The Realist's Political Spectrum
(Based on the Relationship of the State vs. the Individual)
by Twoey Clarke



A true spectrum, not a self-servingly and deliberately confused circle, as is traditionally taught by the Marxist re-educators in Public Skrewel system. The left cannot bear clearly to be categorized because of its horrible statist nature, so always tries, understandably, to confuse the issue and direct attention away from itself by trying to smear its opposition with its own paint of evil. Custom Illustrations by Bartoon Central
Leftism IlustrationEXTREME LEFTISM. This is where the state has total authority. The state makes most of the decisions. The extreme end of the left includes all forms of totalitarianism. That means the old traditional forms known as "monarchies" and the recent ones of Communism (communal socialism) and Nazism (nationalized Socialism - did you know that is what "Nazi" is an acronym for?). If you want the state to run everything, then the individual does nothing significant and you are an extreme leftist.

Liberalism IllustrationLIBERALISM.This is where the state runs many things in the country, perhaps even owning some of industry. Liberalism has many, many of the trappings of the extreme/totalitarian left, characterized by faith in the state and power to the central government all at the cost of freedom of the individual. Liberalism is typified by the inability to face this reality while at the same time always promoting it avidly.

Centrism IllustrationCENTRISM. This is, as best I can express it, an area of confusion and inconsistency, typified by having characteristics of both ends of the spectrum. Confucius say: "He who tries to straddle both sides of street often ends up in slippery middle."

Conservatism IllustrationCONSERVATISM. The first stop on the real right is typified by wanting to promote many of the concepts of freedom of the individual and lessening of the state's power over same. Yet the traditional conservative still believes that government should try to control things that are immoral even when this is patently impossible, such as in the case of the new Prohibition against drug use. This stance is defended as "moral," and I would have to agree that it is moral.

Libertarianism IllustrationLIBERTARIANISM. Home, sweet home. Libertarianism is as far right as you can get without being an anarchist. Libertarians advocate maximum individual freedom, initiative, and self reliance. Which means absolutely minimalist central government. Although, as I stated above, conservatism holds the moral ground, I do not believe government either can or should try to legislate morality in any way, shape, or form. The last thing I want is some deranged politician (especially a liberal, or worse) telling you or me how to behave as long as we are not hurting others. A classic recent example of the abject inability of government to legislate morality is the recent left-wing push to embrace sexual deviance as "healthy" or "normal," when, by no criterion except for their own self promotion, can any such thing rationally be hypothesized. Just leave me and every one else alone, OK? Cage felons and repel foreign invaders and forget everything else. Don't even pay remote lipservice to any of the dead manifestos of collectivists.

Anarchism IllustrationANARCHISM. Anarchism is the farthest point on the scale of the relationship of the individual to the state. Because anarchism advocates all individual and no state whatsoever. No government, no nothing. Zip. This is unrealistic for anyone who understands human nature. Remember, Thomas Paine said, "That government is best which governs least," not "which does not exist at all."

Coolest Links A Dream Date A Tasteless Joke Return Home Sign Guestbook E-Mail Me

Site Meter