Posted under Polls & Uncategorized
Inspired by: World’s Smallest Political Quiz
—
If anyone likes, he may help me make a Version 2:
Top Managerial:
1. Big Government
2. Limited Free Speech
3. Oppose decentralisation and secession in most cases
4. War Prone
5. Big Business and Free Trade
6. Mass Immigration
7. Creative Destruction, Anti-Social Morality, Ideological Center
8. Pro-democracy
Left Libertarian:
1. *Small Government
2. *Free Speech
3. *Allow Decentralisation and Secession in Most Cases
4. *Anti-War
5. Big Business and Free Trade
6. Mass Immigration
7. Creative Destruction, Anti-Social Morality, Ideological Center
8. Pro-Democracy
Right Populist:
1. Big Government
2. Limited Free Speech
3. Oppose Decentralisation and Secession in Most Cases
4. War Prone
5. *Small Business and Protectionist Trade
6. *Reduced Immigration
7. *Ancestral Traditions, Social Morality, Ethnic/Religious Center
8. *Wary of Democracy
Bottom Paleoconservative:
1. Small Government
2. Free Speech
3. Allow Decentralisation and Secession in Most Cases
4. Anti-War
5. Small Business and Protectionist Trade
6. Reduced Immigration
7. Ancestral Traditions, Social Morality, Ethnic/Religious Center
8. Wary of Democracy
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 4:22 am #
This is not yet finished by a long shot…
However, I encourage all to take the quiz now, just for the heck of it.
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 4:37 am #
Paleolibertarians I guess would find themselves half way between libertarian and paleoconservative.
Mainstream “conservatives” would be centrists then I suppose?
—
Dr. Francis’s term “anarcho-tyranny” would definitely be included in the explanation of the managerial state upon completion of the quiz.
—
Populist is probably misnamed (can a populist really be opposed to democracy (majority rule)? I hate to use the name fascist though, especially since fascist is truly a type of managerial state. Also, fascists were corporatist, as well they stood for many different things – difficult to say what precisely it is as a result.
The, ah, populist category would probably not allow free speech on issues of political radicalism. The managerial category would probably not allow free speech on issues of race/”hate;” both would do so because such is a threat to their ruling elite’s existence.
So… perhaps fascist/socialist should replace managerial/populist? Truly, the two are managerial, the “populist” only less so… Socialists don’t want big business though; the goal of this quiz is to emphasise the dichotomy of paleocon and managerial, the distinctions between libertarian and paleocon, and that managerial both favors big government AND big business. Also, to portray libertarians as partly helping the very leviathan they claim to resist.
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:00 am #
1. Small Government
2. Free Speech
3. Allow Decentralisation and Secession in Most Cases
4. Anti-War
5. Small Business and Protectionist Trade
6. Reduced Immigration
7. Ancestral Traditions and Social Morality
8. Wary of Democracy – Elitist
—
I register: Paleocon (surprise, surprise.)
Anglo-traditionalist… might be a better word than paleocon.
ERIC on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:34 pm #
I find myself in the paleoconservative category.
But I have a question about free speech and anti-war.
What if I am against filth (pornography, desecrating god, portraying white men as evil and non whites as saints) on television and other media outlets, does that make me against free speech?
What if I’m ok with war but against nation building and spreading democracy, does that make me war prone?
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 6:29 pm #
A clear no (not against free speech) on the first point if you’d allow accurate history (the truth) to be recorded and discussed regarding whites. However, I think “pornography, desecrating god, and [anti-nation propaganda]” would register under “social morality.”
—
Regarding the second point:
the “populist” category, to the extent that it exists, wouldn’t want “nation building and spreading democracy” either… It would however want war for the sake of expanding territory, uniting the nation, and conquering resources. So, I’d say that you’re war prone according to this simple quiz.
—
Don’t take this little quiz too seriously; it’s but a first attempt at applying the paleo alternative viewpoint to this small quiz, which seems to be a successful tool at directing how people view politics…
He who defines words and he who defines viewpoints like this wield considerable power if the words and viewpoints are taken up. I remember in a political science class my falling in the same category as libertarians and Nazis without even mention of much anything resembling my little paradigm, dynastic China was probably the closest. As a result of this class, those who lean towards traditionalist were more apt to reject it due to its appearance of leading to Nazism.
ERIC on 27 Feb 2008 at 6:58 pm #
Also how does one define small government and big government?
For example:
Isn’t wanting the government to control the borders and to crackdown on illegal immigration considered pro-government therefore part of big government?
jackscrow on 27 Feb 2008 at 7:19 pm #
Paleo-conservative here.
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 7:49 pm #
Some say having a standing army guarding the border is a risk to the government, but I’d say invasion is a greater risk.
