Friday, April 17, 2009

The Political Spectrum, for Dummies: AKA Fascism is to the Right you Idiots!

If I hear one more time that Fascism is a left-wing ideology, I think my head might explode. So, I decided to make a political spectrum chart, for dummies. I was going to do it as a line, as that would be simplest, but it's too simple. In reality, even a graph like this is too simple. No one is in one particular spot on everything. I had difficulty placing people. This is all my opinion, based on what I know of the people here.

I was going to put Ron Paul on here, but couldn't. That man is a contradiction of himself. I'm sorry, but he says that the government shouldn't interfere in people's lives, but he's for the government telling me I must carry a pregnancy to term as he thinks abortion should be illegal. Psst, the Nazis did that too. He's also mixed on business, sometimes for it, sometimes for unions. You know, I just couldn't figure him out. All I know, is that I think he's a bit of a kook. Sure, some of the things he says seem reasonable, but he invariably will say something that makes me think he's an idiot.

So, you know, American politics tend to be sort of toward the middle. I think that G.W. Bush polarized everyone, and threw all of that off. And Clinton a liberal? Ha! Sure, on the personal level, but he was very pro business too.

It's not easy to put people in one particular spot, so keep that in mind before you flame me on where I put someone. Like Marx. While his ideas were taken and terrible things were done with them, his ideas are actually more democratic, in that the masses are in charge, not a single ruler. So that's why he's on the left of authoritarian, whereas Stalin, who claimed to be Marx's heir, was a totalitarian bastard.

As for Che, I think he was pretty anarchist, despite his support and work for Castro. It seems he didn't get along with anyone very well. He was also pretty ruthless, which IMHO, being a ruthless asshole doesn't really help your cause. But perhaps, he did what he had to, which I suppose is what any of us do. That still doesn't excuse killing people.

So where the hell am I on here? Like I don't even know. I'm definitely liberal, in the sense that the government should be regulating banks and corporations, not my life. I'm liberal also in the sense, that if you want to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will save the world, I'm cool. I don't really give a damn what you believe, so long as you leave me and everyone else in peace.

As for corporations, I think they're mostly bastards and that CEOs make way too much in comparison to the people who do the actual work. I think that people should make more money, I don't think they pay people enough for the jobs they do. It's caused us to prop up our economy on credit, because the people making $8 an hour at Wal-Mart can't afford to buy anything. They can barely get by, and so as cheap and easy as it was to get credit until recently, well, we know where that went. It's gotten us into what may be a depression, of course that'll be hindsight. Henry Ford, as much as an anti-Semitical bastard that he was, paid his workers enough to buy his product. If you don't pay people enough, they can't buy your shit. Or they buy it with credit as I said, and well, that only props everything up so long.

Did I mention regulation. That should be the role of the Federal government. Regulating banks. Seriously. That and providing social security, highways, and money for public works and the arts and humanities, and research. Hey, I work on a government funded research project, I'll not bite the hand that feeds me. I really think the government should regulate business. Not people.

But I can't label myself a communist, because I think communism, while it looks great on paper, especially a lot of things that Marx thought, is an EPIC FAIL in reality, because people are greedy. The collective, the people are never in charge in those cases, it's always some dictator. Why exactly that is, I'm not entirely sure. I guess it could be because people can't work together without leadership. That would be anarchy, which apparently has never been tried in a peaceful setting. People think of anarchy as violent, but it could be peaceful I suppose. If people weren't assholes.

So there we come to the crux of the matter. Whatever political or moral ideology you subscribe to, people in general are stupid bastards. And some people are determined to be leaders and utilize their power and money to gain more power and more money. Sometimes it's under the guise of organized religion. In fact, that's probably most of the time.

I've been accused of being atheist because I can't or won't tell people what I think "god" is. As if some mere mortal could define a supreme being, bind him/her up into a book, market it to the masses and call it infinite. We ain't got a fucking clue one about the nature of our planet or life here, much less the divine or the universe. It's like a blind man trying to describe to another blind man what the ocean looks like. "It's very wet," he says. But he can't see it. And even that's an overstatement. Because we usually can't feel or hear "god", whatever that is, and I daresay if you're hearing "god" you should probably go take your medication. I suppose sometimes we might sort of feel something that feels like the divine, but that doesn't mean we know what it is. Does this make me an agnostic? Some might think so. Except that if there is a "god", it might as well not exist, as it seems that "god" has done little for this planet, except in the promotion of genocide, murder and despotism. Oh sure, some people have done good and been motivated by their religion, but more often than not people have done bad and/or used religion as an excuse to do bad, or have lived in absolute fear because their neighbors would kill them if they found out they didn't believe the same way they do. Basically, an uneducated and ignorant people who believe that what amounts to fables, is inerrable truth, are not long for a democratic republic.

Well, this turned into a long rant and it is quite late. On that last note, I think of this...

"The epitaph [of Simon de Montfort] says, for those who can read it, that he is a saint and a martyr... And I have heard it said that this must be so -- if by killing men and shedding blood, and damning souls and causing deaths... by killing women and slaughtering children, a man in this world can win Jesus Christ, certainly Count Simon wears a crown and shines in heaven above." --Song of the Cathar Wars

Oh, and PS, I added Olbermann because I can. I don't claim to know where he actually stands on these things, but he seems pretty liberal so I just picked a spot.


  1. This is an excellent post, and not merely because I agree with most everything you said! You got it right. My problem is I'm growing more cynical every day as to whether there's much hope for real change...

  2. Thanks for the comment! :)

    I tend to go from cynical to hopeful and back to cynical, depending on what the news of the day is, LOL. I suppose we have to believe there's hope, or what else would we have to do?

  3. I have to applaud this post too - I certainly agree with you throughout. You know, being interested in history certainly shows us the truth in the old saying about how we're doomed to repeat it..!

  4. Due to the differing opinions regarding social issues, you cannot take social issues into account. On one side of the altercation, one is for abortion because it's free rights. However, to those of whom believe it is murder, does this mean that it is controlling for the government to say rape and murder are illegal? and that one is taking away their rights? Thus, you can't look at making murder illegal as limiting one's rights. you have to look at things from a economic and governmental perspective This chart is more accurate

    Also, I can deliberately prove that abortion is murder:
    The act of murder is wrong not because one is killing a living thing, rather, because one is depriving that living of a future. No one states that one was deprived of their past. Moreover, the individual is not deprived of their present. As, theoretically, when talking about the present, it is the past. (Look into the physics of time in the present if you don't understand this) Murder rids the individual of his/her potential. The individual is not rid of his past living rather, his future. Thus, when auguring about abortion, the fact that it is a living or not is not relevant. The real question, is whether the fetus will, in the future, grow into a being capable of making choices. and if by abortion, one would deprive the fetus of a potential life.

  5. So is fascism not a leftist Idea? Facism isn't that much different from Communism, both avocate for large goverment that controls regulates, or in case of communism to eliminate it. No republican would avocate for fascism, they are trying to srink the goverment not inflate it. So Please explain how fascism is about small goverments without dicatorially powers.
    If a person is not pro business what would that make them anti business? And if one were to be pro business does that mean they give business special benfits, bailouts, or just not interfering and let busieness fight each other without goverment backing or subised?

  6. How is anarchy on the side of Hitler? Hitler was a national socialist a "Nazi" Socialism is about the state having all power. Anarchism is about NO RULERS the opposite of National Socialism. This is not accurate.