Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(11-06-2019, 05:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 05:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 12:42 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: After a few tweaks:



I've followed Eric's advice and classified Greta the Green as an inclusivist, not a theocrat. There are indeed theocrat-like forms of environmentalism like the ideas of the terror group Earth First, but they are quite rare nowadays. They might come back during the 2T.

Millennial environmentalism looks like being focused on empathizing with Nature's plight and including it in our global civilization. A lot like the attitude they have to gays and earlier Inclusivists had to Blacks.

I also added Al Saud, the ultimate merger between theocracy and market.

That does look a bit better

-- where's Bernie? In the white with Roosevelt?

I would expect he would be put about where Corbyn is, or somewhere between him and Warren. But I've mentioned to Bill before that the word "communist" is rather loaded, and that "socialist" (though still loaded) would be a bit better.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-05-2019, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of you virtual millennials need to take more time out and visit places in Nature, or just enjoy the air on a windy day in a local park. Get in touch with your own body more. Put down your phones and get out from behind your desktops and discover real life.

You seem to have an image of me which is very far from the real me. I don't have a smart phone nor any social media profile. I enjoy running and visiting the forest. There wouldn't be forests inside an asteroid, but there certainly could be gardens. Actually one of the reasons I support space colonisation is that spreading the population across the Cosmos would relieve our pressure on the Earth's ecosystem.

I don't even particularly identify with Millennials, though I appreciate the civic traits of rationality, positivity and togetherness.  I however don't like their social media conformity nor their excessive reliance on technology and I think their trust in institutional solutions rather than personal righteousness is misplaced.

Hintergrund Wrote:Your "compass" has five dimensions, but you want to depict it in two. It doesn't work like that.
Also, why stay at five? I've seen political tests with eight different axes. Why not make it an n-dimensional space, in which any combination is possible.

They are not axes, they are directions. It's not and never was intended to be a Nolan Chart clone.

It's hard to know where to put you knowing only your stance on two issues. What's your view on economics? Gay marriage? The idea of a World State? What do you consider the purpose of government and society in general?

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2019, 06:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-05-2019, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some of you virtual millennials need to take more time out and visit places in Nature, or just enjoy the air on a windy day in a local park. Get in touch with your own body more. Put down your phones and get out from behind your desktops and discover real life.

You seem to have an image of me which is very far from the real me. I don't have a smart phone nor any social media profile. I enjoy running and visiting the forest. There wouldn't be forests inside an asteroid, but there certainly could be gardens. Actually one of the reasons I support space colonisation is that spreading the population across the Cosmos would relieve our pressure on the Earth's ecosystem.

I don't even particularly identify with Millennials, though I appreciate the civic traits of rationality, positivity and togetherness.  I however don't like their social media conformity nor their excessive reliance on technology and I think their trust in institutional solutions rather than personal righteousness is misplaced.

That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though. Space colonization does not seem a viable solution to human pressures on the Earth's eco-system, for many reasons. Unless the light barrier is broken (in which case we are already being visited by ETs), it would take far too long (many generations) to travel to another planet, check it out, travel back, import super-advanced terraforming tools in many spaceships, again travelling for many generations each, with provisions that would last that long or be ongoing somehow; it just seems like something very few people would be willing or able to do. And it would not relieve pressure on Earth at all, because the people here would still grow and multiply and continue their current behavior no matter how many times we set sail for another planet and how many more planets we ruin.

NO, the correct solution is for humans to change their behavior (attain greater righteousness as you put it), invent and rely on new eco-friendly tech, spread the wealth around better so poor people have fewer babies, etc. The Earth is our home; we need to take care of those beautiful forests and wildlife and treasure our home as the absolutely-unique place that it is, and until we do that, we are not qualified to go mess up some other planet. And the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self (Nature, God, etc.). We ARE Nature, we grew out of it, we are not isolated objects as Enlightenment Era rationality supposed. We need to ditch the old scientific and religious dogmas and move forward from the sixties and 1890s into the New Age in all our ways of thinking and being. Yes, I am a prophet Boomer

Quote:

Hintergrund Wrote:Your "compass" has five dimensions, but you want to depict it in two. It doesn't work like that.
Also, why stay at five? I've seen political tests with eight different axes. Why not make it an n-dimensional space, in which any combination is possible.