I didn’t mean border patrol with regards to small government but welfare and centralisation.
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 8:36 pm #
Ok, my result for the quiz on that website was:
The political group that
agrees with you most is…
.
LIBERTARIAN
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.
Pretty much what I was expecting.
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 8:42 pm #
1. Small Government
2. Free Speech
3. Allow Decentralisation and Secession in Most Cases
4. Anti-War
5. Big Business and Free Trade
6. Reduced Immigration
7. Ancestral Traditions, Social Morality, Ethnic/Religious Center
8. Wary of Democracy
And no, I’m not for limiting free speech at all, and I think ERIC’s phony on war. Bombing people in other countries for no reason is wrong and I don’t care how much I look like (or don’t look like) a tough guy when I say that.
love the girls on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:10 pm #
Weaver writes : “A clear no (not against free speech) on the first point if you’d allow accurate history (the truth) to be recorded and discussed regarding whites. However, I think “pornography, desecrating god, and [anti-nation propaganda]†would register under “social morality.â€
Of even more importance than stifling dissemination of immoral materials wold be the stifling the proselytizing heretics, infidels, others similar disseminators of evil.
Since society first exists for man’s final end, i.e. salvation of his immortal soul, it follows that society must first order itself to that end. And just as it’s a duty of society to defend its citizens from outside aggression, so likewise is it societies duty to defend its citizens from interior aggression.
Further, prudence dictates that all law must not cause a greater harm than the intended good. Thus whether disseminators of evil should on first offense have their heads hung on a pike in the town square, or whether they should be left to do their worst in the red light district, in the same vein as St. Thomas writes that prostitution can be ignored for the greater good, is matter of prudence, but none the less, limitation of speech of proselytizers is well within the purview of the sovereign.
love the girls on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:11 pm #
btw, I took the quiz and came out “Libertarian”, but Paleoconservative on this blogs quiz
ERIC on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:21 pm #
my results for the quiz was conservative.
Personal score 10%
Economic score 70%
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:32 pm #
ERIC,
You’re for involuntary slavery (the draft) and a national ID card? And you support the War of Futility?
Fascist.
ERIC on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:44 pm #
Actually I re-thought my answers to government censoring speech/media and the national ID card.
The first time I took the quiz I was for both because of the filth promoted in our society and because of mass illegal immigration.
But I changed both answers to maybe because in a perfect world there would be no filth and no illegal immigration, therefore no need for censorship and national ID card, but we are not in a perfect world.
So my new results are:
Personal score 30%
Economic score 70%
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:52 pm #
ERIC,
We do need censorship, which is good parents knowing bad media when they see it and not allowing their children to be exposed to it, not the parents delegating the authority of censorship to an omnipotent government, which has NEVER been able to do it effectively.
And a national I.D. card is an INTOLERABLE compromise to our freedoms regardless of context. You obviously have little inkling of how difficult such statist policies are to erase once implemented or how tyrannical a national identification system would be in effect.
I always think “maybe ERIC isn’t as much of a fascistic simpleton as I think”, and then you prove me wrong.
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:11 pm #
A draft requires any number of people to be conscripted into a violent cause in which many of them may not believe. It also weakens our nation’s military because a good army is built on men that serve willingly and actually believe in the cause of the war, and if that’s not happening, it clearly means the war is NOT in the national security interest. The draft is a form of slavery, and I could never support it.
Paleoconservatives oppose futile expensive and non-defensive wars, and the War on Drugs far surpasses the War on Iraq for that. It has to end.
You folks have to recognize the enemy of your own culture, and to cut yourselves off from it. You have to recognize that a deference to the State can do nothing to further your cause, and in fact has demolished what you believe in all along.
ERIC on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:30 pm #
If this country was a white christian country as it was started as, I would be more libertarian in my opinions.
But as multiculturalism and secularism has infected this country I get more authoritarian.
Get rid of non-whites and their cultures and influence within our country and I would probably become a paleolibertarian.
The filth came from allowing non-whites in this country.
roho on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:37 pm #
I give little attention to these tests, as I never wind up where I belong?…..Ha-Ha……Part of that is because I believe that Conscription (THE DRAFT) is good, as long as ALL have to serve!(Not like the college defferement of Vietnam)…..I belive that “Rapid Deployment” is NOT possible without a standing ARMY, but also want that Senator and New York Times offspring in that combat zone to insure that “Elitist” are not sacrificing the working man’s offspring, without suffering the pain of war himself!………When politicians children and grandchildren lose arms and legs in war, they UNDERSTAND war much better!
Part of the problem with maintaining an Empire is that “Politicians” don’t get to attend enough family funerals!………..And talk is cheap when it comes to human life!……..The Gore’s, Bush’s, and other Elitists love to play the KING OF WAR, without ever seeing their children and grandchildren on the front lines. A true draft get’s everybody! Even the law student that thought his family could keep him in Harvard untill it’s completion.
