Take the test here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Related: http://www.facingmyownreflection.com/concepts-and-estimates-of-the-new-political-spectrum/
Kratom: http://islandlionherbals.com/
The Evolutionary Psych Behind Politics: http://anonymousconservative.com/
My blog: http://www.staresattheworld.com/
My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini
Download in MP3 Format: http://www.clipconverter.cc/
Credits:
I Feel You by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
As you know, I've been a bit behind on the podcast recently for rather obvious reasons.
And so I've decided to upload a video I recorded originally as a response to Sargon of Bakkad that wound up being a lot longer than I thought it was going to be.
I was trying to make it a very quick response video, but it wound up being way too long for just a response.
It's a video of me taking the political compass test because Sargon took it a while back and got a left libertarian position in it.
Well, I decided to take it to prove a bit of a point about how the test itself is inherently flawed.
The test itself assumes the modern political system.
And I'd like to introduce it by offering a metaphor for this.
Now, let's say there were a test that you could take to figure out which sports ball team you should be a fan of.
You know, myself, I'm interested in physical fitness, I'm interested in working out, all of that good stuff, and eating a good diet, but I have zero interest in watching sports ball on television.
And so I take this test.
And one of the big variances on the test is say that you have one team that focuses upon speed and upper body strength.
And you have another team that focuses upon endurance and core body strength.
And so I take this test with absolutely zero interest in sports ball, and it winds up telling me that I support this team or I support that team, when my whole premise, my whole approach to this question is that I think sports ball is nonsense.
I mean, if you like watching sports, I'm not trying to make fun of anybody that watches sports.
You know, I play video games, which is just as pointless of a pastime.
If you like sports, all the power to you.
I think they're ridiculous.
But it shows, that's just to illustrate the underlying flaw in this entire premise.
The idea that your political preferences should be put into a modern paradigm.
The entire present political system is founded upon things like marketing.
The science of marketing is extremely well developed.
Facebook has even done experiments and proven that they can shift how people vote by just controlling what you see on the timeline.
Very advanced and terrifying science.
The premise of liberal democracy from the very get-go, all of these assumptions.
And so when you get somebody like me that, you know, I'm on the right because I am fact-based.
I like evidence, common sense.
You know, I don't like BS.
I don't like shibboleth, so I'm on the right.
But when I actually take the test, it doesn't measure me there at all.
And surprise, surprise, it recommends I should vote for the Democrat Party.
So video follows.
Skip to the end if you just want to see my results.
But then you might want to watch the video to see if I was actually honest in all of my opinions, and I was.
And right before we get to the video itself, of course, I need to pay homage, pay homage, is that right?
Whatever.
I need to appreciate the sponsors that have brought this video to you.
Island Lion Herbals, they're your number one source for Kratom.
Go check them out.
As well, we've got Anonymous Conservatives' book, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics.
If you want to think outside the box, outside the paradigm of liberal democracy where a bunch of marketing geniuses and pollsters control who wins, if you want to think for yourself and actually analyze what's going on, check out Anonymous Conservatives' book.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the video, and there will be a regular podcast this weekend.
Arena out.
Hey folks, this is Earl Pallerini.
I know I've been a bit derelict making videos lately.
I'm trying to jump back onto that bandwagon and do a few of the Arene's Insight videos that I've lined up, but I decided to start with something easy.
the political compass test.
Now, this is supposedly a step above the simplistic left-right divide that doesn't seem to quite adequately explain politics.
As it says on the main page here, the enduring appeal of the political compass test lies in its universality.
Note that word, universalism, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night election time survey, but a continually accessible profile of a political personality applicable to all democracies.
Our essential point is that the left and the right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics.
As political establishments adopt either enthusiastically or reluctantly the prevailing economic orthodoxy, the neoliberal strain of capitalism, the left-right division between mainstream parties becomes increasingly blurred.
Instead, party differences tend to be more about identity issues, and the narrowing debate our social scale is more crucial than ever.
Now, right there, you have all the assumptions that go into this.
Universalism, as noted by many others in the neoreactionary circles, is the modern religion.
Universalism and liberal democracies, which is what this applies to.
