But, Aren't Nazis and Fascists Really Left-Wingers?

[SniperFire]

Perhaps these will be easier to understand.

Used on both Forbes and TheObjectiveStandard.com.

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

Political

And this one.

See? No ideologies on this one (Communism, Nazism, ect.) Just actual forms of government.

Yes, this represent reality, great find!

I like it because it does not permit sacred cows. For example, the title points out that 100% pro-choice equates to 100% pro-government.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Perhaps these will be easier to understand.

Used on both Forbes and TheObjectiveStandard.com.

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

Political

And this one.

See? No ideologies on this one (Communism, Nazism, ect.) Just actual forms of government.

Yes, this represent reality, great find!

yeah, this represent confirmation bias, great demonstration, aarftaard.

 

[Cowman]

Sure I can.


Refute it. You cannot. :

What is that even from? Who backs it?

LOL

As I said, you cannot refute it.

Do you not know how the fucking burden of proof works? I don't HAVE to refute it. You have to back it up, demonstrate why it's true. Of which you can't even post one single god damn legitimate source that backs it.

All you can do to defend your image is post your image again.

 

[SniperFire]

What is that even from? Who backs it?

LOL

As I said, you cannot refute it.

Do you not know how the fucking burden of proof works? I don't HAVE to refute it. You have to back it up, demonstrate why it's true. Of which you can't even post one single god damn legitimate source that backs it.

All you can do to defend your image is post your image again.

LOL


No, alternatively, you can meltdown and embarrass yourself.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[DiamondDave]

hazlnutbag thinks he won the thread.. LMAO

The asshole only succeeded in showing that he is more of an idiot than most people thought before

 

[tooAlive]

Do you not know how the fucking burden of proof works? I don't HAVE to refute it. You have to back it up, demonstrate why it's true. Of which you can't even post one single god damn legitimate source that backs it.

All you can do to defend your image is post your image again.

This was two posts ago:

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

Political

And a little earlier in the thread:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

And I also pointed out how the upper-right quadrant of your chart is moot:

How can you have libertarianism on both the x and y axis?

If that were the case, the Right is incompatible with authoritarianism. Therefore making the upper right quadrant moot; as authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

 

[SniperFire]

Do you not know how the fucking burden of proof works? I don't HAVE to refute it. You have to back it up, demonstrate why it's true. Of which you can't even post one single god damn legitimate source that backs it.

All you can do to defend your image is post your image again.

This was two posts ago:

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

Political

And a little earlier in the thread:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

And I also pointed out how the upper-right quadrant of your chart is moot:

How can you have libertarianism on both the x and y axis?

If that were the case, the Right is incompatible with authoritarianism. Therefore making the upper right quadrant moot; as authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

Be gentle with him.


He has a new gaping sphincter and it causes him considerable assburn right now!


LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the current Germany is still Nazi Germany...

...that, sadly, is the kind of unsurprising brilliance that the USMB right treats us to every single day.

 

[Cowman]

Do you not know how the fucking burden of proof works? I don't HAVE to refute it. You have to back it up, demonstrate why it's true. Of which you can't even post one single god damn legitimate source that backs it.

All you can do to defend your image is post your image again.

This was two posts ago:

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

Political

And a little earlier in the thread:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

And I also pointed out how the upper-right quadrant of your chart is moot:

How can you have libertarianism on both the x and y axis?

If that were the case, the Right is incompatible with authoritarianism. Therefore making the upper right quadrant moot; as authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

opeds that themselves offer nothing? Are you fucking kidding me? You guys live in a funny world. Maybe sniperfire can lolololol some more like a fucking loon... He thinks it constitutes a body of evidence

 

[tooAlive]

So the current Germany is still Nazi Germany...

...that, sadly, is the kind of unsurprising brilliance that the USMB right treats us to every single day.

Last time I checked, Jews and homosexuals weren't being sent to concentration camps. So no.

opeds that themselves offer nothing? Are you fucking kidding me? You guys live in a funny world. Maybe sniperfire can lolololol some more like a fucking loon... He thinks it constitutes a body of evidence

As opposed to what? Is there a supreme law in politics that mandates what is what? No, this is a debate.

I'm simply pointing out that our political spectrum makes sense while yours is broken. You didn't even attempt to fix it; just resorted to vulgarity and name calling.

As if that would make you appear more intelligent..

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Actually, the 2 dimensional spectrum as a concept doesn't work as on your spectrum the extreme Right, Anarchy, inevitably leads to dictatorship, the extreme left. Examine the Reign of Terror, the Weimar Republic, the fall of the Tsar, or the civil war in China. On the other end total dictatorship, the extreme Left leads to Anarchy. Look at the end of Communism in Russia, or the collapse of Yugoslavia under Tito.

 

[SniperFire]

Actually, the 2 dimensional spectrum as a concept doesn't work as on your spectrum the extreme Right, Anarchy, inevitably leads to dictatorship, the extreme left. Examine the Reign of Terror, the Weimar Republic, the fall of the Tsar, or the civil war in China. On the other end total dictatorship, the extreme Left leads to Anarchy. Look at the end of Communism in Russia, or the collapse of Yugoslavia under Tito.

That is a distinction without a difference.

The extremes on both ends fail. Eventually.

