View Full Version : Which Political Philosophy Characterizes You Best?/ Quiz

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 04:53 AM
I know many threads dealing with the same subject have been created prior to this, yet this one in particular will not be accompanied by a link to a site or test that "measures" one's political orientation.

Reason being is that I find such tests are geared towards those who are unaware of where they stand politically and wish to know where they stand.

Obviously, this is not the case with members of this board, who are aware of various political ideologies and the beliefs by which are affiliated with them, and thus, are probably more adept at "classifying" and defining their beliefs than a test is.

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 07:39 AM
I find it difficult to squeeze my views on 1,001 different philosophical, spiritual, political, economical, cultural and social issues into the straight-jacket of an ideological label. I arrive at my view points by application of the methods of observation and reason, though, hence I'd characterize myself as a rationalist.

Looked upon my views from the bird eyes' view, trying to synthesize, I probably tend to as little state as possible and laissez-faire in social issues and the sphere of civil rights; a free market economy based on an index currency (i. e. minus capitalism, exploitation, speculation, banks, taxes, interests, &c.) with a reasonable social security net economically; and to conservative, protective values when it comes to gender issues, family, ethnicity, race, nation and culture.

If you still need a label to put me into a mental drawer, then Conservative Libertarian or Conservative Anarchist fits probably best.

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 09:41 AM
How do I change my vote? ;) I'm not REALLY libertarian although libertarianism takes on some meaning in a homogeneous environ.

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 12:35 PM
Could you explain Paleo-Conservatism?

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 03:24 PM
Could you explain Paleo-Conservatism?

Paleo-Conservatism pertains to a Conservative philosophy which is no longer associated with today's Conservatism (Neo-Conservatism), as the political spectrum is gradually shifting further and further left, making conservatism a relative term.

Therefore, one adhering to this ideology does not want to maintain the status quo as do many of today's Conservatives, rather wishes to return to a prior societal structure which previously existed.

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 05:23 PM
Ah, thanks for that. I don't think my views fit any of those perfectly probably Paleo-Conservatism with some Fascism thrown in. Pal-Con it is I guess.

Wednesday, September 10th, 2003, 11:45 PM

I would be... Traditionalist nationalist-racialist socialist. Or something. *votes Paleo-Con*

Thursday, September 11th, 2003, 12:24 AM
My political philosophy or Weltanschauung would have indeed also elements that could be characterized as "Conservative", but I just would not have the heart to make a mouseclick on "Paleo-Conservative" when I think of that that's probably what guys like Helmut Kohl would vote. :stop
Also "Fascism" isn't really the vote to take, because it causes thousand misleads of what you want and think - because of no word the interpretation of what it means and is connected with in public, lies more in the hands of its political and intellectual opponents.

So I took "others". Specify? - Perhaps very short as "Conservative Revolutionary": That would express that I want the old, even archaic old spirit and life of our culture and race renewed in all aspects, but through "revolutionary" acting and changes, and always with the highest form of social and technical "modernism".

Thursday, September 11th, 2003, 12:42 AM
If that option existed I'd immediately withdraw my vote from Paleo-Con (if I could) and throw it behind CR. Conservative Revolution definetly sums up everything I stand for.

friedrich braun
Tuesday, October 7th, 2003, 05:16 AM
I didn't see folkish, organic National Socialism as a choice up there.

Fascism and National Socialism aren't the same thing, of course.

Tuesday, October 7th, 2003, 10:32 AM
National Socialist.

Tuesday, October 7th, 2003, 03:40 PM
a libertarian framework, which aims for cultural/genetic homogeneousness, moulded around collective expectations (rather than dogmas) and adheres to some of the ideals/ends of national socialism, particularly the exalting of heroicism, rather than self-pity, an active eugenics program, and governance formulated from a meritocractic paradigm.

Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 05:55 PM
I didn't see folkish, organic National Socialism as a choice up there.

Fascism and National Socialism aren't the same thing, of course.

I also would stress the differences between "folkish" and "fascist" thinking in the sense, that only a "fascism" (I use it here as a quite general term to describe a certain political, social and mental attitude, not directly with regard to Fascist Italy) is not enough for a real renewal.

"Fascism" = nationalist and imperial greatness and pride, a strong, good organized and arranged state or system, where political undermining powers are surpressed.

