Let's get this straight: All totalitarianism is leftist

“Orwell based his rejection of all ideology – "all those nasty little isms" – upon the surreal switches in wartime policy of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, who were mortal enemies, then bosom buddies, then mortal enemies again, depending entirely upon the leader's whims. 

Conservatives – and the word "conservative" does have real meaning – will always lose, even when we "win," if we still used the rigged semantic game of our enemies, the totalitarians.  Once we grasp the surreal contortion of language that deprives us of the means of understanding anything about politics, then we can always win, because all totalitarianism is exactly the same.

Nazism was founded by men who strongly opposed "Capitalism," a nonsensical term invented by Marxists that requires a tacit acceptance of the Marxist lexicon to use in thought or writing.  Many of the early Nazis were outright Marxists, and most of the powerful Nazis – Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, and Ribbentrop – belonged to what was described at the time as the " left wing " of the Nazi Party.  

Why does this matter still?  It matters because those who seek state power, which is to say leftists, invariably paint their opponents as "Nazis" who are "diametrically opposite" leftists, despite the fact that Nazis and Marxists have almost identical belief systems and because this false and macabre argument still persuades those Americans who have been stripped of the ability of individual thinking by the institutions of power.”

Fascism is a right wing ideology, always has been, always will be. Deal with it. 

It never has been of the right, never will be and we will not accept the false association with it that the secular progressive left of today attempts to smear us with.  THe progressives of the early 20th century and fascists had a love affair going and we will never let todays progressives forget that Hitler got his ideas of dealing with people he didn't like for the eugenics supporters among UK and USA progressives such as Fabian, Shaw, and Sanger, among others. 

You are confused... Here, let me help...

Fascism   ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of radical   authoritarian   ultranationalism , ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}   characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, ^[5]   which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. ^[6]   The first fascist movements   emerged in Italy   during   World War I   before   it spread to other European countries . ^[6]   Opposed to  liberalism ,  Marxism  and  anarchism , fascism is placed on the  far-right  within the traditional  left–right spectrum . ^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]}

Fascists saw   World War I   as a   revolution   that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state and technology. The advent of   total war   and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. ^{[12] [13]}   The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. ^{[12] [13]}

Fascists believe that  liberal democracy  is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a   totalitarian   one-party state   as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. ^[14]   Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a   dictator   and a   martial   government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. ^[14]   Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and   imperialism   as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. ^{[15] [16] [17] [18]}   Fascists advocate a   mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving   autarky   (national economic self-sufficiency) through   protectionist   and interventionist economic policies. ^[19]

Since the end of   World War II   in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist and the term is instead now usually used   pejoratively   by political opponents. The descriptions   neo-fascist   or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. ^{[6] [20]}

en.wikipedia

Fascism is a right wing ideology

Fascism is a method, A means to an end, NOT an ideology...... (just like communism is a means to an end, that is why there are so many different flavors of it)

Fascism as a method can be both rightist and leftist, the ideology doesn't matter to the method....

"The early Fascists were all Marxists.  Indeed, Mussolini was the most radical Marxist in Italy before the First World War, and Trotsky considered him one of the greatest Marxists in the world.  Fascism famously stood for nothing except action.  It was passionately philo-Semitic before 1938, when it adopted Nazi anti-Semitism.  It professed support for Catholicism, and yet it attacked high clergymen and confiscated the Vatican periodical and beat up Italians who vended it." 

Mussolini was the most radical Marxist in Italy before the First World War

Yes he was, but over the years he adapted, Marxists are nothing without political power so they adapt and rationalize their position to achieve their dreams of power by adopting anything that gets them there..... It is all fake, a window dressing, a false facade to mislead the people into thinking it is something it is not.....

But the one tool they all have in common......

Hate.... it is what makes fascism move.....

fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum

This isn't helpful until the spectrum is defined and we present the aspects of fascism that put it on the right and consider any aspects that might put it on the left.

I posted the book definition. Fascism is a RIGHT wing, "method", if you like. But no matter how you slice it? It's right wing. 

This isn't helpful until the spectrum is defined

According to the definition, the traditional spectrum is used. My guess is that part of the definition comes from Nazi Germany which was obviously right wing, just like the neo-nazi's of today. 

But tea partiers have their own definitions of words. And tomorrow those definitions will change.

And tomorrow those definitions will change

just like the language of Trumpp does, sometimes in the same day.

some one should change Depends on the white stripe on his brown and yellow under where he is, there is no won

only loss

And tomorrow those definitions will change.

Yep, they just move the goal posts. 

Actually, Fascism and Nazism are both right of Bolshevism, which was the Russian Communist model, which post World War II was spread throughout Eastern Europe.  However, both Nazism and Fascism both got their start as SOCIALIST movements.  As time went on, when the realities of both war and economic pressure reared their heads; both moved their markets towards a less Socialist model.

Fascism is usually associated with government being run by businesses rather than the socialist model of government taking over businesses for the public good. They are essentially the same model just termed differently.  Both have government and business heavily intertwined to the point where one is running the policies of the other.  Nazism is harder to pin down, as the vast majority of its policies were made out of hatred of certain segments of the population: non-Aryans and Jews.  However, its early success in taking over the Weimar Republic shows that the majority of their policies were Socialist in nature.

Well written post.  I agree with the points you made.  The days of conservatives meek acceptance of the progressive libel of fascism and naziism supposedly being of the far right are long since past and over with.  

The days of conservatives meek acceptance of the progressive libel of fascism and naziism supposedly being of the far right are long since past and over with.  

This is a visual representation of your posts,

goo.gl

You should try facts instead of spreading partisan nonsense,

  The Nazis posed as moral crusaders who wanted to stamp out the "vice" of homosexuality from Germany in order to help win the racial struggle. Once they took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps .

.

On May 2, 1933, Adolf Hitler’s storm troopers occupied all trade union headquarters across Germany, and union leaders were arrested and put in prison or concentration camps. Many were beaten and tortured. All of the unions’ funds – in other words, the workers’ money – were confiscated. Former union officials were put on blacklists, preventing them from finding work.

