Gustave > now you actually focus on "a fringe within a fringe", on the far-right's far-right!! <
Undoubtedly, there's a semantic problem -- what the terms right, ultra-right, far-right, right-wing, etc actually mean. And since no-one ever defines them, they mean, as in Alice in Wonderland, precisely, "what I wish them to mean".
Thus, when it comes to the right, in contradistinction to the left, they mean anyone I don't like. Of course, I don't like the left either but, as the argument goes, since I don't like the right I must be a "leftist". Therefore I must like the left. And so on. Liberal is another word which has lost all meaning, just as semite has (which you discuss elsewhere). In Africa, by definition, any white is a racist and any black is the victim of racism, even Mugabe. The term has been turned on its head.
Further, this lack of precision extends to the meaning of Christian and particularly in the context, which we are presently discussing, of those Christians who support the idea of Zionism and those who don't. Indeed, the "divisive subdivisions" of "Christianity" are far more relevant today than any unifying concept concerned with accepting Christ as the Saviour on the part of the believer. Indeed, and as we have recently seen in the Mel Gibson movie, and the Jewish anger to it, the Jews were traditionally regarded as the "killers of Christ", so the apparent contradiction implicit in the name Christian Zionist clearly gives rise to an absurd oxymoron. Indeed, a situation which absolutely boggles the mind just like White-black, Day-night, Good-bad etc. |