"Folkish thinking" = more important than the greatness of the state is the inner healthiness of the folk; a state that makes a consequent racial and eugenics policy against foreign and inferior elements and tries to raise the biological niveau of its folk; the folk as an healthy and "organic" body; not only fight against active political undermining powers, but against all "quiet" and "secret" social and mental tendencys and powers which poison and destroy the folkish body; history as biology.

"Fascism" always is in the danger to become just "glitter" of greatness while under the surface a nation and folk declines and rottens. "Fascist" ideas, "Fascist" thinking in a positive sense of course is necessary, but the core of everything that decides about if a nation will be or not be in the future is its biological, its folkish base.

It would be wrong in these times of decline and humbleness, only to give the Occident a great last glory like, let's say, in the Roman Empire, while under the wrapping the decline goes on and finishs. It's necessary to "stop" world history and to leave absolute consequent and radical the path on which we are going for such a long time.

(It would show quite chuzpe if a politician here would piss on all political correctness and call a "right-wing" party Völkisch-Faschistische Partei Deutschlands ;))

Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 04:28 PM
I voted for Fascism. In the above options Paleo-Conservatism and Fascism would in general apply mostly to myself although that depends, these days I either shun labels or change them sporadically.

I believe in a Folkish Nationalism permeating all of Europe under a Union or Confederation not of Nation-States but of smaller Regional-States (perhaps Alain De Benoist Europe Of A Hundred Flags is a concept that applies here) that would allow for greater vicinity of Power to the People and more Self-Determination at a lower level than National Politics. Region-States could be grouped into National Confederations.

The National Confederations could elect representatives to a higher sphere of Politics in a European realm (alternatively there could be a lower council prior to the higher council which groups together representatives of the various meta-ethnicities), a sort of Racial Council dealing with Inter-Ethnic matters within Europe and with matters that are Extra-European.

It all depends on how much authority is allowed to each level of governance, keeping it closer to the people is very important, maintaining law, order, and security is of paramount importance and that requires a more Centralised approach.

That is basically how the State(s) would be structured in general, practically it would most probably differ due to differing situations.

The Economy, I have been thinking about this recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if I change my views. Holding to my view of morality I am starting to lean towards a more Capitalistic approach, but right now I still believe that the Economy should include elements of Free Enterprise, Syndicalism, and State Organisations.

Legislation should exist to promote and accelerate the Syndicalisation of Big Corporations, I hold to the belief that there should be Worker-Management whenever possible with the Workers directly gaining from Profits and losing from Losses. Under this principle Workers are responsible for the faith of their Organisation and indirectly of their own faith, and they wouldn't be shielded from losses if they are uncompetitive and inefficient. Responsibility is of prime importance under this aspect.

Free Enterprise must be encouraged within the ambits of Small and Medium sized Enterprises, the so called SMEs, these must function entirely in a Capitalist context with minimal or no Statal aid to encourage their development.

Obviously such entities would still be liable to legislation within the fields of safety and other fields which carry an ethical bearing, this might be taken as an Anti-Capitalist measure by staunch supporters of Anarcho-Capitalism or as it is called in the mainstream Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I do not subscribe to Anarcho-Capitalism and I believe that the Economy requires regulations like most other forces, the State is responsible for this regulation.

State Organisations should be minimal, they should only exist where there is a Monopoly situation, and in fact I believe that the only Monopolies that should exist should be controlled by the State. The ideal would be that the State operates these Organisations under the Capitalist principle of Profit-Maximisation, yet where essential services are to be provided the social needs of the populace must take precedence.

Phew, that was long, just to give you an overview.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:09 AM
These choices are terrible. As a NS, I don't consider myself right or left. If a straight line were folded into a triagle with its inner (facing each other) surfaces marked "Communist", "Capitalist", and "National Socialist", my position would be more clear. NS has some aspects of both but differs form both equally, on all levels. I say National Socialist rather than Nazi because there were aspects of the Nazis with which I do not agree and the Nazis were a political party bound culturally to Germany of those times.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003, 04:30 AM

My Results:

#1 Fascist

#2 National Socialist

#3 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)

#4 Christian Socialist

#5 Soviet "Communist"

#6 Burkean (liberal) Conservative

#7 Liberal Nationalist

#8 American "Conservative"

#9 Christian Democratic

#10 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)

#11 Marxist

#12 American "Liberal"

#13 Social Democratic

#14 Anarcho-Communist

#15 Liberal Socialist

#16 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)

#17 Liberal

#18 Social-Liberal

I always thought I was more of a Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist/Far Right type person. Oh well! ;)

Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 01:37 PM
My results (we've done these tests before here)

#1 Fascist
#2 National Socialist
#3 American "Conservative"
#4 Liberal Nationalist
#5 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)
#6 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)
#7 Soviet "Communist"
#8 Burkean (liberal) Conservative
#9 Christian Socialist
#10 Christian Democratic
#11 American "Liberal"
#12 Social Democratic
#13 Liberal
#14 Marxist
#15 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)
#16 Liberal Socialist
#17 Social-Liberal
#18 Anarcho-Communist

Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 03:19 PM
#1 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)

#2 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)

#3 American "Conservative"

#4 Social-Liberal

#5 American "Liberal"

#6 Liberal

#7 Liberal Nationalist

#8 Christian Democratic

#9 Fascist

#10 Burkean (liberal) Conservative

#11 Social Democratic

#12 National Socialist

#13 Liberal Socialist

#14 Soviet "Communist"

#15 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)

#16 Anarcho-Communist

#17 Marxist

#18 Christian Socialist

:-O :( :| :| (:o ???
Who the hell makes these tests????
I thought the religious tests were giving me weird results, but this is ....

Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 07:14 PM
#1 National Socialist
#2 Fascist
#3 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)
#4 Christian Socialist
#5 Burkean (liberal) Conservative
#6 Liberal Nationalist
#7 Soviet "Communist"
#8 American "Conservative"
#9 Christian Democratic
#10 Marxist
#11 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)
#12 Anarcho-Communist
#13 Liberal Socialist
#14 Social Democratic
#15 American "Liberal"
#16 Liberal
#17 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)
#18 Social-Liberal

Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 11:38 PM
#1 American "Liberal"
#2 Social Democratic
#3 Right-wing Neoliberal (Thatcher)
#4 Social-Liberal
#5 Fascist
#6 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)
#7 Liberal Nationalist
#8 National Socialist
#9 Liberal Socialist
#10 Marxist
#11 American "Conservative"
#12 Anarcho-Communist
#13 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right)
#14 Soviet "Communist"
#15 Liberal
#16 Christian Democratic
#17 Burkean (liberal) Conservative
#18 Christian Socialist

Monday, December 1st, 2003, 10:44 AM
I agree with Siegfried.

I've taken bits an pieces of Nietzsche (whatever Moody Lawless may choose to say), Ayn Rand, National Anarchism, Yockey, Carl Jung and sociobiology.

Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 06:36 PM
hmm guess I'd say folkish nationalist. I am basically for the rebuilding of old European traditions (through the different folks of Europe) and a strong sense of identity with no alien ideas, elements or contributions.

Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 06:18 PM
Given the choices presented [and not wanting to slip into the 'other' categorisation], I had to vote 'fascist' [thinking of the term in the non-specific sense].
I find Conservatism to be a sham [just look at what the Conservative Party did to Britain when they were in power], Libertarianism to be a form of multiculturalism, and therefore death for the race, and Communism/Anarchism to be intolerable.
Also, fascism is the only movement with seriously anti-Semitic credentials.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 08:51 PM
My ideology is mostly a mixture of Russian theories of Solidarism and Ukrainian theories of Integral Nationalism(minus its Russophobia). I also adhere to the ideology of the Slavophiles and have sympathies for the Monarchist movement, although I'm not a monarchist per se.

I'm not a National Socialist or a Fascist per se, but there are elements of both that I agree with.

Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 08:11 PM
I'm a National-Anarchist fair and square. It should be noted though that National-Anarchism is a sort of broad umbrella ideology so every Narional-Anarchist seems to have somewhat their own touch.

My inspiration includes a wide array of sources: First and foremost of course other National-Anarchists. Apart from that I also draw inspiration from... Early 17th century Nationalists like the Dutch Sea-Beggars, various privateers and buccaneers, politically enclined occultists(also a variety of those), the most Leftist wing of the NSDAP(the Strasser brothers), the communitarians, the Russian Socialrevolutionaries and more.

Tuesday, January 6th, 2004, 11:52 PM
I would define myself as a Progressive Collectivist.
Maybe I have some affinities to Fascistoid groups, at least they are what is the nearest thing to my conception.

The Collective is something defined in structures hierachically:

F.e. Family/relatives, Tribe, Folk or Subrace (F.e. German/Nordish), Ethnic great group/Race (F.e. Europeans or Indoeuropeans/European Europids), progressive mankind/races (F.e. all Europids, East Asians, some Amerindian Races many mixed forms), Mankind (all of those + the rest), Ecosystem (all life on this planet).