Hitler was never a socialist.

[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.

Come on Palin are you going to go back to The American Thinker meme again.  Geeeeez

Let's Get This Straight: All Totalitarianism Is Leftist

Lets get THIS straight... This article is total bullshit. 

"American Thinker"... How shocking... LOL

Yes, they are American and unlike many who are progressive, they/we are thinkers.   

Yes, because progress is such a horrible thing. Without progressives, you would still be banging out messages on stone tablets. Hate progressives? Fine, get off the internet. 

Yes, they are American and unlike many who are progressive, they/we are thinkers.   

Would evidence of said thinking be your claim that evolution is pseudoscience, that Trump supports religious freedom for all and the US was founded as a Christan country?

Who are these conservative thinkers? Name 5 of them.

I stopped reading before the end of the first paragraph because my BS meter had already pegged.

Yes, because progress is such a horrible thing. Without progressives, you would still be banging out messages on stone tablets. Hate progressives? Fine, get off the internet. 

and you make the same type of idiotic statement he does,

All inventors are progressives? all scientists are progressives?

Your conflating science and industry with political ideology.... Which is as massive a fail as his was.

Only 6% of hard scientists claim to be politically conservative.

The opposite of soft.

The natural sciences are considered 'hard' while the social sciences are considered 'soft'.

What do you mean by hard?

Physicists, geologists, math, biologists, medicine among others.

The soft sciences are economics, psychology, anthropology, political science, and maybe even philosophy.

All totalitarianism is leftist...... (deleted subsequent drivel trying to prove an irrationality)

What an absolute load of uneducated, irrational horse pucky!

You don't even bother to reach the rational argument of "most" at least you could try and defend that position. (and I would agree with you)

What about Italy prior to WWII? the Moussolini's Fascisti were conservative!, YES they usurped the progressive fascisti movement in Italy before the war.... (which is what made the connection between Hitler and Mussolini even more strange) Yeah I know there have been a lot of authors trying to connect the Fascisti to leftists. but they all fail the same as those trying to turn Hitler into a conservative.

I mean DAMN son, pick up a few books every once in a while and read a couple of them why don't ya!

All totalitarianism is leftist

It works if the spectrum is defined as running from least government authority to most. But that's the problem. The spectrum isn't defined.

It works if the spectrum is defined as running from least government authority to most. But that's the problem. The spectrum isn't defined

The far left progressive idea is libertarian socialism. How can it be totalitarian if there is no sitting government? I would suggest that you start by reading Chomsky, Bakunin and Kropotkin.

It works if the spectrum is defined as running from least government authority to most. But that's the problem. The spectrum isn't defined.

And that opens the door to those who wish to define it to fit their idealism.....

I personally believe Thomas Jefferson had the best understanding of this of anyone in history. but then everyone wants to leave his to history as nothing but a bunch of snippets.

The far left progressive idea is libertarian socialism.

I'll go one better, progressive conservatism...... very close to classic liberalism..... American Libertarianism....

But you will have to discard all the intentional distortive rationalized labels....

The far left progressive idea is libertarian socialism

You're not defining the spectrum, though. That's the point I just made. On the spectrum I defined, libertarian socialism - like anarchy - would be far right, of course.

How can it be totalitarian if there is no sitting government?

Notice that the claim was all totalitarianism is leftist. I defined a spectrum where that would be true.

By the way, that claim is not the same as saying all leftism is totalitarian, so finding an ideology that isn't totalitarian and claiming it as leftist doesn't refute the claim. Refuting it would involve finding a rightist ideology that is totalitarian. Remember, though, how I defined the spectrum. By that definition, a rightist ideology, by definition, could not be totalitarian.

That's the problem with the political spectrum. It's all in how you define it.

I would suggest that you start by reading Chomsky, Bakunin and Kropotkin.

Before or after lunch?

I'll go one better, progressive conservatism...... very close to classic liberalism..... American Libertarianism.... But you will have to discard all the intentional distortive rationalized labels....

You're a conservative compared to me, but my ideas are far beyond what most people could understand or could embrace because it would mean embracing the idea that we are a very interdependent society.    The very best that we can do at the current time is civil libertarianism on rights and market socialism on economics, but even that would be a stretch for most of the country to understand and embrace.

On the spectrum I defined, libertarian socialism - like anarchy - would be far right, of course.

Libertarian socialism is extreme left.   Fascism is far right.  I suggest that you learn the basics before you attempt to discuss it. 

That's the problem with the political spectrum. It's all in how you define it.

You seem to think that you can define it according to your own beliefs.  That would be akin to claiming that each person can decide what words mean instead of understanding that we have dictionaries for a reason. 

I would like to know the Idea that you have that someone can't understand.

What is your understanding of market socialism?

You seem to think that you can define it according to your own beliefs.  That would be akin to claiming that each person can decide what words mean instead of understanding that we have dictionaries for a reason. 

No, what he's saying is that everyone has their own definition and understanding.... and one, is no better than any other....

No, what he's saying is that everyone has their own definition and understanding.... and one, is no better than any other....

We cannot possibly have a discussion of the subject of economics or rights if everyone has their own definition. That would be akin to everyone having their own definition of words. That would make any discussion impossible because we would no longer have a common language.  

We cannot possibly have a discussion of the subject of economics or rights if everyone has their own definition. That would be akin to everyone having their own definition of words.

And everyone does, that is why terms have to be discussed and defined first before any meaningful conversation could be had.

That would make any discussion impossible because we would no longer have a common language.

And here I disagree, common understandings come from the process of defining beliefs and modifying understandings by further reasoning. It is the cheap and easy way out to decide that differing interpretation prevents communication.

It’s something that I could and would  never support.  

And everyone does, that is why terms have to be discussed and defined first before any meaningful conversation could be had.

We don't define the words in our conversations. The words have been previously defined before it and we learn them when we are educated because these meanings aren't malleable.  If you want a word to define a new idea then you create compound words. To say that we can redefine words only creates confusion and anger. There is a reason that we value education and understanding the past.

