Quote:

We, Borg

UPDATE 06FEB25: as if on cue to prove my point, it seems that the leftist propaganda rag Politico, that did the wrap-up smear with the Biden laptop and the SCOTUS abortion leak, was receiving millions of tax dollars as “subscriptions” from the government.

The human eye has a contrast ratio of roughly 1,000,000:1 under ideal conditions, meaning it can detect details in a scene where the brightest area is one million times brighter than the darkest area. Note that this is a sliding scale. As the scene gets brighter or darker, the ratio adjusts up or down, but maintains the ratio.

The best Kodak film stocks had a contrast ratio of 2,000:1. Thus, we could have everything from brightly lit comedies to film noir and chiaroscuro lighting.

When I first got into television in the mid-1980s, the best video cameras had a contrast ratio of 300:1. They also had a very narrow range from 8% black to 90% white, limited by the iris, where the camera could see anything at all. For this reason, television shows generally had very “flat” lighting with little difference between the darkest areas and brightest areas, until the digital revolution.


Modern digital cinema cameras have a contrast ratio of about 100,000:1, which has allowed contemporary Hollymood “content” to be uniformly dark. Compare the lighting in Star Trek: The Next Generation to that found in Star Trek Discovery. That gives you an idea of the best analog ratio to the worst digital slop.

The point of all this is to introduce the idea that the left-right political scale is a lot like contrast ratio. Of the full political spectrum, there is a left-right ratio of roughly 300:1 — the very best political system in the world is just 300 times less painful than the very worst — out of a possible 1,000,000:1 scale.

On the far left of the scale is Totalitarianism, where government has full, utter and unquestionable power over everything. At the far right of the scale is pure unadulterated anarchy, where there is no government of any kind. Within that spectrum are all kinds of political systems, with some having been tried and others that have not.

We can think of our political scale as being “pure collectivism” on the left, and “pure individualism” on the right. Put another way, the far right would be ultimate freedom, and the far left would be abject slavery. Our 300:1 ratio slides back and forth between these extremes.

As far as I can tell, the least painful political systems in existence at this particular time would be just left of center in the full spectrum. Using our contrast ratio metaphor, that means the worst systems right now are 300 times worse, but in all cases, the ratio is to the left of center.

Pure free-market capitalism would fall somewhere to the right of center on the spectrum, with minimal government interference and a wealth-based monetary system. Looking at the world today, we see nothing like the latter anywhere. All nations have some degree of government manipulation of markets and fiat debt-based currencies. They are all left of center on our scale.

Note that the MAGA movement may be to the right of the previous administration, but it is by no means “right wing” or even close to the center of our scale. MAGA is a move in the right direction (pun intended), but it is far from even centrist political movements. There’s still an strong whiff of collectivism tangled up in it, albeit with a hint of individualism as a harmonic impulse.


The 20th century saw the rise and dominance of Socialism worldwide. There were essentially three competing forms of Socialism, but it was all shifted far to the left of the scale. At the left (worst) end of our 300:1 ratio was Russia’s Marxist Socialism. Towards the center of the ratio was America’s New Deal Socialism (mercantilism). At the right end (but not right wing) was Germany’s and Italy’s Fascism, or Public-Private Partnership.

Each of these systems represented a “flavor” of Socialism, but they were all Socialism. We might have a choice between milk chocolate, Belgian chocolate, and dark chocolate, but they are all chocolate.

Marxism always fails because it is anti-human. One cannot ever have total domination over a population. Human nature always fights against it.

New Dealism took an early lead, being the only system to survive World War Two intact. However, I would argue that Fascism (the Public-Private Partnership) has won the war. What we see globally right now is Fascism, with geographical trade blocks (EU, ASEAN, BRICS, ECOWAS, etc.), civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the monetization of literally everything.


The dear reader may disagree that I put New Dealism between Russia and Germany. My response is that the triumvirate of government, corporations and banksters (mercantilism) was worse than Fascism, but better than Marxism.

Under Fascism, corporations use government to create environments that empower and enrich themselves. In exchange, government uses corporations to enforce its edicts (vaccine mandates, DEI, etc.), with a convenient revolving door between corporate and regulatory jobs. This allows government to skirt legal limits on power, and the ability to deflect blame for failures, not to mention steady flow of taxpayer money into politician and private pockets.

Corporations, or collectivist “persons,” are Socialist by their nature. They are run by an elite group of appointed officers, they demand employee adherence to internal policies, and they function as a singular entity within society. Furthermore, the largest shareholders (owners) are often other corporations. In a purely Socialist state, such as Indonesia, the government is the primary shareholder.


Interestingly, American English uses 3rd Person Singular, while British English uses 3rd Person Plural, when referring to collectives (NASA has vs. Nasa have).

The government creates corporations via legal frameworks and enabling policies, with jurisdictions competing to attract as many of these “persons” as possible. Laws are passed that minimize competition by raising the cost of entry, tax breaks are offered as incentives, and even some operating costs may be covered by taxpayers.

Thus, the entire Fascist system is a circus of Olympic-scale back-scratching between public (government) and private (corporate) entities. They comprise their own eco-system, with corporate “compliance” rewarded by financial success within the protection racket, in the guise of government contracts, grants and other benefits not available to human beings.

The government is rewarded with plausible deniability, and an army of compliant enforcers that use “jobs” to twist the arms of the general public, and NGOs (see USAID) to twist the arms of resistant governments around the world.


It is telling that only the Nazis, and not the Italian corporatists, are held out as examples of Fascism, though Italy arguably created it. Hitler’s regime has successfully been made a scapegoat, and carefully crafted narradigms keep folks looking in the wrong direction with a constant refrain of “evil Nazis,” while actual Fascism grows like a cancer in front of our very eyes.

We have been deceived into thinking that Fascism is a “right-wing” political ideology, with radical racism and nationalism as the defining characteristics. However, group identity is a collectivist hallmark. While Germany may be at the right end of our 300:1 contrast ratio, it is far from being even moderately right of center.

Any political system that utilizes collectivism as a defining characteristic is, by definition, left wing.

In a true right-wing system, corporations would not be persons, humans would have divine unalienable rights, judicial systems would protect the individual above all else, the power to tax (steal your money) would decrease as we moved right, there would be real specie instead of fiat paper, and private property would be sacrosanct against government meddling.

In other words, a constitutional republic.

If you know of a place like this, go there immediately — do not pass GO, do not collect 200 worthless dollars.