At the time I was inclined to Libertarian Socialism not Anarcho-Capitalism. The first is definitively left wing and the second clearly right wing.

As for the NSDAP, they claimed to draw on both the right and left but are in reality clearly right wing rejecting liberalism and Marxism with strong support at the time by the traditional supporters of the far right (the military, big business, the established church).

The fact that both the right and left at that point in time tended towards totalitarian states does not mean they share the same political ideology. That would be like saying fanatical Christians and Muslims are identical because they both tend towards fundamentalism.

Wow!!! you are beyond hope if you believe that. You are a product of the sixties, to many drugs and not enough hugs?:eek:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene"

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

He calls their new long range bomber "The ambassador of death".

On the holocaust: "If this event happened, where did it happen? The 'where' is the main question, and it was not in Palestine."

“We will witness dismantling of the corrupt regime in a very near future."

"If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation…With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."

How many more examples are needed?

Oh and...even though you probably won't read it, this answers the "liar" allegation better than I could:
http://rationalliberty.com/index.php...ical-spectrum/

Splitter

Ok ... I am totally failing to see how the NSDAP can possibly be seen as left wing. Even modern Neo-nazis are regarded as extreme right.

Unless you redefine "left wing" to mean "everything conservative America disagrees with regardless of actual ideology".

Yes, well, ultimately it comes down to 'truth' being whatever Splitter and Hunden say it is, rather than being based on any objective reality. The rest of the world only exists to confirm their prejudices. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, did I just hear a clock strike thirteen?

While I do not agree with your assertion, let me say this:

I am impressed with your ability to argue your points with your logic. While I may not agree, I find the level of sophistication in your thinking refreshing. Yes, for the most part, Americans need to go outside of their own country for such discourse. Sadly. At one time, we put much thought into "government" but now it is mostly rhetoric that sways opinion.

So then let me say this: You are making the political spectrum too complicated for anyone anywhere except those of us who are "geeks" about this sort of thing.

In basic terms, the further left you go, the more government involvement you seek (social or economic). The further right that one goes, the less government involvement.

"Most" of us agree that the extremes are not desirable. The arguments rest in the middle.

There is also a huge problem with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as those terms have been corrupted over time. As an example, John Kennedy (most around the world know of him I assume) would be a modern day "conservative" even though he is a martyr for the liberals in our country (Democrats).

If we go back in history, those two terms meant far different things than they mean today.

Splitter

This is incorrect.

For example, Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Well said Igo kyu. Given that according to Marx, communism would ultimately result through 'the withering away of the state', Splitter's definition would align him with the US Republican party.

This sort of pseudo-political analysis engaged in to satisfy whatever current need arises might work in the context of an isolated system (North Korea? - and of course Orwell's Airstrip One), but in the wider political discourse it is just untenable.

I would not like to see nuclear bombs in a Sim. The argument for having them is based on 'deterrent'. Yes, they were used in the final stages of WW2 against Japan and the arguments for using them are well established. Japan was guilty of some horrendous war crimes against the civilian population of China in the lead up to WW2 and any moral arguments are thus negated IMO but the use of nuclear weapons does result in catastrophic consequences for civilian populations.

I am Pro Palestinian, I am English Christian not a Muslim extremist. What I want is a poltical settlement that sees Palestine as a free state co-existing with its neighbour Israel. Unfortunately, untill another regional state has a similar detterent I doubt that it will ever happen. The idea that a nuclear empowered Iran poses a threat to the region is a weak one.

Chernobyl is a prime example of a how nuclear fallout affects entire regions - in this case Europe. A nuclear attck on the State of Israel would impact the whole region and I doubt any faction would be party to such an outcome. Nuclear weapons have a purpose - a means to negotiate political settlements rather than to be used. Keeep them in a bunker............not in a PC Sim!

That is an archaic use of the terms. Sorry, I know where you are coming from, but where just not there anymore.

Go back far enough and I am a flaming liberal lol

Today, real conservatism means belief in:

Small government
Low taxes
Strong national defense
Personal rights and responsibilities

(Andy, uh, Marx would have a problem with some of those beliefs lol)

Splitter