Scientific evidence that Hitler was centrist. Jews keep gaslighting about this by keeping him in their Left Vs Right false dichotomy
(Nationalism)
Abstract
Centrism, an artificial term necessitated by ideologies, represents the natural state of societal organization, known as “normality” absent dogmatic distortions. Like agnosticism, it is uniquely scientific, grounded in rationality and evidence, unlike ideologies rooted in belief.
Ideologies like capitalism and communism, based on exaggerated single concepts—private enterprise in capitalism, state-driven aid in communism—create false dichotomies that divide and destabilize societies.
This article argues that centrism, exemplified by Europe’s balanced democracies, promotes societal perfection, while ideologies, including theoretical communism, foster conflict, as seen in World War II.
Historical evidence, a natural analogy table, and logical arguments clarify centrism’s optimality, distinct from moderation, and why ideological confusion persists.
Introduction
Centrism is an artificial label, used only because ideologies disrupt the natural order of human societies. Without ideologies, centrism would be “normal” or “normality”—the rational, balanced state optimizing societal well-being, akin to natural parameters like temperature thriving in a centered range.
Societies have oscillated between ideological extremes, from capitalism’s individualism to communism’s collectivist promises, often leading to conflict, as in World War II. These ideologies, fixating on single concepts, become dogmatic, distorting rationality and fostering division.
Centrism, often mistaken for moderation, is a proactive commitment to rationality, objectivity, and societal perfection.
This article explores centrism’s scientific foundation, using historical and logical arguments, and clarifies why ideological excesses—exemplified by capitalism and theoretical communism—fail. Europe’s centrist position, the mislabeling of “communist” states, and a natural analogy table underscore centrism’s superiority as normality.
Centrism: The Natural Norm
Centrism, or normality, applies reason and evidence to governance, balancing individual liberty, collective welfare, tradition, and progress without dogmatic extremes. It is uniquely scientific, like agnosticism in religious debates.
Theism and atheism are ideologies, believing in God’s existence or non-existence despite unprovable claims, relying on faith over evidence. Agnosticism, by contrast, rationally acknowledges uncertainty, awaiting clear proof. Similarly, centrism rejects ideological dogma, grounding decisions in objectivity, making it and agnosticism the only scientific stances, while ideologies are belief-driven (Jost et al., 2003).
Historically, centrist systems thrive. Athenian democracy (5th century BCE) blended participatory governance with pragmatic policies, fostering cultural flourishing until ideological factions caused decline. The post-World War II Scandinavian model, combining market economies with robust welfare, delivers stability and prosperity without ideological excess (Polity IV, 2020).
Europe, situated geographically and philosophically between the capitalist US and nominally communist USSR, exemplifies centrism. Unlike the US or USSR, which embraced official ideologies, European democracies avoided rigid state dogmas, blending market and welfare systems.
Centrism aligns with human evolutionary tendencies. Behavioral studies show humans naturally weigh risks and benefits when unbiased, a process centrism institutionalizes (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). This creates “perfect” societies—optimally functional, adaptable, and equitable.
Ideologies: Dogmatic Excesses
Ideologies start with appealing concepts but become rigid dogmas. Capitalism, based on private enterprise and wealth creation, turns excessive when greed and inequality dominate.
The US Gilded Age (1870s–1900) saw monopolies and labor exploitation, sparking unrest. The 2008 financial crisis, costing $12.8 trillion globally, exposed capitalism’s unchecked excesses (Federal Reserve, 2013).
Communism, theoretically rooted in aiding the disadvantaged via state intervention, has never existed in practice. So-called communist states like the USSR or Maoist China were authoritarian regimes with centralized economies, not true communism as Marx envisioned.
The USSR’s collapse in 1991, with a GDP per capita of $9,211 compared to the US’s $23,059, highlighted the failure of this pseudo-communist model, marked by inefficiency and oppression (World Bank, 1989).
Both ideologies distort natural impulses—self-interest in capitalism, compassion in communism—into unnatural systems prioritizing dogma over pragmatism, leading to societal imperfection.
False Dichotomies and Societal Harm
Ideologies foster false dichotomies, fixating on single concepts—freedom in capitalism, equity in communism, order in nationalism—while normal human cognition integrates all three.
Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism exemplifies this arbitrariness. Unconcerned with left-right distinctions, Hitler invented National Socialism, blending socialist economic controls with nationalist fervor. Yet, academics and ideologues persist in forcing him into the left-right false dichotomy, debating whether his regime was socialist (left) or nationalist (right), revealing ideologies’ unscientific, random nature (Kershaw, 2008).