They are not axes, they are directions. It's not and never was intended to be a Nolan Chart clone.

It's hard to know where to put you knowing only your stance on two issues. What's your view on economics? Gay marriage? The idea of a World State? What do you consider the purpose of government and society in general?

A five-pointed chart may have its purpose. Far be it from me to say what's the only way. Not everything has to be a clone of the most accepted version of something. Best wishes with it, and it may yield valuable insights. I like these sorts of explorations and maps.

Myself, I am a supporter of the the two axes and four directions model. It fits my philosophy circle, for one thing, and my astrology models, for another; as well as many other maps, circles and practices. I think all the issues can be resolved into those two axes and four quadrants/directions. But, your mileage may vary, and no one map is equal to the territory. The more ideas, the merrier I say.

I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

[Bill the Piper]

(11-09-2019, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though.

Enlightenment rationality yes, but I don't like their praise of selfishness.

I'd also say I'm more into biotech than AI.

But I'd also prefer to live in a society with less tech but correct attitudes, than one with super advanced tech but based on evil philosophy like Libertarianism or Neoreaction.

Quote:I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

Without a nationalist sector, how do you conceptualize Middle Eastern politics? The Sauds and Al-Qaeda is theocratic and folks like Saddam and Assad are nationalists. So it's not just Trump.

Quote:the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self

Why didn't your omnipotent galactic cops intervene when Hitler was gassing Jews?

[pbrower2a]

I suddenly came to a recognition that the extremist environmentalist Earth First (these are the people who drive stakes into trees so that loggers will get severely injured by shrapnel from the stake if they cut down the tree). and animal-release groups (they break into research labs and free animals from testing labs) might be a totalitarian cause in the purple sector.

It falls clearly outside the free-market advocates (some environmentalists generally support a free market system with the catch that people pay dearly for the destructive consequences of their consumer choices), so it is not in the yellow sector. It is apparently godless, so it is definitely not theocratic (black sector).  Internationalist, it does not fit in the nationalist (brown) sector. Egalitarian? Not particularly.  I would put Earth First! on the rim in the purple sector, and on the rim. Also in this area would be those who support human extinction as god for the Earth. (OK, most of the animal world would be delighted if three species were to go extinct: Canis lupus familaris, Felis domestica, and you-know-who).

OK -- we have a person of such mentality -- Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. He did leave his Unabom Manifesto as an expressiion of his ideology.

[Eric the Green]

(11-10-2019, 06:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though.

Enlightenment rationality yes, but I don't like their praise of selfishness.

I'd also say I'm more into biotech than AI.

But I'd also prefer to live in a society with less tech but correct attitudes, than one with super advanced tech but based on evil philosophy like Libertarianism or Neoreaction.

I agree

Quote:

Quote:I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

Without a nationalist sector, how do you conceptualize Middle Eastern politics? The Sauds and Al-Qaeda is theocratic and folks like Saddam and Assad are nationalists. So it's not just Trump.

I explained before, that as I conceive it, loyalty and power reserved for your social group of whatever kind, and limits or repression imposed on other groups, just because they belong to that group and not to achieve greater liberty and prosperity, is what is called social conservatism on political compasses with two axes. I don't think it matters what kind of group it is. And fascism is a typical extreme version of social conservatism. Most fascist regimes are both nationalist and use religion to boost, prop up and enforce loyalty to the regime. Hitler's regime certainly was an example in his use of Germanic mythology.

Political theocracy has very little to do with religion. It doesn't matter what the specific beliefs of the religion are; they have little to do with the political movement. Religions do not preach political repression, generally speaking. Making religion an excuse for it is social conservatism, and that is politics and not religion. Religions at the core are much the same, while imposing one religion over another is using it for political power and repression of another social group.

I think Saddam was less of a social conservative because he allowed such things as women's rights. He was some kind of socialist statist, but he was also an imperialist, which is more nationalist and thus socially conservative, and also quite anachronistic. The goal of conquest of other nations is quite similar to fascism. The Soviet Union also combined those two goals. So, Saddam was quite similar to Stalin, then; maybe slightly left, but very close to the statist pole per se. I don't think Assad is a nationalist; just a statist. He is just about imposing his rule in his own realm, and it's a family dynastic rather than a national concern; but he does use religious sectarianism to gain loyalty. So, low on the scale, but shading toward social conservative. The Saudis are a slightly different mix. That is also a family dynasty, and more theocratic than Assad, but less imperialist than Saddam.

