This is outstanding. I never saw it this way. The very idea of one faction in society being on the left is only a very recent thing. All of the A/B examples you came up with are very accurate as well. There is no side currently rejecting both, as would be the correct choice.
It's the Hegelian Dialectic applied to electoral democracy.
Remember, as AH said, democracy is rule by media.
One quick and dirty test you can use is "is media allowing discussion on this?"
If so, it is fake.
This is how I knew Donald Trump was not going to be a change for America. The media would have never covered him to the insane degree that they did, if he was real. He would be silenced the way any other voice speaking truth is.
It's why we are only talking about immigration now that it's a done deal that whites are a minority, even if you stopped ALL immigration.
It's why the US government silenced Father Coughlin (by illegally refusing to deliver his newsletters through the US mail, freedom of speech and freedom of religion be damned). It's why both left and right censor the same topics, or do the "limited hangout" thing, where, for example, if you care about the environment, the only thing you're allowed to talk about is cow farts and CO2, not chemicals and plastics and industrial pollutants.
Was Uncle Ted left or right wing?
What about the NSDAP?
Henry Wallace?
RFK Jr?
Tulsi Gabbard?
Ross Perot?
Huey Long?
George Wallace?
The Democratic Party, prior to 1965?
The reality is those things were neither left, nor right, but simply hitting at *truths* which is why they must be censored at all costs.
Or to put it another way, they were POPULISTS.
Here's a profile of a British populist who is serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Manchester area:
socially conservative
vocally criticizes Israel and Zionism
campaigned against the western war against Iraq, worked with the Baathists in Iraq
supported the UK leaving the EU (Brexit)
Opposes Scottish independence (and is Scottish)
Opposes western intervention in Ukraine
Appeared regularly on Russia Today and PressTV
Opposes alcohol consumption
Strongly regrets his promiscuous past, which he blames in large part on society
Has worked with self described British Communists
Headed a charity organization combating world poverty
Politically welcomes both far right and far left supporters
Was booted from the Labour Party, and won one of the largest landside election victories in modern history
Defends Julian Assange
Has refused to apologize to woke critics on multiple occasions
Openly names the Jew
Has endorsed both Labour and Conservative candidates
Supports Hezbollah and Hamas
Supports Bashar al-Assad
Supports Iran
Hong Kong belongs to China
Has called out the fake news of supposed Uigher concentration camps in China
North Korea is Best Korea
Supported Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez
Criticizes Saudi Arabia and India
Strongly opposes abortion
Sued a Jewish radio station that slandered him and won, shutting it down permanently
Considers Tony Blair a war criminal, advocates for his prosecution
Has 6 children
Is Roman Catholic
What do you call such a person, other than populist? Are they left or right?
It's a moniker only applied to shills.
Here he is after his recent victory. One of the most enjoyable political interviews I've seen.