Democracy and democracy alone.
It only can see, it can only understand political establishments that exist within this orthodoxy.
You know, right here, they even discuss the neoliberal strain of capitalism.
You don't know what neoliberal is?
Don't worry.
That's just a word that hardcore radical Marxists and universities like to toss around.
Because if they act like they're attacking the neoliberals, it makes them seem above the petty political phrase.
What this test ultimately is, it's a sit-down and shut up.
It assumes liberal democracy, and based upon all of our educations, all of the brainwashing that we've received, and just the innate character of our times, it's going to tell us that we fit in perfectly with the modern political system.
It does this by breaking things down to the left-right on the economic scale, and the up-down on the authoritarian versus libertarian scale.
You see, when you measure the current political attitudes using these two metrics, you wind up being in the middle, no matter what you do.
It completely misses the subtleties or the principles upon which government lies.
And so if you scroll down a bit here, and they give an example of where all the different leaders would fit in, you wind up with Hitler right next from Margaret Thatcher.
Which seems pretty odd when you consider that Margaret Thatcher was just slashing, she was destroying unions in a country suffering from stagflation.
She wasn't putting anybody in death camps.
She wasn't dictating a national religion to anybody.
She was trying to get the economy back on track after the left had been destroying it for ages.
You see, what this thing completely misses, because the whole left-right divide is becoming increasingly nonsensical.
As Samuel Johnson said, back in the 18th century, the devil was the first Whig.
All of the toxins have been coming from the left.
Again, Nazism, fascism, those are forms of leftist collectivism.
You know, same thing with Stalin.
Same thing with the Marxists right now that are pushing an insane amount of freedom to atomize people.
While the left-right divide in this simplistic manner doesn't make any sense, there is a very real divide between civilization and savagery.
And civilization is always on the right.
Realism, healthy individuals, healthy threat assessment, K-type reproductive strategies, these are things on the right.
Whereas excessive freedom, turning people into replaceable cogs, not freedom, license, but no freedom, is what the left is pushing.
And see, to demonstrate what nonsense this is, I've decided to take the test for myself to see where it scores me on this whole thing.
Because there's no better way to demonstrate that this is just another tool of the establishment, of the dead god Leviathan, to make us sit down, shut up, and vote for our leaders.
Nowhere does it acknowledge that monarchies and republics are not democracies.
This assumes democracy as the base nature of humanity.
So part one.
These questions determine how I see the country and the world.
And I'm going to do my best to answer these as honestly as possible, even though they are all loaded questions and they all have right answers.
Question number one.
If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.
Now, this is something I've discussed before.
How corporations are hypothetical legal entities given the rights of a person, but if they were people, they'd all be psychopaths.
They constantly manipulate to try and get the bottom line, which is profit with no question of where it came from.
And that's not good for anybody.
You see, the free market, yes, the free market is all about how being selfish can wind up serving other people better than supposedly being heartless or being selfless, how selfish is not the same thing as heartless.
But these companies merely look at the bottom line.
And so if they can fire a bunch of people and have a temporary blip in profits, they'll do that, even though it's bad for the company in the long term, let alone everything they'll do to the planet or do to societies, etc.
These are legal entities we've created.
And if they're not serving humanity, then they're not doing what they should.
Corporations could be a great way to keep a hold of technologies and patents that might be lost otherwise, but there's a lot of dangers with them as well.
So if economic globalization is inevitable, then yes, it should primarily serve humanity.
Corporations only have the right to exist while they are serving humanity.
Next, I'd always support my country whether it was right or wrong.
Now, you're supposed to say no to this, okay, because we've all learned that nationalism is a terrible thing.
But see, I believe strongly in order, that without organization and order to society, you just have complete rampant chaos.
So, no, you should question your society.
You should question your country.
You should hold your leaders to task to make sure they're doing a good job and that they're not behaving immorally.
But generally speaking, agree.
Yes, you should generally support your country because it's easy to criticize leadership.
You know, it's much harder to be a leader, so just because a leader's not perfect doesn't mean they don't deserve to be followed.
