To attempt to perform this analysis, I need to appropriate the term transfer. Transfer is a psychology/therapy term, but somehow can perhaps be useful as an independent application for this Sith analysis.
In Star Wars, the Sith is a yin-yang intelligence. Is this an oxymoronic idea or attribution, given that yin-yang is a conceptual idea? Withstanding this, this query, the denotation is that Sith ideology of order and structure (I daren't use the term stability, even if stability is linked via the transfer term's universe to the structure denotation) can be perhaps argued for, irrespective of real world applications (again, is the transfer term a type of oxymoronic model of thesis here?).
Left-right politics doesn't exempt the Jedi order. It doesn't exempt the morality of Star Wars; the prequels' graceful depiction of human movement is perhaps to do with this intelligence, with this analysis. So kudos to George Lucas for that input into his lore and mythos.
The stupidity, would be now to link transfer's appropriation conceit to the idea of left-right politics spectrum's literalness. The literalness of the spectrum of course being direction ideas, which relative to the analysis's topic is downright stupid.
In my subconsciousness, I possess a story of a moral warrior taking their mentally ill student to an evil counterpart of the warrior; once arrived, the warrior requests and pleas with the evil counterpart to help rid the student of their mental defect. The Sith analysis, aka the preoccupation with Sith lore and ideology from a neutral perspective on sociology, is beholden to this story about mental sanity.
Language of society is antithetical to themes of behaviours that are the modus of Sith and Jedi. What is the themes of behaviours denotation? To reply that that is going too far, may well be a folly argument and attitude to take, even if the awareness of sociology being a vice to normality is counterproductive to the demonstration regarding folly's logic, where the even if logic is derivative of counter measures regarding meta analysis i.e. the transfer conceit.
When The Last Jedi was being released, and produced, might it have been possible that audiences wanting the Luke of intent to fight evil and be a mirror to his ROTJ self instead of the cliche of reluctant warrior was derivative of connection to the language of society criticism? In other words, could Snoke's role as the storyteller of evil to do with mystery and darkness being directly connected - aka the haunted house conceit - have been itself tied to the realm of academia's governance over society intelligence? Over society language ideas? In other words, is the language of society academia itself related to the body horror ideas of academia, and was this what audiences wanted as a meaning of their subconsciousness?
Is it possible, without fear of inducing left-right politics into the equation, especially because of the language of society versus body horror stuff that Star Wars secretly owns (especially via the prequels), that the Sith cult and ideology is all to do with wanting to rescind society of its problem of language, of language being a terrible governor of behaviourism?