Quoted:
Someone please list 5 attributes that are the hallmark of modern extreme right wingers.

Quoted:
Someone please list 5 attributes that are the hallmark of modern extreme right wingers.

Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger.  

Quoted:


Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger.  

Quoted:


Putin. He's not much of a communist, thoroughly entangles business and govt -an essential part of fascism on the right-, and as the quintessential strongman, is even admired here.

Osama anchors the religious but anti-govt end of the spectrum: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find death bitter, I don't want to die deceived."

Quoted:


It all depends.  Leftists like to use anarchy as a tool to usher in government control.  True anarchists, are people who believe that people will ultimately be able to peacefully coexist without government.   So not only do you have to ways to determine political the spectrums, but you also have two ways in describing anarchy.
 

Quoted:







The Constitution Party.



The good part:








The bad part:

• Total ban on abortion


• Total ban on any drugs


• Ban pornography (or at minimum, heavy government control on it)


• Ban on homosexual marriages/no unions/ect
  
  


• Protectionist trade policy


• Ban gambling


• Ban virtually any "un-Christian" activity

Generally, they are very free market, but very authoritarian in regards to personal conduct. I'd imagine that if you were caught in the act of adultery, they'd line you up against the wall and stone you to death :-\





 

Quoted:
Sorry I'm late to the thread. Did I make it in time for the slapfight over whether or not Nazis are Leftist or not?

Quoted:

Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual.  which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum.

When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else.   For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people?  If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not.

The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless.  You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't.  

Quoted:
Left/right is part of a circle.   Go too far to either side and you end up in the back of the circle.  The back side is where insanity and monstrous acts hide.


CJ

Quoted:


Yes, but how do you quantify his being a member of the KGB during the Soviet era?

Quoted:

Quoted:







You would be wrong.  Hitler was a leftist.

 

Quoted:


Russians move to the private sector when government collapses, Americans move to government when business fails. Suborning govt elements isn't only rightwing tradition, it's competitive business practice, and enterprising businessmen thrive in any environment.

Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger.  

Charles Coughlin was a controversial Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan's National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than thirty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the "Nation's Union of Social Justice." He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s.

After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and later to rationalize some of the policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The broadcasts have been called "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being Social Justice, first with, and later against, the New Deal... After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January 1940, a New York City unit of the Christian Front was raided by the FBI for plotting to overthrow the government. Coughlin had never been a member but his reputation suffered a fatal decline.

Quoted:


Let's try asking this way.

Via Wikipedia:



Coughlin was also an isolationist and had attacked "Wall Street Communists" on a regular basis. The Vatican silenced him in 1936.



http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx73/flamicane/coughlin.jpg

So, evil right-winger or evil left-winger? Why?

Quoted:


Fascist...........in between IMHO.

Quoted:


radical leftist is what he was. No question. I am just not willing to go into a huge post why, but there is no question. His religion was only an avenue to reach more people and give his stupidity some credibility.

Quoted:
Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual.  which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum.





When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else.   For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people?  If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not.





The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless.  You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't.





 

Quoted:







That is why having a linear spectrum is absolutely wrong. You cannot define a person's political beliefs on an X axis. You must have an X and Y axis, because most governments have a different set of standards when it comes to social freedoms as opposed to economic freedoms.



Yes, it'd be nice to define an X axis as being "Pure Control" and "Pure Freedom", but it doesn't work that way. In modern history, we've only seen the "Pure Control" aspect emerge via Communism throughout the 20th century. We have yet to have a nation that embraces pure, unadulterated freedom. America has, at times, been close to it, but has usually fallen off the wagon at one point or another which made it invalid as a pure freedom society (1890's come to mind, sans the Jim Crowe laws).



Generally, we see every major Western party embrace some idea of the government as an instrument to 'fix' something - social mores, financial standings, business regulations. What they fix makes them Republican (fixing social mores), or Democrat (fixing business' wrongs against society). Thus, when a Y axis is introduced as government imposing social regulations, you can better define governmental systems.



In an X-Y axis system, such as the one from PoliticalCompass, Nolan's Political Chart, and so on, you can better understand where parties lie. Conservatives, being upper-right, Libertarians being right, Randians being Lower-right, Anarchists being bottom, Greens/Ultra-liberals being lower-left, Socialists being left-, Communists being upper-leftists, and fascists being top.