It’s something that I could and would  never support.  

I doubt that you understand what it means because Fox news, Breitbart or the American Thinker hasn't mentioned the subject.

You seem to think that you can define it according to your own beliefs.

I can define any political spectrum I want and I did so here for the purpose of clarity. The concept of the Left/Right spectrum was initially rooted in the commoners on the Left and the aristocracy on the Right because of where they sat relative to one another. But that doesn't have much practical application to American society and it tells us nothing about the dozens of complex ideologies that shape government. So, to have a meaningful discussion about political spectra, you have to define your terms. 

Left and Right could (and does) mean new vs. old, big government vs. small, control vs. liberty, but those qualities are frequently shuffled around. For example, look at the shift in social alignment as evangelicals in 1980 abandoned Carter and the Democrats for Reagan and the Republicans. Concepts of Left and Right that date to the French Revolution are meaningless in that scenario.

How can it be totalitarian if there is no sitting government?

Because anything they have been indoctrinated to hate, like liberals, progressives and totalitarians, they figure must be made from the same evil anti-Christian heathen cloth. Thus they believe liberals must also be totalitarians, but that of course is like having a Buddhist pacifist torturer, an acrophobic sky diving instructor or a claustrophobic spelunker, it just doesn't make any sense. But their tiny brains aren't used to reason, logic or thinking for themselves so they let their handlers do the thinking for them. These bitter Christian's are told what to think, who to hate, who to protest, who to vote for, they're really quite obedient little puppies. And now they're told "liberals" and "progressives" are "totalitarians" who demand "complete subservience to the state" even though progressives and liberals want to get rid of any moral police and continue to fight for a woman's right to choose instead of any "state" deciding for her, taking away her liberty. Believing liberals and progressives are "totalitarians" or "fascist" really is hard to wrap your head around as a reasonable thinking human, but after knowing so many evangelicals who traded their logic and reason in for an extra helping of stupid, I guess it's not so hard to accept. Some people are just fucking stupid which is why they believe stupid things. It really doesn't get more complicated than that.

I wish I could vote this up more than once.

When they don't know the meanings of political terms or the history of them it is easy to use terms like progressive, atheist, and socialist as epithets.

Here, I fixed it for ya......

Because anything they have been indoctrinated to hate, like conservatives, libertarians and fascists, they figure must be made from the same evil Christian cloth. Thus they believe conservatives must also be fascists, but that of course is like having a Buddhist pacifist torturer, an acrophobic sky diving instructor or a claustrophobic spelunker, it just doesn't make any sense. But their tiny brains aren't used to reason, logic or thinking for themselves so they let their handlers do the thinking for them. These bitter anti-Christian's are told what to think, who to hate, who to protest, who to vote for, they're really quite obedient little puppies. And now they're told "conservatives" and "libertarians" are "fascists" who demand "complete subservience to the state" even though libertarians and conservatives want to get rid of any morality police and continue to fight for a woman's free right to choose instead of any "state" deciding for everyone, taking away liberty. Believing conservatives and libertarians are "fascist" or "totalitarian" really is hard to wrap your head around as a reasonable thinking human, but after knowing so many atheists who traded their logic and reason in for an extra helping of stupid, I guess it's not so hard to accept. Some people are just fucking stupid which is why they believe stupid things. It really doesn't get more complicated than that.

Nice piece of sweeping generalization there.....

Fixed it for ya.....

When they don't know the meanings of political terms or the history of them it is easy to use terms like Libertarian, Christian, and Conservative as epithets.

Nice piece of sweeping generalization there.....

We don't define the words in our conversations. The words have been previously defined before it and we learn them when we are educated because these meanings aren't malleable.  If you want a word to define a new idea then you create compound words. To say that we can redefine words only creates confusion and anger. There is a reason that we value education and understanding the past.

Nice piece of sweeping generalization there.....

With the exception of a few who understand the definitions, most conservatives use those terms as partisan insults.

.......most conservatives use those terms as partisan insults.

There are plenty on your side also that do exactly the same thing...... despite the amelioration of mentioning a few that don't.

There are plenty on your side also that do exactly the same thing...... despite the amelioration of mentioning a few that don't.

Do you have any examples of said behavior?

Here, I fixed it for ya......

Wasn't broken, but I applaud your failed attempt to change the narrative. I know, that's all you can do when faced with the facts, it's like a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty but has to mount the best defense he can anyway. Cheers to you and your spunk, it's really inspiring to see someone attempt to overcome such disabilities as a failed political ideology.

Do you have any examples of said behavior?

yeah the ones I just called out.....

turnabout doesn't work with me....

......your failed attempt to change the narrative.

Didn't change the narrative, just pointed it in the other direction where it makes just as much sense.....

And when that happens?

It is a sweeping generalization, no matter how much you believe it...

and we have reached the typical response of liberals when the usual arguments fail, they start the ridicule process.... can't win on logic so the next step is to denigrate.....

How intelligent.....

yeah the ones I just called out..... turnabout doesn't work with me....

How did he use those terms incorrectly, if you are referring to Dismayed Patriot?

You asked for examples, I gave you yourself....

Why call out someone else (against the CoC) when I have your statements.....

You asked for examples, I gave you yourself.... Why call out someone else (against the CoC) when I have your statements.....

How did I use those terms incorrectly or as insults?

my ideas are far beyond what most people could understand

Sorry but 

Sorry but 

How many times did I have to explain basic political concepts that should have been covered in the high school civics requirement?

[Deleted]

I  think we all remember our US History and Government classes from high school and political science class in college.  You just don’t like the originalist conservative interpretations of said studies.  

There are some areas of the country where the teaching of US History, Government, and Economics are being shredded.  

Conservatives try to weaken public education by supporting for-profit charter schools or cutting funding for public education. Educated people do not tend to vote conservative or support religions, so it is in the conservatives partisan interests not to educate people beyond the absolute basics necessary for them to find work. 