That's how I see it. Nationalism and theocracy are just two versions of social conservatism. But in the early 19th century and in anti-colonial movements, nationalism was liberal and their adherents would have been placed elsewhere depending on their overall philosophy. The nation, as originally conceived in the French Revolution, was a tool to achieve human rights and greater democracy. It was not a tool to oppress other nations and groups. That latter is nationalism as social conservatism. The French Revolution in fact sought to extend their own liberty to other nations-- which has its own difficulties that were demonstrated once Napoleon carried this out in his authoritarian way. But it did change the world.

Basically, as your circle is now, I would combine the theocratic and nationalist sectors, and then the rest would fit the political compass, except "communism" is too strong a word for economic liberalism generally.

That's just my view, which you asked for

Quote:

Quote:the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self

Why didn't your omnipotent galactic cops intervene when Hitler was gassing Jews?

That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-11-2019, 03:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.

Wow, so your Galactics are no better than the terrestrial internationalists. Sovereignty must be inviolable, yadda yadda. Do you seriously think perfected interstellar beings act like that?

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 04:31 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-11-2019, 03:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.

Wow, so your Galactics are no better than the terrestrial internationalists. Sovereignty must be inviolable, yadda yadda. Do you seriously think perfected interstellar beings act like that?

I would think they would act like any responsible organization would, to restrain entry into their membership people who are so immature as we are so as to be unqualified. But as I say, I don't know if they would stop us from sending out whole generations of astronauts to travel to and settle and terraform another planet, assuming we would ever be foolish enough to attempt such a hairbrained and impossible scheme.

But as far as coming to Earth and helping us to break the light barrier, I think they might be restrained from helping us too much, considering our immature condition, or from helping restrain us from our evil acts toward each other, considering their likely laws against interfering in the evolutionary affairs of other peoples. On the other hand, in some limited way they may already be helping us. So I can't be sure, not having contact with galactic federation officials. But I don't think our terrestrial neo-cons are models of what good galactic behavior looks like at all.

And it seems some ETs may be coming here to avail themselves of our DNA. So, it's a frontier of investigation and possible new knowledge.

[Blazkovitz]

Now I see a sixth sector is necessary, one for strongman types who aren't either theocrats or ethnocentrists. Let's call it statism. Neoreactionaries who aren't into ethnocentrism such as the blogger Mencius Moldbug, dictators like Xi Jinping, Lukashenko, Maduro and Assad. Old school autocrats like Louis XIV, Constantine and Charlemagne. Stalin would also be quite close, as his interest of revolutionary Marxism was negligible since the late 1930s.

It would be located between Communism and Nationalism, making it the exact opposite of market-worship.

[David Horn]

(03-24-2020, 08:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Now I see a sixth sector is necessary, one for strongman types who aren't either theocrats or ethnocentrists. Let's call it statism. Neoreactionaries who aren't into ethnocentrism such as the blogger Mencius Moldbug, dictators like Lukashenko, Maduro and Assad. Stalin would also be quite close, as his interest of revolutionary Marxism was negligible since the late 1930s.

It would be located between Communism and Nationalism, making it the exact opposite of market-worship.

You think 2-dimensionally.  If you add an extra axis or two to your chart, it makes placing all factors in separate (and orthogonal) dimensions.  My choice of axes are:

1. Anarchy   <-(Authority)->   Oppression
   
2. Communal   <-(Social)->   Individual
   
3. Atheism   <-(Faith)->   Religiosity
   
4. Socialism   <-(Economy)->   Capitalism
   
5. … add others as needed.
   

Adding an axis to describe Thinking v Feeling, or any other atypical measure, has no impact on the other axes. They are fully independent.  

My $0.02

[Blazkovitz]

(03-24-2020, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 08:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Now I see a sixth sector is necessary, one for strongman types who aren't either theocrats or ethnocentrists. Let's call it statism. Neoreactionaries who aren't into ethnocentrism such as the blogger Mencius Moldbug, dictators like Lukashenko, Maduro and Assad. Stalin would also be quite close, as his interest of revolutionary Marxism was negligible since the late 1930s.