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
Again, this is a bit of the universalist education, that you're supposed to be a completely replaceable cog, no different than somebody on the other side of the planet.
And this is some very toxic, evil stuff right here.
You should be proud of where you came from, of who your family was, of your community, of the accomplishments.
Everybody should feel that way.
It's a very foundational building block of who you are, is where you came from.
And so the pride that everybody can feel, that love of home that you hear in the song Sweet Home Alabama, that's a wonderful thing.
We're not talking about overweening pride.
We're talking about healthy love for your homeland.
So agree on that one.
Our race has many superior qualities compared with other races.
Oh, good lord, what a loaded question.
You know, we all know what the right answer to this is.
You know, if you agree with this, then you must be some sort of Nazi.
We've all learned with our mother's milk that this is a terrible, evil, evil thing to believe in.
And what's it even asking?
Is there really anybody that believes this in any sort of meaningful sense?
I mean, like, I mean, obviously, okay, I'm Italian, and everybody knows that Italians are the best people on the planet.
We have the best artists, the best theologians, we're the best lovers.
You know, everyone wishes they were Italian, and you can't blame them.
But what does this question mean?
Let's replace race with band, musical band.
You know, let's say you are part of a band, and I asked you, does your band have many superior qualities compared with other bands?
And you'd say yes.
But that doesn't then translate into, I want to destroy other bands, or other bands don't have the right to make their own music, or I want special rules put in place at this venue so that other bands don't have the opportunity to play their music.
You know, there is so much loaded into this question.
You're not supposed to agree with this question, even though anybody who is remotely normal and healthy likes where they came from, they like being themselves, they like the color of their hair, they like all of it.
So, in pure intellectual honesty, I'm going to put agree, just to see where this puts me.
It might make me a complete Nazi by the end of this, but we'll see how that works out.
But it's a very manipulative question.
You know, you take your average person nowadays, they are going to disagree with this.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Again, this is just basic strategy.
Who would disagree with this?
The only people I could imagine disagreeing with this are leftoids whose amygdalas are so freaking damaged that even imagining that enemies exists, just it's so terrifying that they can't even think the thought.
You know, anybody else, yeah, you know, medium agreement.
You know, it doesn't mean that you can trust them.
You know, there are alliances of convenience, but yeah, generally speaking, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Next, military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Well, again, this is a question of what sort of international law do we have.
If the Nazis had won World War II, and then they passed laws saying it was illegal for Israel to ever defend themselves against incursions onto their territory, would that mean Israel wasn't justified in defending themselves?
You know, what about the UN?
Do you completely support the UN?
You know, for all the people that seem to think the Jews have this secret cabal, there is an amazing amount of anti-Semitism that comes out of the United Nations.
I'm not the biggest fan.
At the same time, the rules of warfare, the rules of engagement, I do think these are very civilized things.
We're allowing them to hamper ourselves in these current wars, but in and of themselves, they're not bad things.
So I'm going to put agree with that.
You know, it's sometimes, yes, sometimes something can be right, even if international law says it's wrong.
But the idea of having some sort of standards internationally, those aren't terrible ideas either.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
Well, strongly agree on that.
We have the entire internet at our hands, and yet people are more ignorant, more uneducated than they were 200 years ago.
So, next set of questions.
The economy.
What are my opinions on the economy?
Now, folks, I am a very strong supporter of free markets so long as they come second to national health.
You know, if you're throwing your own country onto the funeral pyre for the sake of short-term profits, no, that's not a good thing.
But we'll get to my basic values at the end of this video.
So, people are ultimately more divided by class than nationality.
Strongly disagree with that.
What absolute nonsense.
You take a business owner and employee from the same country, they share the same culture, the same foods, the same holidays.
They also just know how to relate to one another innately, where they would both feel awkward going to another country.
So, absolute nonsense.
That's a bit of Marxist propaganda that they put up that actually has no basis in reality.
And again, anybody that wants to say that Marxism is, you know, ooh, red scare, if there weren't a problem with Marxism, this wouldn't be a question on this survey.
You know, liberal democracy is just another form of Marxism.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Well, strongly agree with this one, because employment isn't something that the government can actually control.