Many serious sources argue these single-concept ideologies are artificial constructs, used to divide and conquer people’s minds, inciting hate, conflict, and violence (Arendt, 1951; Lakoff, 2008). World War II, pitting nationalists, communists, and capitalists against each other, exemplifies this.
Had societies embraced centrism, which naturally balances order, equity, and freedom, such a conflict would have been unthinkable, as normal brains do not require opposing ideologies to function. These false dichotomies obscure real problems and solutions, perpetuating societal division.
Centrism as Normal: A Natural Analogy
Centrism’s rationality mirrors nature’s and human systems’ preference for balanced conditions conducive to well-being. Table 1 illustrates how centered values optimize functionality, while extremes are harmful or destabilizing, reinforcing centrism as normality.
Table: Centrism as Natural Balance
Phenomenon | Extreme Left (-) | Centered Value (Ideal) | Extreme Right (+)
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Temperature: | Cold | Warm | Hot
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Humidity: | Dry | Mild | Wet
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Psychology: | Pessimism | Realism | Optimism
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Physiology: | Thin | Fit | Fat
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Sexology: | Asexuality | Sexuality | Oversexuality
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Design: | Minimalism | Functionalism | Maximalism
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Politology: | Anarchy | Republic | Monarchy
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Economics: | Socialism | Centrism | Capitalism
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Sociology: | Libertarian | Authoritative | Authoritarian
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Theology: | Atheism | Agnosticism | Theism
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Genderism: | Feminism | Fairness | Maschilism
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Morality: | Needs | Moderation | Preferences
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Legality: | Rights | Justice | Duties
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Governance: | Freedom | Liberty | Security
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Ethnicitism: | Xenophilia | Nationalism | Xenophobia
------------- ------------------ ------------------------ -----------------
Centered values sustain well-being and stability, while extremes cause harm or dysfunction. For example, warm temperatures support human comfort, while cold or hot conditions are life-threatening. Similarly, centrism balances societal systems, while ideological extremes destabilize.
Centrism vs. Moderation
Centrism, as normality, is distinct from moderation, which avoids conflict through compromise. Centrists pursue societal perfection through principled rationality.
During the Abolitionist Movement, moderates in the UK advocated gradual emancipation to avoid economic disruption. In contrast, William Wilberforce, driven by humanist ethics, exemplified a centrist approach, opposing the excesses of violent rebellion and perpetuation of injustice through gradualism, pushing for transformative justice by abolishing slavery with reasoned moral arguments (Hague, 2007).
Similarly, the Magna Carta (1215) exemplified centrism by balancing the excesses of royal tyranny and baronial anarchy, establishing negotiated governance through rational compromise (Keane, 2020).
Centrists reject excess because it deviates from rational optimality, not out of timidity.
The Persistence of Ideological Confusion
Why does society fail to recognize centrism as normality? The cause—malice or ignorance—remains unclear.
Some suggest conspiratorial malice, as seen in McCarthyism’s exploitation of anti-communist fear to suppress dissent. Others point to cognitive biases, like the Dunning-Kruger effect, where ideologues overestimate their dogma’s validity, dismissing centrism as indecisiveness (Jost et al., 2003).
Ideologies, being unnatural, require propaganda or coercion, as in Mao’s Cultural Revolution or neoliberal deregulation campaigns. Centrism, as normality, needs only clear communication, yet entrenched interests or intellectual laziness obstruct this.
Conclusion
Centrism, an artificial term for normality, is the scientific, rational state of societal organization, exemplified by Europe’s balanced democracies and fostering perfection through adaptability and equity.
Like agnosticism, it prioritizes evidence over belief, unlike ideologies that divide through false dichotomies, as seen in WWII’s catastrophic conflicts. Historical evidence, natural and conceptual analogies, and logical arguments highlight centrism’s superiority.
The conflation of centrism with moderation and persistence of ideological divides reflect malice, ignorance, or both. To achieve societal perfection, we must champion centrism as normality—the rational pursuit of optimal governance.
References
Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism.
Hague, W. (2007). William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica.
Keane, J. (2020). The New Despotism.
Kershaw, I. (2008). Hitler: A Biography.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The Political Mind.
Pittinsky, T. L. (2010). A Two-Dimensional Model of Intergroup Leadership: The Case of Allophilia. American Psychologist.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National Identity.
Federal Reserve. (2013). The Economic Impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis.
World Bank. (1989). GDP Per Capita Data.
Jost, J. T., et al. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin.
Polity IV Project. (2020). Global Democracy and Governance Metrics.