-Just what is good for the preservation and progression of collective, species and ecosystem should be morally acceptable.

-From an utilitaristic point of view as many people as possible should live good on the highest standard as possible, everytime thinking on the first rule.

-Individuals got their worth on its own but the collective is usually more important because it is made up by many individuals and it survives individuals.

-Capitalism is better than planned economy, at least so far, but just a controlled Capitalism is good for what I said above.

-I'm Pro-Eugenic and for the preservation of my Race(s).
Progression of mankind on the long run isnt just something happening in technology and culture, it must be something biological too.

-All good Traditions of Europe and of my folk which are NOT AGAINST the other rules should be preserved.

-If it is possible (by all useful means which doesnt threat the whole Species or Ecosystem) the European races should be preserved in their SUBSTANCE.

-Moral and the political system should depend on the needs for the other rules.

Maybe I forgot some things, but the basic conception should be clear.

Thursday, January 15th, 2004, 05:44 AM
Whoever wrote this poll should have made an important distinction between political and economic philosophies.

Capitalism, Socialism, etc are economic philosophies or types of economic systems.

Democracy, Republicanism, Authoritarianism, etc are types of political systems.

I'm for mixed capitalism and socialism, leaning towards socialism for important "universal public good" utilities such as trains, telephones, postal system, etc. Socially I enjoy living in a permissive, liberal society.

But is that the best society for everyone? Probably not.

I will also point out the historical fact that every time a society became authoritarian and socialist, it became a powerhouse. This is true of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, FDR semi-socialist USA, etc.

Countries where unbridled capitalism is the rule tend to be dog-eat-dog (or rat-eat-rat) pits, at least in modern times. It's now called "wild west capitalism", and good examples of it can be seen in the banana republics of the Third World.

Even though I do not support this for the USA, I think that a National Socialist type of authoritarian society/nation is the most successful.

Thursday, January 15th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Where does a left-leaning Green Party member with strong racialist values fit in?

Since I couldn't find an appropriate option, I chose neo-liberalism.

Thursday, January 15th, 2004, 11:37 AM
I choose a mixture of Fascism and Paelo-Conservatism

Thursday, January 15th, 2004, 12:47 PM
My ideology is mostly a mixture of Russian theories of Solidarism and Ukrainian theories of Integral Nationalism(minus its Russophobia).

Could you provide a bit more information on these Ukrainian theories of Integral Nationalism?

Taras Bulba
Sunday, January 18th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Could you provide a bit more information on these Ukrainian theories of Integral Nationalism?

Certainly. A very good summary of Integral nationalist thought is found in "Ukraine:a history" by Orest Subtelny (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802083900/104-5024009-6265519?v=glance).

On pages 441-443, the author talks about the ideology of integral nationalism. Please pardon any mis-spelling I type.

The Ideology Ukrainian integral nationalism was not based on a closely reasonsed system of ideas; rather is rested on several key concepts whose main goal was not to interpret reality but to incite people to action. Dontsov aruged that the nation was an absolute value and that there was no higher purpose than the attainment of independent statehood. Because politics was essentially a Darwinian struggle of nations for survival, conflict was unavoidable. It followed that the end justifies the means, that willpower predominated over reason, and that action was preferable to contemplation. To dramatize and inculate these views, integral nationalists mythologized Ukrainian history, emphasizing a cult of struggle, of sacrifice, and of national heroes. Racism was relatively minor component of the ideology, and although traces of anti-semitism could be found in the writings of some proponents, it was not emphasized.

Integral nationalism espoused collectivism, which placed the nation above the individual. Nonetheless, it also urged its proponents to be "strong individuals" who would stop at nothing to attain their goals. One goal was to have the nation function as an integrated whole, not as disparate parties, classes, or regional groups. Hence the all-encompassing scope of the movement, its stress on sobornist(national unity), its rejection of regionalism, and its desire to control all aspects of Ukrainian society. Integral nationalists were urged to "force their way into all areas of national life, into all its recesses, into all its institutions, societies, groups, into every city and village, into every family". Along with this need to monopolize all aspects of national life came intolerance. Convinced that theirs was the only way to attain national goals, integral nationalists were ready to do battle with all who stood in their path.