When it comes to education, the parties have switched places over the past two decades.

According to a Pew Research Center poll released this week, Democrats are now the party of college graduates, especially those with post-graduate work. Meanwhile, people with a high-school degree or less, by far the larger group, slightly lean toward Republicans.

Both preferences are the reverse of what they were in the 1990s.

According to Pew , 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.

Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.

.

More educated people are less likely to be religious. news.gallup

There are some areas of the country where the teaching of US History, Government, and Economics are being shredded.  

Aren't those the red states?

No.  They are shredded in blue states and actively reinforced in red states. 

And yet in divided states their red areas tend to have better k-12 schools than their blue areas do.  

No.

Yes.

They are shredded in blue states and actively reinforced in red states.

Red states are known to have a poorer quality of education.

Yet another ridiculous stereotype that is unfounded.  Blue areas in states that are red, purple, and blue have inferior public schools to red areas in those states.  

And yet in divided states their red areas tend to have better k-12 schools than their blue areas do.  

Facts disagree with you.

Massachusetts ranked as the No. 1 state for public schools, taking the lead in both quality and safety. New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Virginia followed behind. Some of the worst ranked states for public schools included New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska and Arizona, along with District of Columbia.

You are aware that cities tend to vote blue. It is the small towns and rural areas that are red. 

This is a aside but I complemented you last night and got a ticket.

I replied to you yesterday and I also got a ticket for my efforts. 

I hope that you and your family have a happy 2019.

I live in VA the schools are great but the democrats have only been in control a few years now give them time.

I live in a red area and the quality of the local schools is going downhill because of the conservative Heartland Institute that controls the local school board. They want to push partisan myth instead of facts.  Ohio also has an expensive charter school problem because of John Kasich and the GOP. Public education is being defunded and the money is funneled to politically connected charter schools that don't produce educated students. 

I disagree with you on somethings but can tell you are intelligent

I do not feel like I am intelligent but that is very kind of you to say.  Thank you.  

even if I can barely read and write.

I am in the bottom 10% for errors of people who use Grammarly. You should see what I write before I correct my many errors. 

I live in the very blue state of Oregon. I do have to say that our school statistics and ratings are not going down. They have reached rock bottom and while they are trying to get them lower they fortunately are finding it difficult 

The public school situation doesn't seem to be a glaring failure but this report also isn't a glowing endorsement either.

oregonlive

California Blue vs Texas Red in Education

“The latest national data on high school graduation rates for the 2014-15 school year show Texas as 4th in the nation at 89% with California coming in at 31st with an 82% graduation rate. The national average was 83.2%. For low income students, Texas was first in the nation, with an 85.6% graduation rate compared to California’s 15th place with a 78% graduate rate for low income students. The national average was 76.1%.

The National Education Assessment Progress (NAEP) publishes reports on how well America’s schools are teaching our children. In 2017, Texas 4th-grade students were assessed with a score of 241 on math vs. 232 in California. The national average was 239. In 4th-grade reading, both states scored 215 with the national average at 221. In 8th grade math, Texas students scored 282, the same as the national average, with California at 277, “significantly lower than national public schools.” Reading scores for 8th graders were 260 in Texas and 263 in California. So, out of math and reading assessments for grades 4 and 8, Texas students scored better than those in California on 2 and tied in 1 with California students testing better in 1 category.

In 2018, California SAT takers scored an average of 1,076 on the assessment of college readiness while in Texas, the score was 1,032. But Texas’ participation rate was 66% vs. 60% in California, as a larger share of Texas students expected to go to college. A higher proportion of Texas students take the ACT than in California as well.

As for graduate degrees, California state ranks 14th in the nation with 31.4% of adults having a college degree compared to 27.6% in Texas, coming in at 29th. Adults with a college degree are more a reflection of the type of economy a state has and the resultant employment demand than it is necessarily a reflection of the state’s education system. So yes, California does rank higher than Texas for college degrees. But a better gauge of well-being is the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which shows that California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, at 19% compared to 14.7% in Texas.”

forbes

The author has an obvious conservative bias.

  en.wikipedia

Yet another ridiculous stereotype that is unfounded.

Not at all. There are articles to back it up. The best quality of education tends to be in the New England states. 

Great article.  The conservative  inland rural areas of California have better K-12 schools and results than the inner core of progressive coastal elite cities.  Also, despite our lower income levels, our poverty rates are lower than theirs as well as cost of living is factored in as it must be.  

Way to go Texas!  Those of us in conservative inland rural California have much more in common with your state than we do with the progressive sewers that are the urban coastal cities of this state.  When your state and ours are in legal and political combat at the federal level in any of the three branches of government we openly root for you and against California almost every time.  

Politics does not conform to any artificial geometrical model. 

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Interaction among the various political, economic, and social ideologies are too complex for a simplistic left/right representation. Our insistence on clinging to this paradigm promotes tribalism and cripples productive discourse.

Have you ever posted a Political Compass score? It rates on an X-Y graph.

politicalcompass

Have you ever posted a Political Compass score?

I have. This may shock you, but I think it put me somewhere near Jill Stein.

Here's mine, it may surprise a few who don't know me....

That is more liberal than I would have guessed for you.

Not quite as libertarian as Thomas Paine, and TJ would be about half way between my red dot and him...

It does tend to surprise people....

but I think it put me somewhere near Jill Stein.

Probably, a little closer to her than me..... But that would also make you a Reaganite...... Are you?

I'm down by Kropotkin and Chomsky. 

last time I took one set up like this I ended up in that 3sq by 3sq to the right of the center point on the libertarian block so somewhat center economically and libertarian of a sorts.

Yes and the historic public figure closest to me is Milton Friedman.  

So, even though I have taken the test before, it's been a couple years, I did it again. Here's my result:

The numbers were: Economic -2.25, Social -2.77

The numbers were: Economic -2.25, Social -2.77

Very close to me with those numbers......

Yet we not only identify as middle conservative, many think we are Alt-rightists.....

Yet they deny that the political landscape in the nation has shifted left....

