Just Right Media

  • Home
  • Just Right Media

Just Right Media We analyze issues of the day from the perceptive of individual rights & capitalism. Our radio show b Everything in the show ties to this lesson or concept.

From a listener

"As you guys know I’m a huge fan of Just Right, and I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately; what is it about Just Right that is so appealing to me and what is that magic element that is missing from all other podcasts? I’ve realized over time, that what sets Just Right apart, and this has not changed since episode #1, is that there is ALWAYS an organized, well thought out, c

ompelling and significant lesson. With the addition of Robert, there are often two concepts, making him such a great addition. I would imagine that it’s this part of any podcast / presentation, that takes all the effort and thought ! "Contrast this to other podcasts…..in politics and philosophy, generally they are unorganized, the lessons are scattered and improvised and somewhat repetitious. Not to say that they have nothing to offer, but the majority of them don’t require a second listen and if they do, there is a lot of fast forwarding to get to the good part. Just Right has some similarity to other types of shows, like weird and wonderful fact shows (Stuff You Should Know Series, BBC, CBC), in that they are organized like Just Right, however, the content is rather insignificant, non-controversial and often just plain wrong, scattered and confused. I get so ticked off with CBC sometimes, like the other day the Title was “Fascism, can it happen here?”, and they start the show with snippets of Trump speeches and move on from there interviewing progressive, “experts”, never once asking what Fascism is to begin with….absolute garbage. "Anyway, just wanted to tell you that with every show, I learn something, and this “something” is always significant, that I ponder for days, weeks and even years. It really is a unique experience that enriches my life greatly, which is why I support the show in what I consider to be an insignificant way……which is the point I guess, otherwise it would be a sacrifice……LOL! Thanks again guys!"

Murray T.

Color blinded—to racism's color blind antidote: "Our country is at a tipping point," recently warned U.S. president Don...
10/12/2025

Color blinded—to racism's color blind antidote: "Our country is at a tipping point," recently warned U.S. president Donald Trump. "I don't know if people mind me saying that, but we could go one way or the other - and we're going to be going the wrong way if we keep taking garbage into our country. Ilhan Omar is garbage; her friends are garbage. They don't go 'let's make this place great,' they are people who do nothing but complain."

One cannot help but notice how America's immigration crisis is being debated and discussed in an increasingly aggressive and hostile manner, from America's president right down to the average man on the street. Trump's reference to an America flooded with 'garbage' people metaphorically reflects the reality of literal rivers of garbage associated with cultures whose people not only do not clean up their garbage, but live in it.

By equating criticism of other cultures with racism, the Left has effectively distracted everyone from the fact that 'cultures' are a product of human beliefs, actions and choices, whereas 'race' pertains to skin color and other physical characteristics not open to any moral or intellectual considerations. Most importantly, the Left has turned the racial divide into a false polarity, with people of white skin color on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Perhaps one of the most ominous causes of anti-white racism is the legally institutionalized ideology of 'critical race and legal theory.' This ideology frames criminal actions committed by 'people of color' as not being criminal but merely a reaction to laws written by 'wealthy white people' who don't have to break their laws in order to survive. If that sounds bizarre, contradictory and irrational, it's because it is.

Racism is being artificially manufactured by the Left to cover its constant effort to destroy Western culture.

The whole 'racism' controversy has color blinded people to racism's color blind antidote: a total rejection of so-called 'multiculturalism' and D.E.I. (diversity, equity, inclusion) legislation. And above all, what is required is the preservation and enhancement of Western culture - a culture that recognizes individual rights, protects individual freedom of choice, and which treats all individuals - irrespective of skin color or physical characteristics - equally before and under the law.