Now, controlling inflation, they can have a bit of control there.
It's called monetary policy.
And when you do institute policies like we have been that are going to lead to rampant inflation, that will lead to unemployment.
There's simply nothing the government can really do about unemployment.
It's the free market that creates jobs, not the government.
So yeah, strongly agree with that one.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Now, again, again, this assumes corporations.
This assumes a country that regulates.
There are so many assumptions that go into this bloody question.
Now, I'm going to put agree, not strongly agree, but agree.
Because the issue is that when there are extremely onerous regulations, what the corporations do is they hire lobbyists and they write those regulations.
So you now have an environmental agency that puts private entrepreneurs out of business while the big companies run absolutely roughshod over everybody.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.
Again, one of the basic principles of Marxism, and yes, there are no communists left, we aren't living in a communist country.
Well, the thing is, it's asking, is it a fundamentally good idea?
And I'd say, yeah, you know what it is.
Those are actually the principles of the military.
Those are the principles of classical nobility, of noblesse obligé, of the natural aristocracy that the founders of the American government believed in.
This is actually a pretty good fundamental idea.
So I'm going to agree with it.
You know, it's not the best way to...
See, the problem is that, again, government regulation doesn't work because government is not that competent.
Government is not very good at figuring out what each person's ability is.
Individual managers, individual officers might be good at figuring that out, but the government's not very good at making policies to support this.
So yes, it's a fundamentally good idea that I think everyone believes in to some degree or another.
It just doesn't work when you have the state legislating it.
It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Well, I'm not going to agree with this one, because I think it's actually quite nice that you can get fresh drinking water, like you can get fresh glacial drinking water at the corner store.
And there is a difference in the taste between that and tap water.
It's nice.
But the branding, now the branding is a bit depressing.
Dasani, for example, which uses public water and then filters it and yet still somehow has a higher bacteria count in it than public water, that's a bit depressing.
The fact that marketing is such a foundational leg of democratic societies is quite disappointing.
So slight disagreement there.
It's not terrible, but it does point to something else that's terrible.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Strongly disagree here, because land is capital.
Capital is what you use to earn a living.
If you have zero capital, then yes, you're going to be stuck in the role of an employee.
You will have to do whatever your boss tells you.
But anybody can save up and buy capital.
You know, for me, my computer is capital.
I use it to make money.
You know, for somebody else, the tools they use to work on cars are their capital.
And property itself is capital.
You know, you need somewhere to live and you need somewhere to have a business.
So land can be capital.
And if you prevent it from being bought and sold, that only means that you have to acquire it through some other manner.
The free market's open to everybody.
But if you can't buy property, if you can't buy capital, then only government bureaucrats get to control it.
So you have to say the right things, be part of the right ideology to control capital at that point.
And then we are all slaves.
We are all stuck as employees.
See, in the free market, an employee can eventually become an owner.
In the communist society, if you are not one of the top 1%, then you are a slave.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Absolutely.
You know, there is certainly somewhat of a justification for speculation.
It does help regulate prices on things.
But the present environment, you know, the number of people that just move money around, the Wall Street shysters, yeah, hang them all.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Strongly agree with this one.
In fact, you find the wealthiest countries, they would have, throughout history, they have an internal free market, so there's very few controls on their economy inside the country, but they do have protectionist tariffs.
Because you have to maintain your own country.
You know, yes, perfect free trade would make the entire world better off.
But it's a question, it's the prisoner's dilemma.
Doves versus hawks.
If everybody was a dove, then yes, the world would be so much wonderful.
But see, if everybody is working with a completely open border and one country decides not to have an open border, that one country that's being the hawk will benefit over all the others.
So yes, some protectionism can be good for the local economy, even though it's not good for the global economy.
And the thing is, we have to, organizations, they start from the individual up to the family, the community, then the nation.
And so a nation should look after its own.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Strongly disagree.
As I noted earlier, corporations are legal fictions that we create to benefit humanity.
So there's many justifications for a corporation.
The fact that they can hold on to inventions and patents that would otherwise be forgotten.
You know, they can preserve these methods of running a business.