 

Quoted:







Then there is no such thing as a left wing or right wing.

 

Quoted:







The Constitution Party.



The good part:








The bad part:

• Total ban on abortion


• Total ban on any drugs


• Ban pornography (or at minimum, heavy government control on it)


• Ban on homosexual marriages/no unions/ect
  
  


• Protectionist trade policy


• Ban gambling


• Ban virtually any "un-Christian" activity

Generally, they are very free market, but very authoritarian in regards to personal conduct. I'd imagine that if you were caught in the act of adultery, they'd line you up against the wall and stone you to death :-\





 

On his visit to Guangzhou to take the civil service examinations in 1836, Hong heard a Christian missionary preaching about the religion. While there he received translations and summaries of the Bible written by the Christian missionary Liang Fa. The following year Hong failed the examinations again and apparently suffered a nervous collapse. During his recovery in 1837 he had a number of mystical visions. One involved an old man who complained to Hong about men worshiping demons rather than him. In a second one he saw Confucius being punished for his faithlessness, after which he repented. In yet another he dreamed angels carried him to heaven where he met a man in a black dragon robe with a long golden beard who gave him a sword and a magic seal, and told him to purify China of the demons. Several years later he would interpret this to mean that God the Heavenly Father, whom he identified with Shangdi from the Chinese tradition who revealed himself to be Jesus Christ, wanted him to rid the world of demon worship. His friends and family said that after this episode he became authoritative, solemn and taller in height.

It was not until 7 years later that Hong took the time to carefully examine the religious tracts he had received. In his house Hong burned all Confucian and Buddhist statues and books, and began to preach to his community about his visions. His earliest converts were relatives of his who had also failed their examinations and belonged to the Hakka minority, Feng Yunshan and Hong Rengan. He joined with them to destroy idols in small villages to the ire of local citizens and officials. Hong and his converts' acts were considered sacrilegious and they were persecuted by Confucians who forced them to leave their positions as village tutors. Hong Xiuquan and Feng Yunshan fled the district in 1844, walking some 300 miles to the west to Guangxi, where the large Hakka population was much more willing to receive his teachings. As a symbolic gesture to purge China of Confucianism, he asked for two giant swords, three-chi (about 1 metre) long and nine-jin (about 5.5 kg), called the "demon-slaying swords" (斬妖劍), to be forged...

By 1850 Hong had between 10,000 and 30,000 followers. The authorities were alarmed at the growing size of the sect and ordered them to disperse. A local force was sent to attack them when they refused, but imperial troops were routed and a deputy magistrate killed. A full-scale attack was launched by the government forces in the first month of 1851. In what came to be known as the Jintian Uprising, after the town of Jintian (now Guiping) where the sect was based. Hong's followers emerged victorious and beheaded the Manchu commander of the government troops.

Hong declared the foundation of the "Heavenly Kingdom of Transcendent Peace" on 11 January 1851.

Despite this evidence of forward planning, Hong and his followers faced immediate challenges. The local Green Standard Army outnumbered them ten to one, and had recruited the help of the river pirates to keep the rebellion contained to Jintian. After a month of preparation the Taipings managed to break through the blockade and fight their way to the town of Yongan (not to be confused with Yong'an), which fell to them on 25 September 1851.

Hong and his troops remained in Yongan for three months, sustained by local landowners who were hostile to the Manchu Qing Dynasty. The imperial army regrouped and launched another attack on the Taipings in Yongan. Having run out of gunpowder, Hong's followers fought their way out by sword, and made for the city of Guilin, to which they laid siege. However, the fortifications of Guilin proved too strong, and Hong and his followers eventually gave up and set out northwards, towards Hunan. Here, they encountered an elite militia created by a local member of the gentry specifically to put down peasant rebellions. The two forces fought at Soyi Ford on 10 June 1852 where the Taipings were forced into retreat, and 20% of their troops were killed. But in March 1853 Taiping forces managed to take Nanjing and turned it into the capital of their movement.