Western culture and its values have been packaged as being 'white' by those on the Left, in an attempt to equate those values with racism. Apparently the Left is hoping that most people still don't know that racism is exclusively a phenomenon of the Left, while Western culture and its values originate from what is exclusively Just Right.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element "Our country is at a tipping point," recently warned U.S. president Donald Trump. "I don't know if people mind me saying that, but we could go one way or the other - and we're going to be going the wrong way if we keep taking garbage into our countr

Democratic dilemma: Is democracy a fiction? Democracy: Consent of the governed? Or government by consensus? What mos...
03/12/2025

Democratic dilemma: Is democracy a fiction? Democracy: Consent of the governed? Or government by consensus?

What most fail to realize is that these two views are incompatible. That's because the principle of 'consent' rests on individual rights, while the principle of 'consensus' allows for the violation of individual rights.

These two very different concepts of 'democracy' have long been in conflict, resulting in a social condition that no longer seems 'democratic.' Consequently, many no longer feel that their governments represent them and they are actually questioning whether or not what most see as 'democracy' is a just a fiction.

One can argue that America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, but this does not address the reality that it currently operates as neither, given its assumed mandate of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Many voices on the Right have gone into a panic mode trying to resolve the nation's democratic dilemma by offering many valid observations and insights into the symptoms of the problem. Unfortunately, they have offered few viable solutions to a cure, owing to a fundamental misunderstanding of what has assumed to be 'democracy'.

Democracy, like government itself, should be limited in terms of elections and voting; voting should never be allowed to violate or infringe on the individual rights of others - and thereby also on their ability to consent.

Under the principle of 'majority rule,' no such limits exist. That's why understanding democracy in a way that is Just Right first requires abandoning the foolish notion of 'majority rule' as a justification for the violation of individual rights.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Democracy: Consent of the governed? Or government by consensus? What most fail to realize is that these two views are incompatible. That's because the principle of 'consent' rests on individual rights, while the principle of 'consensus' allows

Right wingers—from fragmentation to stagnation: It's bad enough when those on the Right publicly exhibit internal ideol...
26/11/2025

Right wingers—from fragmentation to stagnation: It's bad enough when those on the Right publicly exhibit internal ideological conflicts; it's even worse when those conflicts become personal.

For example, says Ben Shapiro: "The fragmentation of the political right is caused purposely by a splinter faction led by Nick Fuentes. They're white supremacists; they hate women, Jews, Christians, brown people, blacks, America's foreign policy and constitution, and they admire Hi**er and Stalin," and "Tucker Carlson is an intellectual coward, a dishonest interlocutor, and a terrible friend."

Says Mark Levin: "Tucker is a racist so, no, I don't debate the Klan and I don't debate N***s."

Says Tucker Carlson: "Mark Levin is full of hate. (He supports) killing kids because you don't like their parents. He is describing blood guilt."

You get the general idea - not exactly inspiring displays of reasoned debate or clearly defined principles. And these are but a few examples.

The concern has been raised as to whether or not the various conflicts between recognized voices of the 'Right' will cause a fragmentation on the Right serious enough to compromise the MAGA movement and its resistance to the Left.

Whether or not these conflicts will evolve from a minor right wing fragmentation to another major right wing stagnation is something impossible to predict.

But to suggest that these disagreements are being aired and debated in a way that is Just Right depends on whether one takes them seriously or just as comedic entertainment.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element It's bad enough when those on the Right publicly exhibit internal ideological conflicts; it's even worse when those conflicts become personal. For example, says Ben Shapiro: "The fragmentation of the political right is caused purposely by a splint

Socialism—not very social: Thanks to the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the City of New York's 'socialist' mayor,...
19/11/2025

Socialism—not very social: Thanks to the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the City of New York's 'socialist' mayor, there have been increasing alarms warning of a rise in 'socialism's popularity' among a majority of America's young people. However, this may be an overstatement.

While it is fair to say that there has been a rise in the number of socialist politicians getting elected, to attribute these electoral wins to any love of socialism is simply misguided. Why? Because the average 'socialist voter' has no concept of socialism, either in terms of its definition or in terms of its horrific history. They are voting 'against' something, not for it.