The fact that they can, you know, increase output, that they can benefit people.
But that's more than just a profit to its shareholders.
You know, slash and burn tactics are absolutely, absolutely terrible.
And yeah, corporations are hypothetical psychopaths that will do whatever they can to make money.
This is why you should never trust a corporation doing anything charitable.
The rich are too highly taxed.
Everybody is too highly taxed today, so strongly agree.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.
Well, I'm going to strongly agree with this one.
The simple fact of the matter is that something is always going to regulate access to medicine.
If it's not money, it is going to be waiting lists.
Just look at the terrible health care that is in Canada.
Now, when you have the free market addressing it, there is indirect benefits for everybody else.
You know, like in Canada, they'll have usually like one CAT scan machine, whereas an equivalent hospital in the United States would have 30 of them.
Because in Canada, they can't afford it, because there is no free market, because people can't pay.
So, absolutely.
The free market is the most equitable.
It is the fairest thing ever developed to regulate resources between people.
Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public.
Strongly agree.
This is one of the natural roles of government, to enforce basic laws.
You know, you don't assault anybody else.
You don't lie and manipulate anybody else.
And that's exactly what this is.
If you're selling a toxic product with a label saying it's healthy, you are lying and you are directly hurting people.
There is culpability there that government should do something.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Well, here's the thing.
This question is eating its own tail.
You see, a genuine free market, a market free of intervention, of intervention from violent people, does not enable monopolies.
Monopolies happen when the government intervenes.
See, monopolies simply aren't efficient.
They are too large to be efficient.
Smaller businesses will be more dynamic.
They will be able to outmaneuver the monopoly.
The only exceptions are going to be industries that require so much capital investment that it winds up becoming a monopoly simply because it's not more efficient for somebody to raise all that money and open up a business.
At which point you have the ideal solution already.
See, what causes monopolies, what allows multinationals to be predatory, is the fact that they get in bed with government and they pass all these laws that hold down the free market.
So a genuine free market requires lack of government intervention, not lack of predatory multinationals.
So I'm going to slightly disagree on this.
You know, if you're talking about legislation saying that you're going to prevent them from lobbying government, all right, that might actually work.
You know, if you're going to prevent them from bribing people.
But the legislation itself, the legislation that supposedly restricts these multinationals, is usually what enables them.
It's usually what puts private businesses out of business.
And finally, the freer the market, the freer the people.
Strongly agree with that one.
I think it speaks for itself.
So the next part.
Personal social values.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Now, we're talking legalities here.
We're talking about it being illegal, not just that it's morally wrong.
And see, I have to extend my thoughts to people that are not part of the, do not have the same beliefs as me.
So let's take a reasonable standard.
I think everybody can agree with this, that we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere as to when it becomes a baby.
And at the 23rd week thereabouts, it has a brain.
There is neurological activity going on at that point.
And I think that's a fairly safe line in the sand to draw.
At that point, it's a baby.
It's a person.
It has rights.
And so I think, yes, making it illegal at that point because it's a person, that is justifiable.
But to demand that it always be illegal, even though I disagree with abortion, you know, now we're getting to questions of theology, of faith.
And I don't think the government should be taking a stance on faith.
After all, I'm a son of Europe.
We have always had a separation between church and state.
Before the Protestant heresies, of course.
So I'm going to say agree, but not strongly agree to that one.
All authority should be questioned.
Well, absolutely.
I'm going to put agree.
You know, it shouldn't be questioned for the sake of questioning it.
It shouldn't be questioned for the sake of being a rebel.
But part of the best way to understand authority is to question it, is to learn from it.
So, no, we do not need some sort of top-down controlling system where you always do what you're told, you know, where you always think what you're supposed to think, which seems to be the world we're building right now.
Rather, I think there should be questioning.
I think there should be freedom of speech.
And I think a good leader wants their subordinates to question them.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
No, I strongly disagree with that one.
That might be the beginning of the legal system, but it's not the end of the legal system.
And as I've noted elsewhere, in five minutes, you can do more evil than all the good you could do in the rest of your life.
So if we go for this, if we go for revenge, it's just going to drag everybody down.