Dontsov and other ideologues of the movement were vague about the type of state and society they wished to have once independence was achieved. They had little to say about socioeconomic organization, noting only that it would be basically agrarian and would rest on cooperation between the state, cooperatives, and private capital. the political system of the future state would be based on the rule of one nationalist party. A hierarchy of "fighters" or "better people" would form the core of the party and its leadership, At the pinnacle of the movement and the future state was the supreme leader or vozhd, whose authority was unquestionable and unlimited.

Ukrainian integral nationalism clearly contained elements of fascism and totalitarianism. These tendencies were spreading throughout Europe in the 1920's and their influence, especially that of Italian Fascism, was widespread in Eastern Europe. But, as Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky has argued, Western fascism, which developed in urban, industrialized surrondings, was not the closest relative of Ukrainian integral nationalism. The latter was far more similar to the radical rightist movements in agrarian East European societies, such as the Iron Guard in Romania, the Ustashi in Croatia, the Arrow Cross in Hungrary, and related movements in Slovakia and Poland. In the final analysis, however, Ukrainian integral nationalism was genetically indepedent, that is, its primary sources lay within its own society. Confronted with the tragic plight of Ukrainians under Polish and Soviet rule, having lost faith in traditional legal methods, and disillusioned with the Western democracies, which had ignored Ukrainian pleas for support and were themselves mirred in crisis, Ukrainian integral nationalists believed that they had nothing to gain from the status quo and they had to use radical means to change it.

Red Skull
Friday, November 3rd, 2006, 01:06 AM
Power, if you can call that a 'political philosophy'. When in power, you can protect the things you love.

sheriff skullface
Wednesday, November 8th, 2006, 12:29 AM
my politcal philosophy is actually a mixture of elements from different ones, the basis mainly being ethnic nationalism, with influences from radical traditionalism, the green movement, Odalism and national anarchism

it actually really resembles that of the Libertarian National Socialist Green party

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006, 12:39 AM

Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Libertarian/Green Racial Socialist(?)

I pick and choose from all aspects of the political spectrum to fit my needs best. I think I have many Green ideals, along side a firm Racial Socialist belief in cultural and racial preservation.

Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 09:35 PM
my politcal philosophy is actually a mixture of elements from different ones, the basis mainly being ethnic nationalism, with influences from radical traditionalism, the green movement, Odalism and national anarchism

it actually really resembles that of the Libertarian National Socialist Green party
I wish I would have read this post before I had posted mine!
I agree a lot with the Libertarian NS party on many issues, mainly enviromental.


Dutch Dennis
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 11:18 PM
I'm strongly Libertarian, but with conditions attached.

- stable, sustainable economic system without the growth imperitive
- ethnic and cultural sovereignty and homogeneity
- environmentally balanced (long-term nature preservation, rather than short-term economic exploitation)

Libertarianism can't work in the long-term without the above 3 pre-conditions in my humble opinion.

P.S. The LNSG is a joke as far as I can tell. There is no serious effort behind it. It's just a pet-project for some nihilists.

Monday, July 26th, 2010, 01:32 PM
I'm not sure if Fascism should be labeled as Authoritarian Right. I remember reading somewhere that Mosley Oswald say his movement as 'the hard center'.

Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 01:27 AM
Bah Humbug! Adhering to any given Socio-Politico-Economic Ideology will only lead to error and mistakes at all levels. Such that any ideology does not have a lock on the truth and its policies will only result in disaster, not only for the State, but the individual as well.

As for myself, I'm a Pragmatic Pluralist. This at least allows me to pick and choose ideas and policies across a broad range of political-economic philosphies that have a chance of working and being effective. As a Pragmatist, to me what is true is that which actually works in practice. Build the World on an Ideological form? Goodluck!

Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 09:31 AM
I'm certainly a Fascist, I have a bureaucratic heart underneath it all and love power, it's defenitely an advantage over a lot of people and I have a rather good knack for making speeches and validating points, in other words I'm charismatic, I do have a slightly Sociopathic attitude though, but it is not a noticable thing, and to most it comes off more of being a leader in buisiness rather then a darker nature. I would be the type to lead a movement, especially Fascim.

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 12:58 PM
I'm not sure if Fascism should be labeled as Authoritarian Right. I remember reading somewhere that Mosley Oswald say his movement as 'the hard center'.
If that's the case then the left has managed successfully to determine terminology. All in all I'd call "Fascism" or NS a third position, which is a loose umbrella term. There is of course good tactical reasons to call yourself being at the center. Then you can call others that oppose you "extremists":D.