Socialism, as an understandable or relatable concept, has little or no relevance to most voters' daily concerns and lives. To them, socialism is just some nebulous label that politicians use to belittle one another (even though they may all behave the same and pursue the same socialist policies).

In practice, socialism is the political application of the philosophy of egalitarianism. Socialist 'equality' does not mean 'equality before and under the law' - it means equity: the 'equality' of results. It means that those who work hard, take risks, and produce the goods, services, and products upon which a society's survival depends, must be punished to the degree of their success, while those who do not fit into the productive class (for whatever reason) are to be rewarded by sharing in the products they had no part in creating.

But the shift towards socialism is caused by a general failure in knowing how to recognize either socialism or capitalism, which have co-existed in an untenable 'mixed economy' leading to today's economic crisis.

Having lived in the 'mixed economy' of socialism's shadow for decades if not longer, many have been conditioned to blame all the failings of today's economy on the only part of it that still works - the capitalist part - and to falsely credit our still relatively high standard of living on the socialist part. And of course, it's exactly the other way round.

As a concept inapplicable to reality, the very term 'socialism' itself belongs in the 'Marxist Language of Fools' dictionary. It is an immoral concept that inevitably leads to human destruction.

Unfortunately, most of capitalism's alleged defenders continue to defend capitalism strictly on economic grounds. But to merely argue that 'capitalism works' or that 'capitalism creates abundance' does not address the nature of capitalism, only its consequences.

Until more on the Right learn to define capitalism as a moral system. not just an economic one, there will be little to persuade others why capitalism is the system that is Just Right for all humanity.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Thanks to the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the City of New York's 'socialist' mayor, there have been increasing alarms warning of a rise in 'socialism's popularity' among a majority of America's young people. However, this may be an overstate

The great escape—from Canada | Mark Vandermaas: "I've gone from being a patriotic Canadian to the point where I wouldn'...
12/11/2025

The great escape—from Canada | Mark Vandermaas: "I've gone from being a patriotic Canadian to the point where I wouldn't risk a hangnail for Canada," laments our guest Mark Vandermaas. "Canada's done. There is no political solution; there is no legal solution."

A retired member of the Canadian armed forces, Mark's experience as a Canadian activist included his being arrested for carrying a Canadian flag in public. This was perhaps an event symbolic of his ultimate decision to escape the tyranny in Canada and thus be able to say: "We love our life in Ecuador."

In sharing his story of how he came to ultimately choose Ecuador as his destination, Mark's narrative of events describing Canada's descent into tyranny serve as a chilling reminder of just "how fast a supposedly civilized society can go off the rails."

Referring to the Canada of today as a "grotesquely racist country," whose national pass time has become "hating people," Mark is convinced that Canada is not "fixable" and is doomed to collapse as a nation.

"Canada threw out the entire rule of law; they shredded the fabric of Canadian society for refusing medical experimentation. Covid cemented the idea that Canada was over; the sooner Canada is over, maybe then you can build something better."

Mark is encouraging other Canadians concerned about their personal individual freedom in Canada to flee the country, not necessarily to Ecuador, but to any jurisdiction that does not directly threaten their lives or liberty.

When patriotic citizens find it necessary to flee the country of their home and allegiance, it can justifiably be seen as an act of self defense. Whether such a decision turns out to be Just Right is a question only answerable by those who manage to make the great escape.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element "I've gone from being a patriotic Canadian to the point where I wouldn't risk a hangnail for Canada," laments our guest Mark Vandermaas. "Canada's done. There is no political solution; there is no legal solution." A retired member of the Canadian

Escaping Neverland—A Canadian refugee in Ecuador | Mark Vandermaas: “When in the course of human events it becomes nece...
12/11/2025

Escaping Neverland—A Canadian refugee in Ecuador | Mark Vandermaas: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...” These immortal words from the Declaration of Independence heralded the birth of a great nation, forged in revolution against despotic rule. Today, however, one man has chosen a quieter path to freedom: relocating from Canada to Ecuador to escape the creeping shadow of political tyranny.

