The Political Compass Test is kinda broken though. They put Hitler as a “right authoritarian”, even though the Nazis were socialists, which is far-left
Their placing Hitler on the right is someting that is long known to be DNC Propaganda.
They literally are using his playbook to this day.
As far as the test is concerned I can tell whoever wrote it is a commie loving sack of shit. Ive seen it several times in the past and the questions get dumber every time I see it.
Apparently the cut n paste failed. x=0. y=4
This test gets dumber and ddumber and dddumber each time it comes out.
It does not take a a very skewed questionnaire to tell you where you fall. It does require reading of the U.S. Constitution, which includes all Amendments and then asking yourself :
A. Do I agree with it, and all that is in it as a dead document, meaning what it says with as written…..
B. Or do you believe it is a living document open for interpretation to fit a narrative?
If (A) You fall on the side of a Republican or at least have leanings that direction or as a Constituionalist.
If (B) You fall on the side of a Democrat or at least have leanings that direction or a Libertarian.
If (C) you want to change it so drastically it bares no resemblance to its written form you are probably a Communist ets. If that is your leaning there is plenty of Nations that are what you seek why are you still here?
If you are just not sure, because you do not really understand how or why the Constitution and our founding came to be, then Read the Federalist and Antifederalist papers to learn. THEY are not taught in school, you have to wonder why?
WEll like I tell idiots often Legal documents dont change their meaning simply cause 130 years have passed.
Well-Regulated does not mean what they want it to mean; and Shall not is the strongest language anywhere in the Constitution and it is ignored for illogical bullshit.
Red flag laws violate not only the 2nd, but the 4th, 5th, 10th, and likely the 14th amemdments as well.
The 16th was never properly ratified.
As an idea the political compass is slightly better then just a simple left-right spectrum. Political ideologies can often be quite complex that you cannot always easily classify them as “left vs right.” Adding “libertarian vs authoritarian” at the very least determines whether you think the state should come before the individual or vice-versa.
But the official test is obviously biased towards a “LibLeft” perspective. Putting both Obama and Trump into the AuthRight square is so seriously deluded that it defies comprehension (fuck, I wish the Democrat party was anything like Trump), and the questions are very morally loaded – Clearly designed to make the less politically-inclined into thinking they have more in common with the “LibLeft” than they actually do, which I think is a rather insidious form of grooming (I mean, look at the very first question: “Economic globalization should benefit humanity and not corporations?” Who the fuck would actually disagree with that sentiment?)
Remember, these are the same people who yell, “Bernie is the compromise!” Anything that isn’t “ABOLISH CAPITALISM” may as well be a hard-right military dictatorship to these reprobates. Even modern-day China employs some aspects of capitalism – They had to in order to become a world power and not devolve into a hermit state like North Korea has (an irony I’m pretty sure isn’t lost on them).
And in regards to complex ideologies, there are lot of misconceptions that Americans (and frankly Europeans, too) on both sides have about Hitler: While he was no fan of capitalism, he was otherwise ultra-conservative on many social issues. You only need to look at how radically different the Soviets and the Nazi’s were on the subject of sex: As soon Hitler took office, he banned pornography, outlawed prostitution and criminalized homosexuality. Comparatively, under Lenin, Russia had a “sexual revolution” not all that different from what the USA had during the 1960’s; no sexual degradation was considered too taboo, and there were many “sex experts” who supported the Union that pushed for the normalization of pedophilia (sound familiar?). It was so bad that Stalin reversed many of the policies, but he did it more for practical reasons than ideological (Russia’s demographics were out-right collapsing and at least Stalin had the sense to understand what would happen eventually if fertility rates fell below the replacement level).
And there’s the subject of race: The Soviets introduced many “Hate Speech” laws for racial minorities which are very similar to what we see across most of Western Europe now, and then went a step further and brought in the death penalty for antisemitism. Meanwhile, we all know Hitler’s views on race and Jews.
Even in regards to his views on socialism he still differed greatly with the Marxists: He called himself a National Socialist with good reason; socialism by and large racial lines, (instead of class), for the German people: For instance, non-Germans had their homes taken away and given to ethnic Germans. However, unlike the Bolsheviks, Hitler never went so far as to abolish private property.
He was basically re-appropriating Socialist ideology for his own ends and trust me when I say the Communists fucking hated him for it. They were hoping a similar Communist revolution would happen in Germany, only they weren’t counting on him coming along and saying, “Here’s my brand of Socialism!” (But then what did they expect? Antifa (who were Stalin’s stooges) were terrorizing the Germans much like in the present day, and the Weimar Republic did nothing about it. Hitler formed the Brownshirts to meet aggression with aggression, and then promised to put a swift end to the street violence if he got elected).
