The political spectrum, which places all political ideologies somewhere on a scale from "far Left" to "far Right", is defunct. It has been for a long time.

Many ideas with so-called "far Right" ideologies are actually in the area of the "Left", and the reverse can also be true.

A new descriptive term is called for, to acknowledge the changed political landscape, since the present political spectrum was first invented. Today, the only appropriate method for categorising political ideologies would be that, on the one hand, you have universalist concepts, and on the other you have ethnically loyal concepts.

The best example of how useless the Left/Right dichotomy is would be National Socialism. It is described as "far right" and yet its policies have more in common with the so-called "far Left".

If you use the division of universalist (ie embracing all mankind, cosmopolitan, inclusive and promoting internationalist policies) on one side and ethnically loyal groups, (ie. those who promote the interests of their own tribe) on the other then you will find that it is a lot more useful and meaningful.

Now you find the Universalist side being occupied by religions such as Christianity and Islam (in their purest non-denominational form) , as opposed to the ethnically loyal religions of Zionism and Shintoism for eg.
Political parties such as the BNP fall on the ethnically loyal side, whereas other Nationalist parties such as the SNP or Sinn Fein are Universalist, as indeed are the international capitalists.

Doesn't this make things so much clearer?

Now we can see that our "democratic" political system offers a multitude of Universalist parties such as the Labour Party and the Conservative Party right through to Respect and the Communist Party to choose from, and just one noticable party (BNP) on the alternative side.

This puts the "democracy" into perspective for me. The way the Universalists insist that the system would remain democratic if all the ethnic loyalist side were banned is now blindingly obvious in its hypocrisy. Then you can only vote for the Uninversalists - how tyranical is that?!

When the Universalists criticise their political polar opposites they are obviously particularly annoyed that their adversaries are not Universalists - and basically they are demanding that only Universalism is acceptable. They consider the alternative to be highly threatening, and so indeed do the ethnically loyal view the Universalist standpoint this way.