That is precisely what Mark Vandermaas and his wife did after life in Canada had grown unpredictably autocratic. Host, Robert Vaughan, likened his homeland to the Neverland of Peter Pan, where the Lost Boys remained children, perpetually stunted in their growth and maturity, unable to become responsible adults and forever treated like children by a paternalistic, stern, and stifling government.

Confronted by a relentless onslaught of encroachments upon their personal liberties—assaults that permeated the lives of every Canadian—they swiftly packed their belongings and departed for the serene, temperate elevations of that comparatively tranquil nation. They established their new home in the city of Cuenca, nestled high amid the majestic Andes Mountains.

In our discussion, we explore Mark’s activism in Canada, the pivotal decision he and his wife made to emigrate, and the striking contrasts in politics and culture between Canada and Ecuador.

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...” These immortal words from the Declaration of Independ

No Canada? —an unconventional view: In December 2024, a documentary film entitled 'Canada the Illusion' was released on...
05/11/2025

No Canada? —an unconventional view: In December 2024, a documentary film entitled 'Canada the Illusion' was released on multiple on-line platforms with a descriptive: "This film is entirely based on facts and not on opinions." Produced by Timm Stein in collaboration with Xander La Rue, Doug Force, and The Myth is Canada, the documentary delivers a painfully detailed legal and political history of how the nation known as Canada came into being. And then ceased to be.

Citing the Statute of Westminster (December 11, 1931) as the most important document defining the land mass known as Canada, the documentary concludes that from that point forward, the nation of Canada ceased to exist as a sovereign entity. The provinces, because they owned the land, became sovereign states unto themselves. Consequently, every piece of federal legislation passed after December 11, 1931 is invalid and lacks any authority to enforce it.

As implausible as this sounds (as it also did to the documentary's producers), there appears to be no way to dispute this conclusion based on Canada's legal and political history, documented at every step of the way. So how could it be that a nation called 'Canada' has carried on as such irrespective of its history and relevant laws?

One cannot help but notice that Canadian law and politics are in complete disarray, wherein operable principles and processes have been completely replaced by the whim of politicians. This condition has arisen because no one successfully challenged this practice, and over time, it became the 'conventional' way to govern in Canada.

A perfect example of this was seen when Ontario premier Doug Ford's government ran political ads concerning American political issues in the United States. Ford himself has stressed that the ads were intended for an American audience only, thus illustrating how irrelevant the issue of defined political jurisdictions has become.

Ford's actions resulted in Donald Trump's stopping all trade talks with Canada. Given Canada's precarious legal status as a nation, Donald Trump may have more grounds for envisaging Canada as a 51st state than he imagines.

The uncomfortable reality underlying all of these issues is that nations are ultimately governed not by laws, rules, or regulations, but by 'convention.'

It doesn't matter what the laws of a given nation may proscribe if no one is obeying or enforcing them. Such laws are not worth the paper they're written on. In fact, such laws create a great disrespect for, and distrust of, government.

When people do accept and obey certain laws which are enforced by government, then those laws are valid. And government becomes relatively trustworthy again.

Aligning a nation's laws and written procedures with conventional practice is both a challenge and objective that is part of democratic debate. Every democratic nation is a permanent work in process, transcending many generations; there are no immutable laws or structures capable of preserving or protecting any traditions that would identify a 'finished' or happily static society.

Whether one is governed by laws or by convention is really secondary to the task of discovering the proper principles - and practices - that can foster a culture of individual freedom.