Forgiveness is necessary for us to progress.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
Now, again, this is getting into some other issues.
There is justification for a country promoting its own culture.
You know, subsidizing Shakespeare in the park, for example.
even if it's not commercially successful, you know, I'm glad that there is Shakespeare in the park, especially when Transformers is playing in the theater.
So it's, should there be cultural values that we celebrate?
You know, should the French be supporting escargot and frog legs and whatever other stuff they eat?
You know, as opposed to just McDonald's, even though McDonald's is faster, easier, cheaper.
So I'm going to hit disagree for this one.
Now, certainly this can go too far.
And we always have to be on the lookout for the fact that these cultural institutions can be very easily taken over by a cabal of leftists that want to destroy the culture.
So we need to constantly be supervising for that.
But the idea that no country should ever support its own culture, absolute nonsense.
Culture is a very important part of who we are.
And having some subsidy for it is a wonderful idea.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
Well, again, this assumes the entire Prussian model of schooling, which is a 20th century invention meant to indoctrinate students into blind nationalism.
Not the positive organic nationalism, but it's meant to regiment them, to separate them from their parents, to tell them what they're supposed to think and what they're supposed to believe.
And see, before we had this system, people were far better educated.
Overall, back before we had this giant public school system, most people could speak Latin.
Most people could do calculus.
People were better educated even though they were poorer back then.
So schools should not make classroom attend.
I'm going to strongly agree with this one because I don't think the government has any business being in the educational field whatsoever.
All people have their rights, but it's better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
Now, what is this saying?
You know, the simple fact of the matter is that people, by their very nature, will stick to their own kind.
In fact, you have to go out of your way to force people to be diversity, to hang out with people different from them.
You know, people with the same culture, with the same language, and yeah, and a lot of that's connected to skin color as well, like to hang out with people like them.
There are exceptions.
You know, sometimes cats and dogs can get along famously.
But should you be forcing them together?
So, what is this saying?
Is it better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind?
Well, it's what people do.
But it's saying they should.
Are you asking me, should they pass a law demanding this?
I think people should have freedom of association.
I mean, that's being taken away now.
You no longer have freedom of association.
And yeah, you know what?
Sometimes freedom of association is going to be a little bit unfair.
Guys like Eminem might have a lot of trouble getting into the rap field because of that.
But should we pass...
I'm going to put disagree, because this seems to imply...
The should implies that we are forcing people to segregate.
We're not allowing them to segregate, we're forcing them.
So I'm going to put disagree.
I think people should be allowed to self-segregate, but that forcing them to is a very bad idea.
Although I'm very much on the borderline with this.
It's a really hard question to answer because I don't know the context it's asking it in.
Of course, I know I'm supposed to say strongly disagree, that's what we've all learned, but it's a poorly worded question.
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
Strongly agree with that one.
Quite frankly, I know what Stéphane Molyneux would say about this, but if you catch your kid playing with scissors or running in traffic and you flip out and spank them, it will be such a strong, like, it will stick with them.
It will really get their attention.
If you spank, because you're scared, because they almost just, they nearly killed themselves just now.
Yeah, it'll get their attention.
That's not child abuse.
It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Well, yeah, strongly agree with that.
It's part of the developmental process that a child begins to separate from their parents and have privacy.
It's an important step.
Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offense.
Possessing marijuana for sale should not be a criminal offense.
Whenever you try and make something, when the government tries to overstep its bounds, when the government tries to turn a victimless crime into a criminal offense, they turn it into a violent crime.
No sane monarch would be trying to do this.
We have too many examples of how badly this turns out for everybody.
Just look at prohibition.
You know, it's like, yeah, it'd be good if fewer people used marijuana.
It's a bloody thing causes schizophrenia.
But locking people into cages for it is not the solution.
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generations to find jobs.
Now, I'm going to hit agree with this.
You know, if we're talking about public schooling, definitely.
You know, I'm sorry.
It's bad enough that cultural institutions can be taken over by left-wing Marxists.
That's bad enough.
But with schools, you get the raw young brains that you can manipulate and destroy and separate from their parents in the Prussian system.