Like many polls and tests, it's unlikely that it measures what it purports to measure as well its designers believe. But people make these tests and the results are called "scientific."

There is nothing "Scientific" about it my friend. where you are placed in the Cartesian graph the chart represents is based upon how the questions are weighted by the person making up the test....

I've taken it twice before from different sources. the first time I was placed in the same vertical position a little to the right of center, essentially just flip the chart over.

The second time I was quite a bit farther to the right and about twice as far down the scale.....

One of the real interesting things? look at where they place Hillary. A conservative authoritarian, equal authoritarian to T-rump and twice as conservative....

Now if that don't give you a clue as to what's up with this test and chart, I don't know what will. obviously written by someone that want's to distance their ideology as far as they can from Hillary's....

Speaks volumes to me about the test validity....

One of the real interesting things? look at where they place Hillary. A conservative authoritarian, equal authoritarian to T-rump and twice as conservative....

Hillary has never been a liberal or a progressive, despite what she claimed in 2016.

Now if that don't give you a clue as to what's up with this test and chart, I don't know what will. obviously written by someone that want's to distance their ideology as far as they can from Hillary's....

The Political Compass™ is an online test, made in the UK by a political journalist and a professor of social history

Speaks volumes to me about the test validity....

The Political Compass™ is an online test, made in the UK by a political journalist and a professor of social history

And is subject to his ideals of what a liberal and conservative are based upon the weights he gives the questions based upon his personal opinions.....

And if you think he was the first one to come up with it, think again, these things have been around for over a decade......

And, to every classic liberal I know she sure isn't any conservative we recognize..... but then even making such a statement sure tells us a lot about where you reside on the political spectrum. Hard leftist..... socialist even.

And is subject to his ideals of what a liberal and conservative are based upon the weights he gives the questions based upon his personal opinions.....

As long as everyone is scored equally there isn't a problem

And if you think he was the first one to come up with it, think again, these things have been around for over a decade......

This one seems to be the easiest to take.

And, to every classic liberal I know she sure isn't any conservative we recognize..... but then even making such a statement sure tells us a lot about where you reside on the political spectrum. Hard leftist..... socialist even.

I wish that libertarians would stop trying to pass themselves off as liberals, despite the fact that they hate liberal economic policies. Is that action because people would never support you if you called yourself a libertarian because those policies aren't workable in a modern society, so you try to claim that you are 1700s liberal living in 21st-century society. The world has changed in the past 250+ years and the economic policies must also evolve. 500 years ago fascism and brutal theocracies were also mainstream.

Yes, I am a market socialist and a civil libertarian. I have stated that many times.

It’s been awhile so I too retook it and got a similar number to what I remember.  

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

I wish that libertarians would stop trying to pass themselves off as liberals......

I have NEVER, EVER, passed myself off as a liberal, God FORBID that I subjugate my self to the state for anything.

.....a market socialist and a civil libertarian. I have stated that many times.

So, you believe in individual rights, but subjugated to state/communal/societal ownership of everything.

Then in T. Jefferson's world you are a Tory. The the ideal that stands for a state/community/society in which individual rights, although important on a personal level are subjugated to the overall importance of the state/community/society. (that also equates with current socialist theory)

I on the other hand look at in reverse, I am a Whig, The ideal that an individuals rights supersedes the state/community/society. Yes I am a civil libertarian and a free market believer. Furthermore I believe a population cannot be ruled by a government without consent of the governed. the State/community/society is subservient to it's citizens.

That is about as opposite on the left-right spectrum we can get.

I have NEVER, EVER, passed myself off as a liberal, God FORBID that I subjugate my self to the state for anything.

Then you should stop referring to yourself as a classical liberal and instead use the correct term of libertarian. I am a progressive but I do not subject myself to the state. I am a member of a very interconnected society and I understand that we all need to work together to both survive and thrive. I am neither a subject nor a pawn of the state.  The state merely exists to serve the people and defend their rights from abuse by others because it is the most effective way of doing so at the current time. The state is far from perfect but it is better than the alternatives.

 

So, you believe in individual rights, but subjugated to state/communal/societal ownership of everything.

Thank you for that admission that you do not know what market socialism is. You do not know the difference between socialism and communism, which is very common for Americans.  Communism is the communal ownership and control of everything but I oppose giving the state control.  I support a mixed market economy with the workers owning the majority private businesses. The workers themselves are capitalists but the businesses are private socialist enterprises with the products sold on a regulated market for the protection of the people, the environment, and society from abuse by the corporations and harm from dangerous products. 

I have a minor in political philosophy so I am well versed in these concepts.   You might have guessed that from my use of epistte as a moniker. It's a shortened form of epistemology, which is the philosophical study and theory of knowledge. 

No one is surprised by that... Your're right there with Milton Friedman.

"Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax and school vouchers and opposed the war on drugs."

I myself haven't moved much since last I took the test, just below Gandhi.

Economic Left/Right: -4.5 
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

I have a minor in political philosophy so I am well versed in these concepts.  

Congratulations, glad to know that you know more than everyone else about it sufficient to insult anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint.........

So let me ask, who makes the decisions in this ideal worker financed society? Private socialism. {chuckle}

Have you ever read Hofstadter ?

From Wiki......

In 1936, Hofstadter entered the doctoral program in history at Columbia University where his advisor Merle Curti was demonstrating how to synthesize intellectual, social, and political history based upon secondary sources rather than primary-source archival research. In 1942, Hofstadter earned his PhD and in 1944 published his dissertation Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 , a commercially successful (200,000 copies) critique of late nineteenth-century American capitalism and its ruthless "dog-eat-dog" economic competition and Social Darwinian self-justification. Conservative critics, such as Irwin G. Wylie and Robert C. Bannister, disagree with his interpretation. The sharpest criticism of Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 focused on Hofstadter's weakness as a research scholar: he did little or no research into manuscripts, newspapers, archival, or unpublished sources. Instead, he primarily relied upon secondary sources augmented by his lively style and wide-ranging interdisciplinary readings, thus producing very well-written arguments based upon scattered evidence he found by reading other historians.

