There were violent riots in London this past weekend caused by angry anarchists protesting against government spending cuts.

Think about that for a second.

The Random House Dictionary defines “anarchist” as “a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.”

The contradiction is humorous.  People whose goal is supposedly elimination of all government were protesting against smaller government by destroying private property.  What’s next, Muslims demanding more pig farms?  Feminists reading Playboy?  Michael Moore going on a diet?

Anarchists are not the only group whose political philosophy is intentionally murky.  All battles that humans wage are the same battle, the battle between good and evil, whether we recognize them as such or not.  In this war, one side’s general is known as the Truth and the other side’s general is known as the Great Deceiver.

So when it comes to political movements, who are the deceivers?  Here is a list of political philosophies whose motives, membership, and goals are kept intentionally murky to disguise and mislead:

Communism—“a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state”

Socialism—“a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole or to the state; the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles”

Liberalism—“a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state”

Fascism—“a dictator-led governmental system having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism”

Islam—“A religion, founded by Muhammad, whose most critical tenet is submission to the will of God as defined in the Koran, including a system of law called sharia which is a body of canonical law based on the Koran that lays down certain duties and penalties for Muslims”

Notice the startling synchronicity in the definitions.  All of them advocate the transfer of power away from the individual to the collective, or state, or religious hierarchy—the relevant phrase being away from the individual.

At first blush, some of these political philosophies don’t seem to have much in common but history shows the synchronicity in the definitions carrying through into real life—consistently:

Socialism/communism/liberalism—Socialism and communism are by definition nothing more than different stages of the same political movement but the liberalism of the modern Democrat Party falls right into bed with both of them.  At least 82 Democrats in congress are socialists, 70 of them open members of Democratic Socialists of America.  They take cover as Democrats when they run for office because most Americans have negative opinions about socialism and communism.  Our president, for example, was raised, mentored, and educated by communists, then joined the socialist New Party in Illinois as an adult.  He finally left the New Party and took cover as a Democrat to burnish his image for national politics and his run at the White House.

Fascism/socialism/communism—Fascism is ostensibly anti-communist, but the most famous fascists—men like Hitler and Mussolini—all began as socialists.  The beef between fascists and communists was more family squabble than philosophical difference—certainly life for normal people under a fascist dictator was very similar to life under a communist one.  “Nazi” is a word constructed from the first two syllables (in German) of Hitler’s political party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Fascism/Islam—In World War II, fascists and Muslims fought on the same side after Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini allied Islam with the Nazis.  It’s easy to understand why he did so.  Philosophically, Islam has more in common with fascism than the democratic republics of the west, and as a bonus both Husseini and Hitler wanted to eliminate Jews.

Islam/liberalism—In the modern era, our lone Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is also one of our most liberal congressmen.

When liberals side with Muslims who want to build victory mosques at Ground Zero, avoid profiling at airports, or pass U.N. proclamations against Israel, it’s puzzling until you look at the definitions listed above, tie them to the historical examples, and realize that leftists and Muslims and fascists have an alliance that dates back decades. (Sometimes you can’t even tell the difference.  Does Muammar Gaddafi rule as a fascist or as a Muslim?  What about Fidel Castro—communist or fascist?)  Proponents of these political philosophies have always been on the same page: enemies of individual rights, enthusiastic users of force, and supporters of the collective in one form or another.

Statists.  Thugs.  Despots.

The specific ideas of the various groups are mere details—distinctions without differences.  When the government steals your freedom, does it matter whether they do it in the name of social welfare, fulfillment of a worker’s paradise, or the Koran?

On day six of creation, God’s final creation was man, created in God’s image.  Then He gave us dominion over the world and the Great Deceiver has been consumed by jealousy and hatred ever since.

It is human beings, as individuals, who are created by God in His image, not Congress or the Constitution or the Communist Manifesto or the United Nations or the Saudi mutaween or any other conceivable governmental entity.  Any group or political philosophy that tries to transfer dominion from man to government has chosen sides in the battle between good and evil.

The great divide in political discourse is not between left and right.  Those are mere labels designed to confuse.  Often the enemy will use one of the labels listed above but other times they call themselves Republicans.  “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”  If we watch who deceives, and watch who protects individual rights and the dignity of human beings, then we can always tell who is on our side.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

From Reno, Nevada, USA

May 7, 2011 - Speaking of michael moore, that fat bastard nearly ran me off of a sidewalk in NYC on Columbus Street. I was walking on the right side of the sidewalk (In America we travel in the right lane) going southbound when some fat $%#^ just bullies by me knocking me practically into the street. I turned around to confront the fat pig but he was moving at a pretty good clip when my companion says to me "you know who that was don't you?" "No," I said, 'I haven't the foggiest." My companion then started to laugh (as he knows how much I can't stand the guy) and says to me, "That was michael moore!" "Argh," I said. "Now I really want to go and confront him! That fat pig!" LOL... Hey JP how the heck are ya! I've been busy with the family lately. I just dropped by to see if you had anything vile to say about obama and the bin laden spectacle. So, I am here catching up on what I've missed. I see your still keeping up the good work. - LiAnne, Connecticut

J.P. replies: Good to hear from you, LiAnne!  I wondered what happened to my most loyal commenter.  I know I have to say something about bin Laden, but so far the subject doesn't light my fire.  A mass murderer got what was coming to him, and now he's having a very uncomfortable conversation with God.  It's no different than the story of Jeffrey Dahmer.

April 3, 2011 - It's so old-fashioned to look at politics and current events through the prism of good and evil... and gauche... and politically incorrect... and juvenile. And golly gee how refreshing! Keep it up, please. I, for one, enjoy it. - S.T., Las Vegas

March 31, 2011 - Never looked at it that way. Like most senior citizen conservatives I just feel that government nanny state interference is wrong, but you give a good explanation for WHY it's wrong. I like your website. - Larry, Reno