It would be located between Communism and Nationalism, making it the exact opposite of market-worship.

You think 2-dimensionally.  If you add an extra axis or two to your chart, it makes placing all factors in separate (and orthogonal) dimensions.  My choice of axes are:

1. Anarchy   <-(Authority)->   Oppression
   
2. Communal   <-(Social)->   Individual
   
3. Atheism   <-(Faith)->   Religiosity
   
4. Socialism   <-(Economy)->   Capitalism
   
5. … add others as needed.
   

Adding an axis to describe Thinking v Feeling, or any other atypical measure, has no impact on the other axes. They are fully independent.  

My $0.02

You can do it in 2D, it'll look like a spider web:



Thinking vs Feeling is not really relevant for politics, Marx was a rationalist and Rousseau was more emotion-based, but politically they are quite similar and part of the same sector.

[David Horn]

(03-24-2020, 12:34 PM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 08:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Now I see a sixth sector is necessary, one for strongman types who aren't either theocrats or ethnocentrists. Let's call it statism. Neoreactionaries who aren't into ethnocentrism such as the blogger Mencius Moldbug, dictators like Lukashenko, Maduro and Assad. Stalin would also be quite close, as his interest of revolutionary Marxism was negligible since the late 1930s.

It would be located between Communism and Nationalism, making it the exact opposite of market-worship.

You think 2-dimensionally.  If you add an extra axis or two to your chart, it makes placing all factors in separate (and orthogonal) dimensions.  My choice of axes are:

1. Anarchy   <-(Authority)->   Oppression
   
2. Communal   <-(Social)->   Individual
   
3. Atheism   <-(Faith)->   Religiosity
   
4. Socialism   <-(Economy)->   Capitalism
   
5. … add others as needed.
   

Adding an axis to describe Thinking v Feeling, or any other atypical measure, has no impact on the other axes. They are fully independent.  

My $0.02

You can do it in 2D, it'll look like a spider web:



Thinking vs Feeling is not really relevant for politics, Marx was a rationalist and Rousseau was more emotion-based, but politically they are quite similar and part of the same sector.

True enough, but you actually made my point.  An array of orthogonal vectors can be as large and varied as desired.  Ignoring some (if that's your preference) has no impact on the others, though others may find some value you are free to find irrelevant.

In physics, there is an argument for an 11-dimensional universe, though we only live in four of them.  Havin no need of the other 7 doesn't invalidate their existence.

[Eric the Green]

(03-24-2020, 04:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 12:34 PM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 08:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Now I see a sixth sector is necessary, one for strongman types who aren't either theocrats or ethnocentrists. Let's call it statism. Neoreactionaries who aren't into ethnocentrism such as the blogger Mencius Moldbug, dictators like Lukashenko, Maduro and Assad. Stalin would also be quite close, as his interest of revolutionary Marxism was negligible since the late 1930s.

It would be located between Communism and Nationalism, making it the exact opposite of market-worship.

You think 2-dimensionally.  If you add an extra axis or two to your chart, it makes placing all factors in separate (and orthogonal) dimensions.  My choice of axes are:

1. Anarchy   <-(Authority)->   Oppression
   
2. Communal   <-(Social)->   Individual
   
3. Atheism   <-(Faith)->   Religiosity
   
4. Socialism   <-(Economy)->   Capitalism
   
5. … add others as needed.
   

Adding an axis to describe Thinking v Feeling, or any other atypical measure, has no impact on the other axes. They are fully independent.  

My $0.02

You can do it in 2D, it'll look like a spider web:



Thinking vs Feeling is not really relevant for politics, Marx was a rationalist and Rousseau was more emotion-based, but politically they are quite similar and part of the same sector.

True enough, but you actually made my point.  An array of orthogonal vectors can be as large and varied as desired.  Ignoring some (if that's your preference) has no impact on the others, though others may find some value you are free to find irrelevant.

In physics, there is an argument for an 11-dimensional universe, though we only live in four of them.  Havin no need of the other 7 doesn't invalidate their existence.

I have observed that philosophical and psychological views like solipsism are on a different wheel than political views.