Ultimately, the recognition that we are mostly governed or ruled by 'convention' neither threatens nor resolves the eternal issue regarding which of those conventions are Just Right for freedom.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element In December 2024, a documentary film entitled 'Canada the Illusion' was released on multiple on-line platforms with a descriptive: "This film is entirely based on facts and not on opinions." Produced by Timm Stein in collaboration with Xander La Rue,

Why Canada sucks—from tariffs to racism: In response to a political ad produced and distributed at a cost of $75 millio...
29/10/2025

Why Canada sucks—from tariffs to racism: In response to a political ad produced and distributed at a cost of $75 million by Ontario premier Doug Ford's government, US president Donald Trump terminated all trade negotiations with the entire nation of Canada.

The ad, featuring former president Ronald Reagan speaking on the subject of tariffs (on April 25, 1987) was edited in such a way as to completely distort and misrepresent Reagan's original comments in full context. It was an attempt by the Ford government to imply that Reagan and Trump held opposite views on tariffs and free trade, when in fact their stated views were identical.

Worse, as Trump observed, the release of the fraudulent ads occurred in conjunction with pending US supreme court decisions regarding a president's authority to impose tariffs. This was the very issue originally addressed by Reagan when he gave his speech.

Why a provincial politician like Doug Ford would interfere in American politics is a question no doubt being considered by the Trump administration. Ford faces no immediate election prospects himself, though his government is planning to abandon the idea of fixed election periods altogether.

Let's not forget, that in the very recent 'hit-and-run' provincial election called by Doug Ford at the beginning of this year, his provincial campaign was always attacking Trump and his tariffs, rather than opposing his political rivals in the province.

Similarly, during the last Canadian federal election, soon-to-be Canadian prime minister Mark Carney also declared Trump his political opponent while generally ignoring his actual Canadian political opposition.

Canada's fear of free trade stems from the fact that Canadian politicians generally prefer controlled trade, controlled production, and regulated consumption - all controlled by the politicians, of course.

Given such crony corruption, it should come as no surprise that Canada does not respect private property rights, freedom of speech, or a culture of freedom.

This collectivist ideology has led to a dystopian nation with no identifiable culture, infected by racism and racist policies at every level, and headed towards economic ruin.

Homelessness and poverty are rampant on a scale never before experienced in Canada. MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) continues to exterminate Canadians at a rate never before experienced in Canada, even if only over depression or poverty. The economy is suffering under extreme inflation. Illegal aliens are flooding the country. Housing shortages are rampant. Health care waiting lists continue to grow.

Personal, political and legal battles over the Canadian Trucker's convoy in Ottawa still remain unresolved and in demand of justice. Violent protests by the Left continue to get police protection, while peaceful media members covering those protests are arrested by police.

While these symptoms and issues are certainly not exclusive to Canada, they definitely reflect a picture of Canada inconsistent with most international perceptions of the country.

Between the likes of Ontario premier Doug Ford and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, Canadian politicians have succeeded in convincing US president Donald Trump that Canada really does suck, so much so that to set the country back on a path that's Just Right would take a lot more than just eliminating tariffs.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element In response to a political ad produced and distributed at a cost of $75 million by Ontario premier Doug Ford's government, US president Donald Trump terminated all trade negotiations with the entire nation of Canada. The ad, featuring former presid

There's no time like the future: As strange as it may seem, there are many cultures whose concept of 'time' literally d...
22/10/2025

There's no time like the future: As strange as it may seem, there are many cultures whose concept of 'time' literally do not include any recognition of a 'future.' While this may seem an innocuous and harmless notion, unfortunately it may be symptomatic of a dark cultural malaise.

Sounding an alarm about the danger this presents to Western culture, UK podcaster Connor Tomlinson recently warned that "we don't understand how Africa thinks" and that "we don't understand how the third world thinks." In two separate presentations warning about the risks and dangers of immigration by people who fail to conceptualize any concept of a 'future,' his insights and analysis certainly do explain many behaviors and attitudes about such immigrants not previously understood.