I remember when even Ted Williams and Elvis Presely went in the military! Screw these pompous bastards that now think war is for the middle class!!
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:38 pm #
“The filth came from allowing non-whites in this country.”
No it didn’t, ERIC. The immigrants that came into our country have historically added something to our culture and been hard-working. The white people of THIS country immorally captured black Africans as slaves, and they also warred with Mexico and took a lot of its land because of an imperialistic doctrine of “manifest destiny”.
Give me a break. Did the porn industry, or drug industry, or television begin in a minority ethnic group? Hell no.
Andrew T. on 27 Feb 2008 at 10:41 pm #
And one more thing, ERIC:
Nothing, and I mean nothing, that you can give me as an example is more “filthy” than the institution of slavery. Morality is a species of free-will ideology, NOT race, you hick.
Weaver on 27 Feb 2008 at 11:23 pm #
A lot of these stances depend upon the circumstances; It’s wise to heed Russell Kirk and be wary of rigid ideology.
Under the right conditions I might favor a draft, but only if as Roho points out: all serve and risk their lives. An elite who is sending their own and even themselves into battle are going to be far less likely to declare unnecessary war.
As far as America goes though, I don’t like the idea of a draft personally because I fear many of us would be used as pawns to serve the interests of a global elite in unnecessary wars.
However if, say, China decided to invade the US, I’d expect every able male to do his part in full.
Weaver on 28 Feb 2008 at 2:10 am #
But yea, military service is what my grandfather (who served as a doctor in WWII and I think Korea) called “the last form of legal slavery.” That’s not to say he didn’t do his part in the war effort; he was a Reagan Democrat who did his part so he could go home. He certainly wasn’t a fanatical pro-American neocon either; which is approaching the ideal imo – it’s wrong to allow oneself to grow to hate an enemy as if it’s evil… though my grandfather certainly didn’t approve of Americans buying postwar Japanese and German cars either.
Anyway, so while I agree with Andrew that it’s slavery… I think I could accept it under the right conditions and under the right checks and balances.
love the girls on 28 Feb 2008 at 3:11 am #
Weaver writes : “I agree with Andrew that it’s slavery”
No it’s not, it falls in the category of duty toward the common good according to each man’s station within society.
To call it slavery is to say the subsidiarity is tantamount to slavery of the more perfect to the less perfect.
Weaver on 28 Feb 2008 at 6:45 am #
Hmm, yea I spoke foolishly and in haste – glad you’re here to keep me in line.
I’d say the US today is tyrannical and as such I do not readily wish to serve it, especially in wars that do not serve and even oppose my interests. Admittedly too, in the back of my mind is that I’m only a citizen of the US because my people were conquered by it in 1865…
But, in a free society you’re mostly right – that mandatory service is a duty (and often a privilege) of free men. However, there are certain protections and rights a citizen enjoys even in a free society which he might lose as a soldier. So, while an important duty, the near absolute authority a general has over his troops is akin to our concept of slavery I’d say. In the US, our troops seem to have been given the right to refuse a dishonorable order, but… I suspect this custom would change within a fierce war. Or, perhaps the opposite is true: as order and the chain of command breaks down, maybe 3rd and 4th generation war would take over.
love the girls on 28 Feb 2008 at 12:25 pm #
Weaver writes :”while an important duty, the near absolute authority a general has over his troops is akin to our concept of slavery”
The problem with calling it slavery that it is akin to calling the virtuous man a slave while calling the vicious man free because the virtuous man binds himself while the vicious man lets himself act according to whatever passion, i.e. his lower appetite, pulls at his will.
But in truth, the virtuous man is most free because he’s habituated to control those same passions while the vicious man’s will is in bondage to the passions. The only question is: whose authority shall we ruled by? Because as St. Paul writes, because of fallen nature there are two laws within us, the right ordered law of the Will which is proper to man, and the disordered law of the lower appetites which is a result of Adam’s sin. Thus the choice is choosing the good resulting in being under the authority of the Will, or choosing the lower appetites resulting in being under the authority of the lower appetites.
And thus the coward in not choosing according to his station to defend those beneath him chooses bondage of his Will to his lower appetites, while the virtuous man in choosing to defend those beneath him throws off the bondage of the lower appetites over the Will.
Further, while the authority of a general over his troops can be far greater than even a master over his slave, nevertheless, that authority isn’t due to a forfeiture of authority over oneself as is proper to slavery.
Weaver on 28 Feb 2008 at 10:48 pm #
I haven’t replied only because it will require longer than my usual 5 minutes breaks at the computer.