *right-winged*, know that they have chosen an apparently convenient shortcut, but in reality they have sold themselves off, enslaving themselves and making themselves a pawn dependent on the will of others.
– When *left-wing* people read this writing, they rage and give the fascist and the retrograde to those who wrote it and sent it to them, trying to shame them publicly. In the most extreme cases, they will do a battle of principle, one of the trampolines for their social and political career.
– When *right-wing* people read this, they get very upset, call who sent it to them and try to find out who wrote it, noting it on their “black book”, which will be reopened when they and their beloved political party will finally manage to conquer the power, so to get rid of all those who put this conquest at risk.
– When *moderate* people read this, maybe at first they laugh, but then realize how sad it is that there are people who are so uncomfortable with themselves and with others that they choose one of the most extreme paths, which will reveal soon as an arrogant illusion to keep everything and everyone under control, but in the meantime will be a trap for everyone, including them.
———————————-
… There is little to laugh as long as there are those who fall into the manipulative traps of one or the other extremism.
The problem is that, beyond the majority of those who line up at the extremes only to belong to a part that they believe strong and winning and on whose absolute and absolutist certainties they rely, there is also a group of people, usually a few, but not to undervalue, which instead join an extremist party not to be a pawn at disposition, but to use that organization, having perceived the potential of its strong and populist message and wanting to exploit it to make their own army of followers.
In spite of their choice of an extreme flag, they are quite sly people and therefore present themselves publicly as “moderates”, so as to be able to charm not only the limited number of the faithful followers of that part, but also an increasing number of that 80% of moderates, among whom there is a big slice of people who are too inexperienced and naive, and do not have enough democratic antibodies to immediately sniff manipulators.
Such clever storytellers justify the choice of that extreme flag by presenting it as a “necessary strong remedy” in those times of uncertainty that are suffering, often emphasizing and magnifying beyond the reality the danger at the door, and underlining the “need” of strong certainties and effective solutions to counter such “dangers”, those solutions that they have been “wisely” offering for some time, albeit “foolishly” unheard.
It matters little that such skilled manipulators are on the “right” or “left” front. When one of the two is more able to exploit the fears of the moderates, often with great skill, creating art or encouraging such fears and in any case magnifying the extent of the problems that are actually normal and manageable … well, there is really the risk that an increasingly large part of the moderates, afraid, are convinced that maybe they are right.
Again: as long as there are those who fall into the manipulative traps of one or the other extremism, there is little to laugh.
But this only happens if among the moderates, and therefore in the midst of the overwhelming majority that includes both those who are more or less tending to the right, and those who more or less tend towards the left, there is no one capable of keeping head to these manipulators at the ends, left and right, and their cunning strategies.
In essence, moderate leaders must avoid being dragged into the trap by attacking a person who is presenting himself as “a moderate who wants to save the moderates in danger”, just because they know that he is lying. With such behavior, paradoxically, they risk being the ones to pass for aggressive extremists.
But they must listen to those among the citizens who are currently deployed with those extreme leaders, trying to understand what and who has alarmed them so much to accept extreme solutions. And, at the same time, they must give real solutions to the problems skillfully exploited by extremists.
In the absence of a leader or, better still, a substantial group of thinking heads, able to keep the extremes and their cunning bosses at bay, the moderates are at risk of losing control. And this can plunge the country into a big trouble.
It is never just the fault of those who play negatively, but also and especially of those who do not defend their constructive positions.
___________________
