1. The supreme law is the well-being of the people. It is not the well-being of the economy.

2. The Right Wing – Left Wing dichotomy is a product of Revolutionary politics and does not exist outside them. They mean the same thing today as they meant in 1793: Right Wing means favoring a limited revolution that retains useful elements of the pre-revolutionary world. Left Wing means favoring an absolute revolution that ecompasses all elements of society.

3. This also explains the apparent confusion over where Fascism falls in this spectrum. Fascism is Left Wing – favoring an absolute revolution – but it has a different vision of the revolution from Marxism, the Left Wing extreme that preceded it. Marxism imagines a world of no nations in which the People are freed by a collective global society, while Fascism imagines the People finding their true freedom by embodying the Spirit of the Nation. Both aim at a fundamental re-organizing and re-building of society, they just start from different assumptions.

The effect is that the Fascist appears to go back a bit along the Revolutionary path, as it were, to take a different fork, but one still leading in the Jacobin direction of absolute reform.

4. The true ‘extreme’ of the Right Wing would be to try to actively reverse the Left Wing progress and not just try to slow it down. However, the difference between the Right Winger and the Counterrevolutionary is that the Right Winger still operates within the Revolutionary / Enlightenment paradigm of rights, liberty, rule of ‘the People’, etc. Once they reach the point of stepping outside of that paradigm, they cease to be ‘Right Wing’ or ‘Left Wing’ and become Counterrevolutionary.

5. I’ve heard that Elon Musk is pushing the idea that AI robots will replace the need for human labor, leading to a society where no one has to work at all (apart from the robot maintenance men and AI technicians, presumably) because the robots will do all the rest.

This is, of course, not going to happen, but what not many people seem to realize is that not only is this a bad idea, but this is a worst-case scenario for society. Because if the bulk of the population isn’t needed to grow food, dig mines, build bridges, clean toilets, etc. then the question would become “why, exactly, would the technocratic ruling class need them around at all?”

You see, if you don’t have meaningful work, if you don’t contribute to society in some way, then you have no stake in society, which means you have no ability to influence anything. The dignity of work is not just its moral benefit, but the raw fact that, by doing productive or meaningful labor, you have an objective place in society that will cost something to take away from you.

In other words, if you exempt the peasantry from having to grow food because the food will magically grow without them, you do not put the peasants in a stronger position. You put them in a weaker position, because now there is no practical consequence for ignoring, abusing or killing them.

6. It never ceases to surprise me how often raw, physical facts are simply left out of political discourse.

Now, when I talk about ‘facts’ with regards to politics, I’m usually not talking about statistics, or that X politician did or said such and such, which require sources and research. I’m talking about things like “the only way a population reproduces is through men and women creating babies” and “the purpose of the military is to fight wars.”

There’s an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon in The Simpsons where Scratchy (who has recently had his own heart removed) reads a newspaper headline announcing “You Need a Heart to Live!” and promptly dies. I feel like that’s the level of facts that get regularly ignored in political discourse.

7. The next film in the ‘Monsterverse’ is going to be called Godzilla x Kong: Supernova.

If Spacegodzilla isn’t the antagonist, I’m not seeing it.