 

[tooAlive]

Actually, the 2 dimensional spectrum as a concept doesn't work as on your spectrum the extreme Right, Anarchy, inevitably leads to dictatorship, the extreme left. Examine the Reign of Terror, the Weimar Republic, the fall of the Tsar, or the civil war in China. On the other end total dictatorship, the extreme Left leads to Anarchy. Look at the end of Communism in Russia, or the collapse of Yugoslavia under Tito.

Correct, which is why we should view the 2-dimensional spectrum as being connected at each end.

Like you said, after anarchy comes communism and vice versa.

 

[SniperFire]

Actually, the 2 dimensional spectrum as a concept doesn't work as on your spectrum the extreme Right, Anarchy, inevitably leads to dictatorship, the extreme left. Examine the Reign of Terror, the Weimar Republic, the fall of the Tsar, or the civil war in China. On the other end total dictatorship, the extreme Left leads to Anarchy. Look at the end of Communism in Russia, or the collapse of Yugoslavia under Tito.

Correct, which is why we should view the 2-dimensional spectrum as being connected at each end.

Like you said, after anarchy comes communism and vice versa.

Well, not really. It is a total belief in government control versus the other extreme of no government at all.

That the extremes always fail and usher in something else does not mean anyone gives up on their beliefs.

 

[tooAlive]

Actually, the 2 dimensional spectrum as a concept doesn't work as on your spectrum the extreme Right, Anarchy, inevitably leads to dictatorship, the extreme left. Examine the Reign of Terror, the Weimar Republic, the fall of the Tsar, or the civil war in China. On the other end total dictatorship, the extreme Left leads to Anarchy. Look at the end of Communism in Russia, or the collapse of Yugoslavia under Tito.

Correct, which is why we should view the 2-dimensional spectrum as being connected at each end.

Like you said, after anarchy comes communism and vice versa.

Well, not really. It is a total belief in government control versus the other extreme of no government at all.

That the extremes always fail and usher in something else does not mean anyone gives up on their beliefs.

Agreed. Which is why I'll continue to reference our political spectrum.

I suppose the part of the ends being "connected" is merely hypothetical, in regards to what would probably happen after.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals being evil, insane and stupid continue to spew their bullshit lies here after getting hit upside the head yesterday.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

 

[SniperFire]

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

hmmmm. Have you tired the needlepoint forum?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, calling liberals names that describe them well because they come here everyday claiming the sky is green and not blue....is getting to the point instead of wasting time everyday trying to convince liberals the sky isn't green.

I wonder what they put in the water in USMB land that keeps some people from focusing on the topic, which is quite interesting actually, and offering intelligent insights, but rather substitute mischaracterizations, name calling and insults?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I suppose the part of the ends being "connected" is merely hypothetical, in regards to what would probably happen after.

Actually, no it is not hypothetical. My earlier post gave historical examples of one extreme giving way to the other. In practice, once you are at either extreme (Anarchy or Dictatorship) on the Spectrum you're referencing, the easiest path from there is always to wrap around to the other extreme.

In practice, a truly effective dictatorship is incredibly difficult to "rehabilitate". It happens, but dictatorships tend to be brought down by the mob or externally, also leading to mob rule in at least the short run. A VERY recent example would be Iraq, where Saddam Hussein ran a brutally effective dictatorship. Here effective refers to his ability to maintain control, and not his policies (which were inhumane, monstrous, and evil). Once the US toppled him, anarchy reigned for a fairly significant portion of time with the mobs exerting much more control over day to day life than anyone else.

I mentioned the Reign of Terror, but let's talk more about that. After Bastille day, the situation in France was essentially mob rule as the only existing form of government (Monarchy) was actively hunted down and killed. Eventually, the mob gives way to something else. In France, it was the Reign of Terror where folks were systematically and randomly accused and killed by committee, followed by Napolean, who was a classical military dictatorship.

The connection isn't just hypothetical.

I'd also say, you're a bit too quick to dismiss the two dimensional spectrum given here. You've purposely misunderstood how the x/y axis works. Can I explain further?

In the two dimensional version, the vertical Y axis represents the push pull between Libertarian-ism vs Authoritarianism. This means transition up and down vertically corresponds to government control.

Vertically, the Extreme Authoritarianism example is dictatorship. Without question. The extreme Libertarian stance is Mob rule.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Horizontally, the extreme Left is represented by the stereotypical vapid consumer. Think that tech geek that would say stuff like "iPhone? That's so 2008. I have an HTC Dream with Andriod Ice Cream Sandwich optimized..." In that case, it is innovation for innovation's sake resulting in a culture of disposable things (and often people). The extreme Right is the stereotypical Old Fart saying things like "In my day we went uphill both ways in the snow with no feet!" The past is romanticized and clung to with innovation being extremely distrusted.

How these interact is interesting. An Authoritarian/Conservative government would be an Authoritarian government deriving power from past tradition. A non-controversial example would be a dynastic monarchy. The right to rule absolutely is derived from past tradition, not embedded in even the qualities of the current genetic heir to power.

An example of a Liberal/Libertarian government would be a population that changes forms of government at a whim. Tossing aside one government for another as the Mob rule saw fit with no respect for past history or tradition. This is probably the closest you can get to a "true Democracy", which everyone fears as a form of government for a reason.

It is worth noting, that even here the extremes tend to meet. If you're familiar with the Reimann Mapping Theorem (you can map the 2 dimensional plane one to one onto a sphere) this makes sense. But the general idea is you can go off an edge and wrap back around to the other side when your system inevitably fails in the extreme.