From the link...

Charles Johnson:
1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

RS McCain's response:
Fascism is a Progressive Ideology that conflicts with the Right's individualism.

... I stopped reading after one sentence.

Fascism is NOT a progressive ideology. It's a far right, aka: to the right of a conservative, ideology.

Oh, please do define fascism. Far right of a conservative is left...in circular thinking.

Maybe you should stop looking in the mirror when ascertaining your right from your left.

Conservatives = right of center.

Liberals = left of center.

Fascism = far right of center.

Marxism = far left of center.

Nazis = extreme far right of center.

Communists = extreme far left of center.

Using this scale is the easist and most concise ruler to keeping ideologies straight. If you disagree with that, then you're just being intectually dishonest.

Decent Pinch, but with a few problems.

Nazis are fascists.

Marxism is Communism.

I think you mean to say Communist= far left of center and Socialist is extreme far left of center.

Fascism:

"A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. ..."

As a conservative, I rebuke every bit of that!

Welcome to The Political Compass'

I don't necessarily disagree, I just happen to equate socialism and marxism as more or less the same thing as compared to lumping marxism with communism. However, I can also see how similarities between marxism and communism (especailly authoritarian wise) make them more or less than the same.

I admit to choosing an linear based (and simple) slide rule to measuring ideologies on the politcal spectrum because there's nothing more ridiculous than seeing teabaggers say President Obama is a socialist-nazi.

I'm not trying to trash this thread. I just think that this RS McCain guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

My post above is @ kanrei.

(still trying to get used to this layout)

Find out where you stand.
#6 | Posted by Corky

To the left of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

#9 | I'm always between Gandhi and the Dolly Llama.

I am socially barely left of center. Every. Single. Time. Corky.

#8 - what layout? It's geared to a third grader for crying out loud! Yeah-yeah, I know - third grade - best seven years of your life...

WHO is DOLLY Llama? I thought Dolly was a sheep...

-I am socially barely left of center

Explains the cognitive dissonance.

"I am socially barely left of center. Every. Single. Time. Corky."

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

#14 - did you come to speak about what your wife fixed for supper last night or to offer something to the conversation?

Just came to point and laugh at you fer the pathetic liar you are.

I don't put much stock into that www.politicalcompass.org website. Yes it's helpful, but to say that answering a bunch of questions a certain way makes that person aligned with a certain ideology is still an inexact science. And adhering to my easy slide rule in keeping political ideologies straight is still more useful than some geometric formula.

I'm no political science major, so the easier the better. If someone wants nuance, then by all means use that politicalcompass.org website.

Just don't try to label people like this McCain guy is doing to the LGF guy (or teabaggers to Obama) with two diametrically opposed ideologies, because doing so is absurd.

Marxism is Communism.

I think you mean to say Communist= far left of center and Socialist is extreme far left of center.

I always thought Marxism and socialism could be used interchangeably and that they referred more to the economic philosophy behind communism, the actual implemented policies.

As a conservative, I rebuke every bit of that!

Well then, fascism is clearly a leftist ideology if you disavow it.

"Fascism:

"A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. ..."

As a conservative, I rebuke every bit of that!
#5 | Posted by nanc at 2009-12-07 10:31 AM"

How about the definition from Princeton:

"(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism))."

How about the definition from Princeton:

"(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism))."

#19 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2009-12-07 03:19 PM

Exactly.

I would like to think that Princeton's definition of marxism (or communism) would be: "a political theory advocating an authoritarian state government (as opposed to a fascsism or conservatism)." ... or something to that effect.

Princeton is using "liberalism" in the classical sense, not the current incarnation.

Fascism is NOT a progressive ideology. It's a far right, aka: to the right of a conservative, ideology.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2009-12-07 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag: BULL TURDS

Quit making crap up and do some research. What a fool.

Let's see. Off the top of my head, in the first six months of Obama's presidency we've seen corporatism and "state capitalism" run amok, in the government takeover of two car companies and numerous banks. Labor unions have become increasingly indistinguishable from the government and the party that controls it. Herbert Croly and the Progressives have once again been rehabilitated as founding fathers of the New Age. The entire liberal intellectual class is convinced that this the time for a new New Deal. Critics of statism are vilified by liberal elites as racists and fascists. (And those who refuse to get with the Gorian program are guilty of "treason against the planet"). When out of power, liberals lionized free speech and celebrated dissent as the highest form of patriotism. Now, they label dissent "un-American" and the president insists he doesn't want to hear a lot of talking from anyone who disagrees with him. While the stench of eugenics and euthanasia do not quite sting the nostrils yet, the odor is detectable and the liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others has been re-exposed.

Indeed, our own messianic president, who insists that we can create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, also apparently believes that "we are God's partners in matters of life and death" and that religious organizations that are true to their calling should rally behind a united front to expand the scope and role of government. When the head of state says such things, it is hard not to be reminded of the Progressive concept of the God State, a major theme of Liberal Fascism. The "State is the actually existing, realized moral life . . . The divine idea as it exists on earth," Hegel declared in The Philosophy of History. The State, according to Hegel, was the "march of God on earth." The progressives agreed. Richard Ely, the founding father of progressive economics, proclaimed "God works through the State in carrying out His purposes more universally than through any other institution."

It's revealing, to me at least, that I wrote the book with Hillary Clinton as the stand-in for the fascistic ideas lurking inside contemporary liberalism. Here's how I put it in the new afterword for the paperback edition:

A little primer for you..............

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Washington President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

There's an interesting contradiction here. According to the pro-choice perspective, it's outrageous for the state to interfere in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. But it's pragmatic and reasonable for the state to consider terminating a person, if some money can be saved.

This logic is nothing new.

"for the state to consider terminating a person"

He's not talking about the state, you stupid shit, he's talking about families making more informed decisions. Try comprehension next time.

It's hard to tell which spammer is more idiotic...The Crapel or Harrison1986.

Sure hope Rcade doesn't ban all the leftists when they see him turning into a conservative and call him on it...

If I become a conservative I will ban myself.