Citing the African concepts of Sasa (Sasha) and Zamani as the two dimensions of time, he concludes that "we can't have a civilization if people don't think the future exists."

Sasa is described by African philosophers as the "now, the recent past and the immediate future which can be experienced." Zamani is the "vast endless past where all events eventually go on to live forever, but the 'future' in African thought barely exists."

Central to this 'timely philosophy' is the belief that "time is made up of events. Time has to be experienced in order to be real, because we cannot conceptualize events tied to the distant future that we haven't experienced yet. Therefore the future cannot constitute part of 'time.'"

The flaw in this logic is that if 'time' has to be 'experienced' to be real, then it only follows that if there were no people around to have 'experiences,' time itself would not exist.

Alarmingly, 'experiential' views of time are completely self-centered, based on a form of Leftist thinking which operates on the primacy of consciousness and rejects the primacy of existence: "If I'm not here to experience reality, then reality doesn't exist."

Worse, this attitude is accompanied by a criticism of Western values that observes "the idea of time as a commodity is what drives the Western obsession with progress, development, and some promised future." Yet this is not a vice but a virtue. Perhaps this accounts for the bizarre conclusion that "being on time, speaking English, and taking personal responsibility is white supremacy."

How such thinking relates to a particular culture's conception of 'time' may seem to be a non sequitur at first glance. But upon closer examination, the contrast between the concept of time as an 'experience' versus the concept of time as a 'commodity' may well lie at the root of many cultural conflicts and divisions.

Whether this theory proves to be Just Right or not, it's certainly worth taking some time look at the evidence.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element As strange as it may seem, there are many cultures whose concept of 'time' literally do not include any recognition of a 'future.' While this may seem an innocuous and harmless notion, unfortunately it may be symptomatic of a dark cultural malaise.

Identity politics—the multicultural monoculture: Identity politics has become a parody of itself, to the point where it ...
15/10/2025

Identity politics—the multicultural monoculture: Identity politics has become a parody of itself, to the point where it has become a multicultural monoculture of irrationality based on collectivist anti-concepts.

The most obvious evidence of identity politics is the rise of racism, and because the racist Left has falsely trumpeted that label so loudly and for so long, it has not only lost its meaning, but has become increasingly dismissed by most people not on the Left.

This itself presents a danger because actual racism does exist; to simply dismiss the term entirely risks failing to see racism when it is practiced.

As Ayn Rand observed so many years ago: "Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority - but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority."

The recent murder of Iryna Zarutska, a white woman arbitrarily murdered in public by a black man with an incredibly lengthy criminal record for which he was never held accountable, was certainly an incident highlighting the truth of Rand's assertion.

Meanwhile, the political disease of identity politics continues to be defended by the Left, as criminals of 'minority' status are repeatedly set free, while their victims are ignored or even legally punished for attempting to defend themselves.

The crisis of 'multiculturalism' has reached a point where many are asking if it is even possible to have a 'multicultural' society at all. But if the question is asked in those terms, the answer is 'no, it is not possible.'

However, if the question asked concerns the possibility of a 'multiracial' society in which people can live together in harmony, the answer is a resounding 'yes.'

Confusing the term 'multicultural' with 'multiracial' is a profound error. Race is about skin color and physical features. Culture is about ideas and values, which can be shared (or opposed) by people of all races.

Unless we understand this distinction in a way that is Just Right, the curse of 'multiculturalism' will forever make impossible the existence of a 'multiracial' society in which every individual is treated equally - as an individual - before and under the law.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Identity politics has become a parody of itself, to the point where it has become a multicultural monoculture of irrationality based on collectivist anti-concepts. The most obvious evidence of identity politics is the rise of racism, and because th

Eye witness—to a bloodless assassination? "Don't believe your own lying eyes," has been a common response to visual 'e...
08/10/2025

Eye witness—to a bloodless assassination? "Don't believe your own lying eyes," has been a common response to visual 'evidence' used to create a narrative that simply doesn't make sense. If ever there was a test of this bromide, it is the growing number of speculative accounts and 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Currently, the most alarming observation to surface is the reported lack of blood at the crime scene, something quite inconsistent with the visuals of blood seen streaming profusely from the neck of Charlie Kirk at the moment of his being shot. This has been observed and commented on by a variety of very different bloggers and podcasters, each with his/her own unique perspective and interpretation of what is being witnessed.

