Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(09-25-2018, 12:50 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:Rajneesh is a very poor example of whatever he's supposed to be. I would drop him from the map. He was merely a cultist, and his cult remains focused on keeping itself separate and protected from outsiders.

You're right. I've replaced this bastard with Max Stirner, who was also a bastard, but at least is widely recognized as an influential figure in the history of political doctrines.

I don't know him either, but that sounds better. Thanks for your reply, and it's not too long

Quote:

Eric the Green Wrote:Neo-pagans today are NOT Nazis, and Nazis are NOT neo-pagans. Today's Nazis in the USA support everything white, which definitely means Christian, and definitely not Jews.

You need better information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-völkisch_movements
https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/inside-...nism/79101

Also, look up aryanism.net, which is run by actual neo-Nazis, hostile to traditional Christianity and calling themselves Gnostics.

Finally, there are the anti-Christian quotes from Hitler's table talk:
Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobillization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society
Christianity is not a natural religion for the Germans, but a religion that has been imported and which strikes no responsive chord in their hearts and is foreign to the inherent genius of the race

Make no mistake, I despise Nazism and Fascism, as well as religious traditionalism, but I still see a fundamental difference between them.

I see non-fundamental differences between them.

I don't know what table talk is, but I know Hitler was enthralled with German medieval mythology and Wagner operas. But the fact remains he and the church did not object to each other and mutually protected each other, because fascism and religious authority are compatible. And his war on Jews was just an example of religious fundamentalism in its way. The cultural/social conservatism quarter is all about us vs. them, or which group I belong to and uphold and which group I persecute. There were some Nazi occultists in Hitler's early period, and if you are right, then some Europeans still look back to pagan roots, as Hitler did. I would not call Gnostics "neo-pagans" though. Here in America, of course, Nazis are Christians, and uphold it because it's the religion of the white race. I have heard them and seen the reports.

Remember that religions and spirituality can also be leftist, even if organized. It is the claim of dominance by one sect over others that makes it conservative or fascist. Nationalist groups and ideologies usually use their religion as part of what makes their nation "great again" or "exceptional" or "destined to rule" or "in need of protection from those foreigners" etc. Hitler used it to the hilt. He used his native paganism, used the Christians, and used hatred of the Jews, which became his central focus, and their extermination as the final solution to all problems.

Quote:

Quote:Your map excludes all liberal democrats, as far as I can see.

There are two sectors descended from liberalism. I mean, classical liberalism was a 18th century phenomenon which doesn't exist anymore. Both moderate Purples like Obama and moderate Yellows like Merkel can claim the mantle of liberal democracy.

Finally, I think the Nolan chart makes good sense in an unanimous society, which agrees on what should be done and only has disagrees about how to do it. Nolan measures the amount of government intervention, but doesn't differentiate between reasons for it. For example, it cannot distinguish between censorship used for PC reasons and for traditional religious reasons. Or between intervening on the market because you want to quench inequality and intervening in order to subordinate businesses to the military.

I read you as saying that yellow is all about the market, not democracy. If it's primarily about the market, that's conservative. In fact, it's the heart of conservatism today, and remember, it's placed as the extreme right pole on the Europe-oriented political compass charts. In the Nolan chart it is upper right.

Liberal democracy leans liberal; that is, moderately to the left. The pure yellow that would be the same as libertarian still values civil rights and democracy, personal and social freedoms. If the Nolan circle is divided into the quadrants, then upper left is the libertarian left, and that's where most American liberal democrats would be found. The peace movement is there, shared among liberals and libertarians, and the opposite is militarism located in the social/conservative lower right (group vs. group). The more progressive wing of liberals today would be close to or at the left-wing pole. I don't see much of a place for the heart of liberalism today on your chart.

But the classical liberalism of the 18th century is basically what libertarians aspire to, and would be the same thing except classic liberals were not as extreme in their free market ideology, and more dedicated to human rights and democracy than libertarians today. This ideology is also called neo-liberalism. It hasn't gone anywhere. Allied with various shades of social conservatism, it is currently dominant in the USA government, and has been for 40 years.

I don't see at all that the Nolan chart pictures any agreement at all on what should be done. It is not true that Nolan just measures the amount of government intervention. How can you say that? That is only the up-down axis. The whole point is that it's a circle or a diamond shape. It has TWO axes. The left and right axes do not agree! And there are also two diagonal directions, one economic and one personal/social. A circle rather than a diamond gives a bit more room for more variety of views. You can define as many polarized axes as you want on it too.

The amount of government intervention varies on both the left side of the chart, and the right side of the chart, but not as much as in the center, where the disagreement is about government itself, with a mixture of left and right motives. That disagreement is as central to US politics and its conflicts as any other question. It is ideology, and not just "methods." Censorship for PC reasons is in the lower left, moderately low and strongly left, because it's much more left-wing, because it protects the rights of groups and their equality; while censorship for traditional religious reasons is on the lower right, setting one group above another and repressing the other. Censorship itself is low on the statist to libertarian scale, because it is not as low/oppressively statist as jailing or killing political opponents. Obviously, government intervention to quench inequality is classic left-wing, and is lower left or at the left pole, depending on what is done and how. It is directly opposed to free market conservatives on the upper right. Using business to support the military is classic fascism and is lower-right (again, varying in how extreme the militarism is).