Today, IMHO, most socialist thought proceeds from this line of reasoning, mostly argument with little substance..... Since you have a degree in political philosophy you should be familiar with his writings and advocacy for social controls as a manner for controlling a population/society as compared to the free market analysis of such. (his "dog eat dog" soliloquy)

I only wish there was some rational basis in fact to establish something to actually compare one societal vision against another....

Since you are trained in it can you make any suggestions for elucidation? (since my knowledge of the subject seems to be so limited IYHO)

As long as everyone is scored equally there isn't a problem

That test is chock full of problems.

For one thing, just consider the format of the answer - i.e. agree/disagree. You could have ten people agree with a statement, but do so for ten different reasons. You therefore haven't learned anything about their politics or worldview.

Just one little fact that seems to be lost on the other side..... (or they just refuse to accept)

i.e. agree/disagree.

They were all multiple choice with at least 4 possible answers. That is not "agree/disagree". Notice there are also four primary quadrants on the chart. Seems to make quite a bit of sense.

That test is chock full of problems. For one thing, just consider the format of the answer - i.e. agree/disagree. You could have ten people agree with a statement, but do so for ten different reasons. You therefore haven't learned anything about their politics or worldview.

What is your alternative that is more accurate?  It's easy to complain but unless you have a better alternative you are not adding anything to the solution.  How many more possible answers do you need?

So let me ask, who makes the decisions in this ideal worker financed society? Private socialism. {chuckle}

What decisions are you referring to?

Since you have a degree in political philosophy you should be familiar with his writings and advocacy for social controls as a manner for controlling a population/society as compared to the free market analysis of such. (his "dog eat dog" soliloquy)

My knowledge only allows me to intelligently scratch the surface of the subject and to be able to understand the mountain of knowledge that I have yet to learn.  My degree is in mechanical engineering/design. I only have a minor in Poli' philosophy.  Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D. in the subject.

And I would ask her the same question I asked you......

Do you understand what social darwinism is? as defined by Hofstaeder? if you do then you have to understand that it is a dog chasing/consuming it's own tail.

Cause she sure as heck doesn't seem to understand it....

And I would ask her the same question I asked you......

Do you understand what social darwinism is? as defined by Hofstaeder? if you do then you have to understand that it is a dog chasing/consuming it's own tail.

Cause she sure as heck doesn't seem to understand it....

Of course I understand what social Darwinism is and I vehemently oppose it as any rational person would.  Why would you think that I support that idea? Social Darwinism is a very conservative idea.

What decisions are you referring to?

Oh come on now.....

Who decides who does what? Who decides who is best qualified? Who decides who gets what?

The basic questions of who actually runs the business.....

I vehemently oppose it as any rational person would.

Thank you for that.

Social Darwinism is a very conservative idea.

Really? it was Hofstaeder's description of how a capitalist system is run. (a liberal derogatory description)

So again? .....

Who decides who does what? Who decides who is best qualified? Who decides who gets what?

The basic questions of who actually runs the business.....

Just one little fact that seems to be lost on the other side...

Accept for the tiny problem with it not being at all true. Did you learn a different definition of "fact" as a child? Or is it that you lack the ability to comprehend the statement "consider the format of the answer - i.e. agree/disagree." which would indicate just two possibly replies, 'yes/no' or 'agree/disagree'? How exactly can a "fact" that isn't actually a "fact" be lost on someone?

The basic questions of who actually runs the business.....

 You are overthinking this idea because it is not a new or difficult concept to understand. 

The employees can hire a manager, they have the typical management team of employees. It's also possible that they can make critical business decisions by a group vote. 

Employee-owned businesses are quite common in the 21st century. 

Its been a couple years  since I took the test so I retook it , seems I moved left slightly  now I am a 0.0 left right, and -2.1 on the libertarian side of authoritarian /libertarian scale.

The employees can hire a manager, they have the typical management team of employees.

but then you've given power to one over the other and socialism is out the window....

ok, problem is they didn't ask any factual questions, they were all interpretative opinion questions....

Not a fact to be had.....

The fact I'm stating is that the whole questionnaire is based upon the opinions of the person creating it in weighting the answers to populate his Cartesian graph. This is why he assigns a number to your position on the graph.... it is based upon his algorithim of what is important and what isn't and the importance he rates the questions....

That is why all such blind tests/charts are not accurate in any way...

Everyone who takes that test will be subjected to the same biases, and the only way to get relevant answers is for everyone to take it so their answers are judged according to the same criteria.

and once everyone is judged bu that same criteria who decides if that is a fair balancing act? It can't be the author....

on that basis it is like saying that someone hades this person cause of all these other factors that no one knows. it's useless....

What is your alternative that is more accurate?

My alternative is change your worldview so that you don't feel compelled to slap a label on everyone and lock them into a box.

It's kind of funny, really. People with your politics love to claim that they are tolerant of all and they don't discriminate, yet you seek to lock people into your definitions of who and what they are at every opportunity. You don't get that differentiating people is the first step to discrimination.

In terms you might relate to, I guess there's a certain level of positivism that accompanies progressivism. You can't simply let people be unique and unpredictable - and ultimately uncontrollable.

How many more possible answers do you need?

The more answers you get, the more you know. But what's the point? If you can find the right box for me, will you seek to police me and make sure I don't think outside that box? Or will you base your acceptance of the things I say based on the box you keep me in?

I actually find it fascinating that you're so put off by the notion that your political spectra and questionnaires might not be very useful. I just don't have anywhere near that same need to define people.

Seems to make quite a bit of sense.

I wasn't saying it didn't make sense. I was saying it's not useful for learning anything about the people you're trying to measure.

How many more possible answers do you need?

Part of my point was that the questions can't possibly be useful. Some examples and why they are difficult to answer in a way that would give consistent data:

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.

The first part is true, and that might be a foolish reason to be proud of it, but it's not the only reason a person might be proud of their country. So being proud of your country isn't necessarily foolish.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What if I believe the enemy of my enemy is my strategic ally, but I don't consider him my friend. How do I answer?