In this age of eye witness accounts, one must be extraordinarily cautious about what is accepted as the truth; discernment is the rule.

Given that revelations of past assassinations in American history continue to be released decades following the events themselves, it shouldn't be surprising that the Kirk assassination has been viewed with a skepticism drawn from a deep distrust of those providing the official narratives.

Perhaps the most frustrating conclusion to draw from all of this is that when it comes to establishing an assassination narrative about Charlie Kirk that is Just Right, we might have to wait another six or more decades before something resembling the 'truth' surfaces.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element "Don't believe your own lying eyes," has been a common response to visual 'evidence' used to create a narrative that simply doesn't make sense. If ever there was a test of this bromide, it is the growing number of speculative accounts and 'conspirac

Losers Lefting it—by just winging it: One reason that the political polarity remains unseen by so many is because when ...
01/10/2025

Losers Lefting it—by just winging it: One reason that the political polarity remains unseen by so many is because when it comes to Left and Right, most people are just winging it.

In fact, they have been 'winging' it for so long that they are at last coming to realize that each political wing is not so different from the other. U.S. General Michael Flynn has called on Americans to stop playing "this political two-party game" which, of course, was a sarcastic reference to what has been called a 'Uni-party.'

But the only way to stop playing the 'Uni-party' game is to stop 'winging it' in the political arena. What is required is a two party polarity, not party wings. That's because Left 'wing' and Right 'wing' are not so different from each other. Instead of representing individual rights and justice, each 'wing' represents a different interest group.

Traditionally, Left-wing groups restrict economic choices, limit trade and monopolize labor, while Right-wing groups restrict personal choices, control trade, and monopolize business. Those who claim to be 'middle-of-the-road' simply do both, and the 'road' all of them are on leads directly to the polarity of the Left.

The 'Uni-party,' as many have come to call it, arose on the Left as a failure of recognizing the missing polarity on the Right. An American party of principle that consistently upholds individual rights, freedom of speech, individual freedom, capitalism, and individual justice has yet to be founded.

But awakening to the fact that Left and Right are opposite polarities, not wings of a single polarity, is the first step one must take to move in the Right direction. It is also a painful awakening for many, particularly for those on the Right.

In their attempt to politically defeat the manifestations of the Left - communism, socialism, fascism, etc. - many on the Right try to avoid the use of 'Left' and 'Right' only to find themselves continually forced to do so in the absence of clear definitions.

In the binary world of electoral politics, it's not about 'we the people' versus 'authoritarianism' or other terms being used to substitute for the Left; it's about 'we the people on the Right' versus 'they the people on the Left.' Since all things Left are predicated on violence-based ideologies, any efforts by the Right towards political compromise or 'working together' become an impossibility without further moving Leftward.

Given that the Left has been successful at associating those on the Right with supposed 'extremism', racism and violence, it is understandable that many feel uncomfortable at being so labeled. For them, it is far better to be seen in the 'center' of any polarities, rather than be forced to directly confront or defend them.

There is a subtle irony in the fact that so many prefer to be identified with the 'center' of an imagined political spectrum. That's because to be objectively 'centered,' one must enter the very polarized 'Goldilocks zone' - where it is "not too hot, not too cold, but Just Right."

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element One reason that the political polarity remains unseen by so many is because when it comes to Left and Right, most people are just winging it. In fact, they have been 'winging' it for so long that they are at last coming to realize that each politic

Address


Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Just Right Media posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Just Right Media:

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Media Company?

Share