[pbrower2a]

(11-05-2019, 12:42 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: After a few tweaks:



I've followed Eric's advice and classified Greta the Green as an inclusivist, not a theocrat. There are indeed theocrat-like forms of environmentalism like the ideas of the terror group Earth First, but they are quite rare nowadays. They might come back during the 2T.

Millennial environmentalism looks like being focused on empathizing with Nature's plight and including it in our global civilization. A lot like the attitude they have to gays and earlier Inclusivists had to Blacks.

I also added Al Saud, the ultimate merger between theocracy and market.

I would put Greta Thunberg much closer to the center than to the outer fringe, although definitely in the purple zone. She is not a nationalist, traditionalist; she seems mute on the capitalist-socialist divide. I can't imagine her advocating apocalyptic war on or mass murder behalf of a cause. An extremist in her direction would be Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski (who did leave his "Unabom" Manifesto as a guide to his beliefs).

Now for someone introducing the world to an extreme manifestation of personal indulgence, one of the sexual libertine in a plush setting. OK, he is better known for exposing (as literally as possible) the idealized female body -- familiar but with attractive form. For male heterosexuals most women of a certain age look better without clothes than with them or with clothes that simply frame the (to euphemize) the strategic parts of her anatomy so long as she does not have a severe fault of image such as obesity, scars, or ill-chosen tattoos. He is certainly not an egalitarian; he made a commodity out of personal appearance and advocated 'luxury' as an ideal. Obviously an antithesis to theocratic ideals and not at all a nationalist, he is obviously nowhere near the blue and brown sectors. He is non-violent, so he is not at one extreme or another. Sure, his sexuality is elitist and exploitative; few people ever get the means in which to live as he advocates, but it does attract men (and post-pubescent boys)  as a fantasy more sophisticated than the "dirty old man" pornography.  

Let me introduce Hugh Hefner, the man who introduced Humanity to sexuality without guilt.  It might be ironic, but some feminists might be close to Hefner on this chart.

[Blazkovitz]

(03-24-2020, 04:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: True enough, but you actually made my point.  An array of orthogonal vectors can be as large and varied as desired.  Ignoring some (if that's your preference) has no impact on the others, though others may find some value you are free to find irrelevant.

In physics, there is an argument for an 11-dimensional universe, though we only live in four of them.  Havin no need of the other 7 doesn't invalidate their existence.

In personality typology, there are orthogonal systems like Big 5 and MBTI, and there is the Enneagram which features 9 personality prototypes. My chart was meant to be like the Enneagram.

pbrower2a Wrote:Now for someone introducing the world to an extreme manifestation of personal indulgence, one of the sexual libertine in a plush setting. OK, he is better known for exposing (as literally as possible) the idealized female body -- familiar but with attractive form. For male heterosexuals most women of a certain age look better without clothes than with them or with clothes that simply frame the (to euphemize) the strategic parts of her anatomy so long as she does not have a severe fault of image such as obesity, scars, or ill-chosen tattoos. He is certainly not an egalitarian; he made a commodity out of personal appearance and advocated 'luxury' as an ideal. Obviously an antithesis to theocratic ideals and not at all a nationalist, he is obviously nowhere near the blue and brown sectors. He is non-violent, so he is not at one extreme or another. Sure, his sexuality is elitist and exploitative; few people ever get the means in which to live as he advocates, but it does attract men (and post-pubescent boys) as a fantasy more sophisticated than the "dirty old man" pornography.

Let me introduce Hugh Hefner, the man who introduced Humanity to sexuality without guilt. It might be ironic, but some feminists might be close to Hefner on this chart.

So, where do you put Hefner? Boundary between Yellow and Purple sounds right. Close to Rajneesh, though he probably didn't believe in any supernatural crap.

Quote:I would put Greta Thunberg much closer to the center than to the outer fringe, although definitely in the purple zone. She is not a nationalist, traditionalist; she seems mute on the capitalist-socialist divide. I can't imagine her advocating apocalyptic war on or mass murder behalf of a cause. An extremist in her direction would be Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski (who did leave his "Unabom" Manifesto as a guide to his beliefs).