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

What people? Everywhere? Internationally? I'm physically divided from people in other nations. But I also live in a big country where no citizen is divided by nationality, so it's not a fair question.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Depends.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

What if I think corporations can be trusted to protect the environment, but I think they still need regulation because they cheat people? Or what if I think regulation is ineffective?

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Suppose you believe this would be regrettable, but you don't think it's happening?

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

What if you think it's really important but you can think of something more important? Does answering "disagree" get computed as "this person doesn't think accepting discipline is important?"

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

More important as people or what they do professionally?

Just for fun, I answered "disagree" for everything. This is what you get:

Anybody really think that Jill Stein would have answered everything in the test with "disagree?"

Then I answered "agree" for everything. This is what you get:

Anybody really think Angela Merkel would have answered every single question with "agree?"

ok, problem is they didn't ask any factual questions, they were all interpretative opinion questions...

That is kind of the point when determining someones "political compass", it's all about their opinion. And there is a difference between "agree" and "strongly agree", "disagree" and "strongly disagree", those are four different answers to each question and just because one is nuanced doesn't mean it can't have a major impact on our "political compass".

but then you've given power to one over the other and socialism is out the window....

As long as the workers own and benefit from their labor instead of being the employees of another person/shareholders it is still a socialist business. Many partnerships have a business manager, which is no different.  The business manager still has to report to an outside accountant to keep them honest. 

I wish that libertarians would stop trying to pass themselves off as liberals

Why? Are they ruining your social life or something?

That is kind of the point when determining someones "political compass", it's all about their opinion. And there is a difference between "agree" and "strongly agree", "disagree" and "strongly disagree", those are four different answers to each question and just because one is nuanced doesn't mean it can't have a major impact on our "political compass".

There is also another effect. Localized interpretation/grading of concepts. This is a UK reporter, his experience with conservative/liberal is in the European mold not the American mold.

And on that scale YES, Hillary Clinton would be a Conservative Authoritarian. European Liberals are a breed apart from American liberals.... (although I know that some american liberals would love America to be more like europe politically)

Where they have Jill Stein & Bernie Sanders as essentially moderate centrists.

Perception is important also, that version of the "TEST" has a distinct european political flavor to it, so it really doesn't apply to politics in the USA anyway. In Europe, America is a conservative nation.....

Heck European leftists make almost the entire Democrat party here in the US look like Conservatives.....

Why? Are they ruining your social life or something?

Libertarians [deleted o] embrace the idea that they are part of a very interconnected society and that our public policies must work for all people and not just them or people like them. Libertarian economic ideas do not work as public policy because they ignore basic concepts of macroeconomics or how money works in a society.

Where they have Jill Stein & Bernie Sanders as essentially moderate centrists.

Heck European leftists make almost the entire Democrat party here in the US look like Conservatives.....

You say that llike it is a bad thing.  Jill is a bit wacky, but she isn't crazy.

Bernie is supporting ideas that most of the developed world, such as Canada, take for granted. Is Canada scarily liberal to you? It is only American conservatives who don't understand that he is not some wild-eyed liberal dreaming of Mao and Stalin 

It was just an observation, nothing more....

Heck, I was saying during the run up to the conventions that if Bernie had became the nominee you would have been looking at the next President....

For the democrat party, that really puts the nomination of Hillary into perspective from a who won standpoint doesn't it?

But I also said the Same thing about the Republicans when they gutted Ron Paul's campaign at the convention. that also put the nomination of Mittsey into perspective on the basis of who won also.....

Political parties do not represent the political will of the population anymore and haven't for several decades....

If Bernie had been nominated he would have been president.... The simple facts of the matter, but then he would have found out that he could no longer be "bernie"

On the economic scale it would be hard for you and I to be further apart.  We could be much further apart on the other scale if I were a full social conservative rather than a social conservative libertarian populist blend that I am.  I still remember watching Milton Friedman and his wife on Free to Choose when I was younger.  

How do you get a -8.62 on that scale? We are similar on the economic left/right. 

This BS is an example of what Nazi propagandist Goebbels called the BIG LIE... 

I agree Mr Frost, with one proviso, it is a well known tactic of the bulshite providers, and it's used by all political ideologies.

That is what  some on the left do you are right good post.

Actually it's trump to a "T". He ALWAYS blames others of what he is most guilty.

Lying, pay for play, fraud, etc.. That list goes on and on.. 

That is what some on the left do you are right good post.

Fascist: noun - a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Liberal: "The right wing in America, especially Trump supporters, display signs of classic fascism because they often exalt both race and nation above the individual, they support a dictatorial ruler, "(Kim Jong Un) speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same", they demand the government subsidize farming, the fossil fuel industry and coal mining and their dear Leader has suggested forcibly taking away the oppositions ability to challenge him in the media, “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” "Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?". They meet virtually every metric when determining whether they are fascists or not which makes it almost impossible to conclude they are anything but."

Conservative: "Nuh uh! Fuck you! You're a fascist!...".

The fundamental issue dividing left vs right is one of the collective vs the individual. Left wing ideologies talk of collective rights, right wing focus on the rights of the individual. 

That's the point TJ was making Sean. Right on the mark....

It's the only intellectually honest point of demarcation.   The mental gymnastics some go through to place some collectivist regimes on the right with those that prioritize individual rights  are indefensible.  

Agreed.  You are correct in my opinion.  

right wing focus on the rights of the individual.

Unless they are women. 

Or the poor, or , or , or, or

We focus on the economic, property, religious, and civil rights of all people including the preborn.  

We focus on the economic, property, religious, and civil rights of all people including the preborn.

But the woman CARRYING the, "pre-born", (I think you mean fetus, which the SCOTUS has ruled HAS no rights), you think should have no rights. 

Flawed logic. Save the baby, let the mother die, then cut any kind of funding for the baby after it's born. Doesn't sound like pro-life, also known as pro female slavery. 