Hong Xiuquan ruled by making frequent proclamations from his Heavenly Palace, demanding strict compliance with various moral and religious rules. Most trade was suppressed and property socialized. Polygamy was forbidden and men and women were separated, although Hong and other leaders maintained groups of concubines.

Yang Xiuqing was a fellow Taiping leader (the "East King") who had directed successful military campaigns and who often claimed to speak with the voice of God. Hong became increasingly suspicious of Yang's ambitions and his network of spies; in 1856 he had Yang and his family murdered.

Following a failed attempt by the Taiping to take Shanghai in 1860, the Qing forces, aided by Western officers, slowly gained ground.

Quoted:

Quoted:


The question you pose does not have a simple answer.



My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed. Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher".  I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds.



Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale.  In reality, "not so much".



Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense.  I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site.  What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs.  But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue.



Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends.  If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest.  This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty.  The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level.  Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me.



This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity.  I am willing to compromise - to a point.  I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point?  Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving.  People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country.  We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people.



Yeah, I know.  Wishful thinking on my part.  



I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV.                

Quoted:


The question you pose does not have a simple answer.



My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed.  Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher".  I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds.



Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale.  In reality, "not so much".



Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense.  I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site.  What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs.  But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue.



Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends.  If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest.  This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty.  The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level.  Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me.



This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity.  I am willing to compromise - to a point.  I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point?  Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving.  People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country.  We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people.



Yeah, I know.  Wishful thinking on my part.  



I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV.                

Quoted:


The question you pose does not have a simple answer.



My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed.  Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher".  I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds.



Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale.  In reality, "not so much".



Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense.  I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site.  What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs.  But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue.



Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends.  If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest.  This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty.  The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level.  Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me.



This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity.  I am willing to compromise - to a point.  I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point?  Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving.  People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country.  We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people.



Yeah, I know.  Wishful thinking on my part.  



I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV.                

Quoted:



Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in.  You all classify me





1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another


2)I do not believe in any government social safety net


3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc)


4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy


5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills


6)I do not believe in government funding of education


7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed


8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas


9)I'm for free trade


10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws.

Quoted:
Libertarian.
Pretty cut and dry. The only question would be #8 if you support foreign interventionism, or merely a strong army. Generally, Libertarian is anti-interventionist, but that doesn't mean isolationist and shy's away from activity in other nations.





 

Quoted:
No, the “extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists.

See, reality is what it is, it’s objectively real so to speak. But different people perceive reality differently. All of our perceptions are influenced by what we have been taught, our emotions, and our world view in general. “Extremists” are people who see reality far differently than it actually is.

And, in our culture, everyone is constantly bombarded by the left wing version of reality. It’s embedded in virtually every television show, in our educational system, on the news, in our comedians jokes. Unless you isolate yourself completely from the culture you will be exposed. An, even then you will get it second hand from people who haven’t completely isolated themselves from pop culture. This provides a check to right wing extremism.

But there is no such check on left wing extremism. A person can go through life and never even hear an opinion expressed that contradicts the left wing world view.

Quoted:





The problem with #8 the way some libertarians view it, is that in these times, sometimes interventionism is the correct move.  Taking the battle to the enemy, intervening before something happens on our soil, etc...  That takes a well-funded, professional, well-trained military force.  It's not going to be "cheap" and it's not going to be "small".  Having said that, there are places the mil can cut costs and size - it just needs to be done carefully without politics getting in the way.  IMHO (ex-mil)



Oh - the political compass domain is listed for sale and that link is now a search-link site.  I taken several different styles of these tests over the years and I know where I stand - others tend to classify me differently when I don't conform 100% to their viewpoint.



       

Quoted:


Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in.  You all classify me



1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another

2)I do not believe in any government social safety net

3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc)

4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy

5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills

6)I do not believe in government funding of education

7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed

8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas

9)I'm for free trade

10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws.

Quoted:
yes, extremists from either side are bad

Quoted:
Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in.  You all classify me

1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another
2)I do not believe in any government social safety net
3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc)
4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy
5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills
6)I do not believe in government funding of education
7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed
8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas
9)I'm for free trade
10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws.

Quoted:







public education

Quoted:
Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Al Qaeda



Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right
Thats what it should look like!