But don’t just take my word for it, here are his views in his own words:
‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common wealth [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxists have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common wealth. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
Source: Adolf Hitler interview with George Sylvester Viereck, Liberty magazine, 1932.
None of this changes that Hitler was a dictator, of course. His ideas were antithetical to that of English and American liberty and Americans aren’t wrong to reject socialism of any form. I just get annoyed whenever it’s suggested that his views aligned with that of Communists, because it’s not historically accurate: One group saw the other as utterly dangerous to them and wanted to see it completely destroyed. Not exactly the grounds for any potential alliance.
If I had to pin them down, I would say the Nazi’s were the ultimate AuthCentrists lmao. Maybe we should start calling them centrists instead and watch heads explode.
If left-wing means bigger government and right-wing means smaller government, than shouldn’t far-right be anarchism (as small as a government can get to where it literally doesn’t exist anymore) and not fascism?
Actually “far-right” would be a Constitutionalist and exactly what our founders intended “Small <<Federal>> Government” Allowing for the States to Govern themselves so long as they adhere to the Federal Constitutions guidelines.
But then most people think the bill of rights is 10 Amendments when in fact it was 12 and the order we know them today is not the original order.
Mostly as the last 2 were refused.
I cant even remember what they were supposed to cover.
Here you go @MrDragonbane. In proper order and as written though i think spell-check corrected some of the old English :)
Article the first… After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article the second… No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth… No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh… No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth… In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article the ninth… In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth… Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
I think what was the 1st amendment under the 12 origional proposed is still in effect I think it simply became part of how the House is being run. I could be wrong on that one.
I can see why they removed what would have been the 2nd. They wouldnt be able to give themselves raises.
@Ryder_the_Great See, you still thinking along the left/right paradigm, which is kind of a trap. “Left” and “Right” are terms that should only really be denoted to name two opposing sides of the argument; they’re often used short-hand because it’s easier for conversation, but they shouldn’t be considered as absolutes, as Left and Right can have different meanings in other countries and especially in different time periods.
The American Right of today has its roots firmly planted in the European Left of the Enlightenment era of 1600-1700’s, centuries before Marx was even born. Back then, true liberalism, the idea that all Men are created equal under God, was the revolutionary line of thought, opposing absolute monarchism and putting the freedoms of the individual before the state. John Locke of England was one of the most prominent forward-thinkers of that era, and many of his ideas served as inspiration for the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Communism didn’t even exist as an idea back then, but I have no doubt both the Left and Right of that time period would’ve seen it as absolute madness.
Fascism was founded on the ideals and philosophies of what used to constitute the old, old right in Europe (which was generally represented by the aristocracy) as a complete and total rejection of liberalism and a reinforcement of Imperialism and caste systems. When Benito Mussolini came to power, he basically wanted to revive the Roman Empire and restore Italy to perceived lost glories. While still overtly authoritarian, the goals of fascists were fundamentally in opposition to Communists (at least fascists were honest and unapologetic in what they wanted. Communists will just lie and lie and lie, saying they only want equality, when in actuality they were envious of the European aristocracy and wanted their power for themselves and once they got it they were far worse than any high-ranking noble from the medieval period ever was).
In summary, Left and Right have different meanings in Europe then they do in the USA. Both the European Left and Right believe in big government, they just differ on social values. Only the American Right is dedicated to small government and non-interference (there are movements in Europe which advocate for an American-style government, but they don’t get taken seriously. Too many Europeans of today value safety and security over freedom, unfortunately). For example, Eastern Europe is much more right-wing than Western Europe, but Viktor Orban of Hungary is something of an autocrat (though not to the same extent as Vladimir Putin) – Hungary’s government had some of the most draconian restrictions in regards to COVID lockdowns, but Orban also has zero bullshit for any progressive causes (i.e. he recently outlawed anyone from legally changing their gender, which, as you can imagine, the transgender lobby did not take very well).
Anarchism can also be a very broad ideology. It’s often typically associated with the “LibLeft,” but it does sometimes cross-over with other ideologies and economic models. Antifa, as you may have suspected, are anarcho-communists, that think that Anarchism and Communism are somehow compatible (pure Anarchists think they’re fucking idiots – They know Communists prioritize the state above all else and would have them executed as soon as they were no longer useful). On the other hand there are also anarcho-capitalists: Those who believe that the very existence of state and government are unnecessary, and that their ideal society is one where every service in life is privatized. They’re typically much more hardcore on LibRight politics than say, your average Donald Trump supporter.
The then 2nd Amendment is now the 27th Amendment
The first Amendment is still pending needing 27 states still needed to ratify it.