I focus on the rights of WOMEN, you know the ones that HAVE rights, you will not make women second class citizens or hold them hostage to their uterus.  NOT your business what a woman chooses to do with her pregnancy.  

A fetus is NOT nor ever will be a PERSON and have rights over the woman it resides in.  

and civil rights of all people including the preborn.

The preborn do not have rights! Neither can they be granted rights without infringing on the rights or autonomy of women.

Unless they are women. 

Or any minority.

I'd like to know what these collective rights are, and what individual rights that I am supposed to oppose? 

We focus on the economic, property, religious, and civil rights of all people including the preborn.  

You logically cannot take rights away from a person and give them to something that doesn't yet exist as a person and claim that you support individual rights, unless a woman is not an individual in your eyes. 

You need to remember that any religious right that you seek you also must extend equally to everyone else of every religion or non-beleif system, or it isn't a right.  

Wealth and property cannot be rights because if it is then it is unconstitutional for someone to be poor or homeless. I doubt that you would support that idea.

I'd like to know what these collective rights are, and what individual rights that I am supposed to oppose? 

I am sure the bible 3.0 will have more clear definitions.....directly from 'god' of course. 

I am sure the bible 3.0 will have more clear definitions.....directly from 'god' of course

the NEW new testament... or will it be called "Oops, let's try this again - testament" ?

Yet they deny that the political landscape in the nation has shifted left

I think you're right, but it set me to considering the possibility that when our political Left speaks of Right and Left, they may actually do so based on a different paradigm than when the political Right speaks of Right and Left.

Those of us accused of being on the Right often consider ourselves classical liberals because we are concerned with individual liberty and we see a society based on negative rights protected from government interference.

But the political Left thinks more in terms of positive rights (i.e. individuals have obligations to others) and how much "good" government can do. They see the Right as trying to prevent this "good" from happening (which must mean we hate people or something).

I read the screed disguised as a manifesto.

Then I stumbled upon the comment with the word 'jabberwocky.'

I then deduced this---------thing------is just another piece spewed from the CSR in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation for consumption by the reservoir of American weak and insipidus Trump bots. 

Well done.  The CSR appreciates the support.  As do the Trumpian crime family.

Well I don't look at it a s a straight line of left and right , I view it more as a circle , one which has authoritarianism and totalitarian ism at the end , and I have to ask does it matter which side left or right  that a society ends up with that type of government?

 is someone on the right going to tell me that authoritarianism is ok with them simply because it went that right route to get there? is someone on the left going to tell me the same thing , that they would be happy with the end result because it took a leftist route to come into being?

 In my view of the circle , the balance is at 6 oclock , the authoritarianism is at the 12 position , doesn't matter which direction the clock hand moves , left or right , it ends up at the same place eventually.

doesn't matter which direction the clock hand moves , left or right , it ends up at the same place eventually.

And that is what our founders saw when they studied the history of governments, Either side in the extreme winds up in tyranny. So they created a government that is supposed to hold to the middle, it does waver from side to side, but over the course of time cannot fall on one side or the other....

Pure genius if you ask me.....

So they created a government that is supposed to hold to the middle, it does waver from side to side, but over the course of time cannot fall on one side or the other.... Pure genius if you ask me.....

So you're admitting that you can't get along with out us. Finally some sense spoken. The left and right need each other even though they despise each other. The only thing that should be off the table is conspiring with an enemy foreign government just to get your side an advantage. Sadly, we watched one side violate this ethical line in the sand and now we're all paying for it.

I've never said otherwise, the system is designed supposedly to accommodate all sides.... and has measures in place to prevent one side from gaining absolute power over any other side like we saw in 2008. It was remedied in 2010. The same as your side is arguing that T-rumps opportunity to excesses has been remedied this year....

And until the proof is laid on the table for everyone to see, I will not take down a duly elected, legally sitting president, no matter how horrible his presidency is.....

You see one problem with your side, is when you confront someone like me, you do not ask for my position on the issues, you automatically devalue what I have to say by my unwillingness to do that.....

When the proof is here I will volunteer to put the noose around his neck, but NOT until we have the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. and that burden has NOT been met yet.

But I'm aware that by taking that stance, by not just falling into line, the automatic disposal of anything I have to say or might say dictates an adversarial situation.... of which I'm less intelligent or not worth listening to, and subject to instant ridicule.....

So here I am, and here I shall remain...

A deplorable in the unwitting eyes of many....

We are paying for a lot of things that have absolutely nothing to do with T-rump..... but then, no one wants to recognize such....

In my view of the circle , the balance is at 6 oclock , the authoritarianism is at the 12 position , doesn't matter which direction the clock hand moves , left or right , it ends up at the same place eventually.

So basically the left and right are fighting between living at 3 or 9?

Exactly, the definition of the societal pendulum swinging side to side...

I would say pushing for 3 and 9 , but ending up at 7-8 or 4-5 dependant on the election swings

 taking both Obama and tRump as examples , Obama would be the 8 on the clock face to some , and TRump would be the 4 on the face , if we ever really got to 3 and 9 either way , well with the amount of dissent with the examples at those lower numbers a 3 and a 9 would expodentially get worse the closer to the 12 we got , and I don't think we as a nation have ever even came close to a 3 or 9 situation.

.

except for 1860, we were definitely at a "12" there......

No, I think that was an example of the 3-9  positions ,personally I think anything past that would mean the total dissolving of the nation for either side and it would stop being what it once was.

to me , anything past the 3-9 , the pendulum stops acting predictably and moves into chaos and unpredictability.

yeah, I can buy into that ideal..... the point it predictably becomes unpredictable.... ie. Chaos

yes , even 1860 had a predictable outcome, one side or the other was going to win , there would be a single  nation or 2 separate nations , so it could be an example of the 3-9 , but anything past that even if one side could predictably win , the nation would no longer exist and be entirely different , that's why I use the circle I mentioned  or clock face , because past a certain point on that face , it will end up at the same place no matter if it is left or right. Not much unlike the old nuclear doomsday clock .