His account of Leftist psychology makes it impossible to put him in the same zone as Leftists. He despised feminism, gay rights, recreational drug use - all the Inclusivist stuff from the last 2T. He seems more of a libertarian, though he venerates Nature rather than the Market, he ascribes to it a ruggedness that Ayn Rand would love. Both are Social Darwinist anarchists, as opposed to the fluffy bunny Inclusivist "anarchists" like Chomsky.

[pbrower2a]

Kaczynski did start as an extreme leftist and went to the Right, a pattern of many nasty people (Mussolini, Goebbels, D C Stephenson, Doriot, Laval, Quisling, Pavolini). Such people seem, aside from Laval, to have gone from the extreme Left to the extreme Right without going through the moderate center that eschews violence except in self-defense.

[Blazkovitz]

The latest version:



Two nods to Eric the Green: the red sector was renamed "populist". Proletarian nationalists like Wałęsa and Mandela are now part of this sector.

Single issue activists such as Greta Thunberg (environment), Abraham Lincoln (abolition of slavery) or George Washington (independence from the UK) really don't fit anywhere, but most other politically active individuals can be placed with ease.

[Eric the Green]

That's a good revision.

As I see it, inclusivist is opposite to both the exclusivist ideologies of theocratic and nationalist, and the opposite of statist is libertarian, which includes individual liberties as well as free market. Pro market alone is right wing and opposite to populist (or socialist). But if you made those changes, you'd have the existing political compass or libertarian Nolan map. Although I like your idea of 6 quadrants instead of four.

[Eric the Green]

(03-26-2020, 07:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Kaczynski did start as an extreme leftist and went to the Right, a pattern of many nasty people (Mussolini, Goebbels, D C Stephenson, Doriot, Laval, Quisling, Pavolini). Such people seem, aside from Laval, to have gone from the extreme Left to the extreme Right without going through the moderate center that eschews violence except in self-defense.

Kinda like a certain poster here whom I have on ignore....

[pbrower2a]

(03-28-2020, 12:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-26-2020, 07:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Kaczynski did start as an extreme leftist and went to the Right, a pattern of many nasty people (Mussolini, Goebbels, D C Stephenson, Doriot, Laval, Quisling, Pavolini). Such people seem, aside from Laval, to have gone from the extreme Left to the extreme Right without going through the moderate center that eschews violence except in self-defense.

Kinda like a certain poster here whom I have on ignore....

Admirer of Stalin to admirer of Trump, as I recall. OK, so he is black and gay, so he would never get a chance to be a Kluxer or an orthodox Nazi. 

If you wonder who D C Stephenson was he was the leader of the Indiana Klan in the 1920's... and the arch-villain of an alternative-history novel that I have long contemplated writing. We have plenty of alternative-history novels in which the evil Axis defeats the good Allies. I give that sort of novel a twist, and I have the USA having fallen to the Klan in the early 1930's while the Weimar Republic survives and the aborted tendencies toward democracy accelerate in Japan. D C Stephenson takes the role of Hitler in a Klan-dominated America. Britain and France start on the evil side but get knocked out early. Stalin obviously can only be evil.

Adenauer's Germany wins the war in part because it treats the Jews well even if it has a two-front war at the start and after some incredible blunders by the Klan regime... well, the recovery of the eastern United States is the "Rommel Plan". Chicago is the infamously-divided city between German and Japanese lines of occupation that goes from the Straits of Mackinac, Lake Michigan, the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, the Des Plaines River, the Illinois River, and the Mississippi River to just north of Nueva Orleans, which along with much of the American Southwest is reverted to or Mexico or for the first time becomes a part of Mexico because the fascist regime failed to treat Mexican-Americans as "white" in accordance with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

I have the "American" film industry relocated from Hollywood to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (the sunniest and driest region in the eastern United States to this day) because Hollywood becomes Mexican. Such things as Beatlemania and the moon landing happening on schedule, with Neil Armstrong (whose parents left America for Germany just before World War II) making the famous words:

 „Das ist ein kleiner Schritt für den Menschen… ein… riesiger Sprung für die Menschheit.“

If you wonder what happens to Hitler -- while in Landsberg Prison he rediscovers his artistic talent and puts it to good use...including some "THIS IS THE ENEMY" posters that show a Klansman as a looter and arsonist and Stalin as the murderous monster that he is.