So those are the last people you want transmitting cultural values.
Now, it is important that people learn about their culture.
But this should, again, this should have more parental involvement.
You don't want your kids getting brainwashed into a religion at school, especially not if that religion is Marxism.
So yeah, there's cultural elements that's important, but generally, just agree for that one.
You know, really difficult questions to answer, because there's so many assumptions that go into all of this.
It assumes that we're at the end of history and that liberal democracy is just how things are now.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
Now as things stand, we have dysgenic policies when it comes towards breeding.
The best and brightest women that we have, we send them to university, get them massively in debt, and then force them to be a corporate slave for the next 10 years during their most fertile period.
Whereas the most criminally inclined and stupid women, we subsidize them on welfare and give them a bonus whenever they have children.
You know, we're not talking death camps here, but we're talking, you know, if you have an education or if you whatever, we're going to make it easier for educated people to have children.
Eh, that might not be a bad idea.
But this is talking about allowing them.
You know, that we should take away their right.
And quite frankly, the government is not smart enough to really figure out what inheritable disabilities are.
You give them that power, and they're going to start abusing it.
So strongly disagree that the government should be banning anybody from reproducing.
And put something, you also need biodiversity for crying out loud, okay?
You know, trusting any sort of utopian with this power.
There's a fine line between having policies that favor certain types of behaviors and outright bans and manipulation.
There's a very fine line between the two of those.
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Now, oh God, what does a liberal Democrat mean when they say discipline?
See, when I say discipline, when I use the word discipline, I'm thinking about self-control, self-discipline.
And that is one of the most important things that a child can learn.
But see, when a liberal Democrat, when the leftoid says discipline, they mean following orders, doing what teacher says.
It is so bloody ironic that these people think they're rebels, and yet the mental discipline they show in believing in all of the social justice nonsense, even the parts that contradict one another, it's fascinating to behold, isn't it?
So what sort of discipline are we talking about here?
Blindly obeying authority?
Or self-discipline?
I guess I'll put agree for this, because, yeah, I don't like being around undisciplined people.
They tend to make a mess wherever they go.
There are no savage and civilized people.
There are only different cultures.
I love how those enlightened prophets over in the Middle East cut off girls' clitorises.
I guess that's more of an Africa thing, but still.
So, yeah, strongly disagree with that moose drip.
Those who are able to work and refuse the opportunity should not expect society's support.
What a straw man does...
Of course, yeah, strongly agree.
Does any...
What is...
I mean, it's a straw man in that everybody thinks this.
Everybody agrees with this.
What does this possibly have to do with anything?
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
Well, you shouldn't be blindly happy.
One of the biggest problems we have right now is that too many people are on antidepressants.
They're on all this psychiatric medication that numbs them to how incredibly miserable they are.
It just gets them onto their feet so they'll go back to work in the morning.
You know, and these people should be saying, why am I miserable?
Maybe there's something wrong with the world.
Maybe there's something wrong with my life.
But instead of fixing themselves, instead of engaging in self-improvement, they just take happy pills.
But, you know, the flip side of this is that you don't want to be, like, you don't want these negative losers that constantly blame the world for all of their problems and don't do any self-improvement.
So yeah, as a personal policy, cheer up.
Life ain't that bad.
But if you're miserable, acknowledge it.
So I'll put a grieve for that, but again, very vague statement.
It's all about the context with this stuff.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated with their new country.
See, I'm going to put agree for this, because part of being a citizen is also understanding all the values of the country.
The rituals, the foods.
It's knowing the country.
And so in a certain sense, yeah, it's very difficult to become fully integrated as a first-generation migrant.
But at the same time, some of the, like, it's new converts can be your strongest converts.
There are certain first-generation immigrants that just embrace their new identity passionately.
And so I'll put, I agree that it's very difficult, but there are exceptions.
What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Strongly disagree with that.
Corporations only think in the short term, and they're absolutely manipulative psychopaths.
You know, they will burn down entire forests to make five bucks if they can get away with it.
They are not ultimately rational by human definition.
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Again, as I noted earlier, it is important to transmit your culture to reinforce your culture.
You know, you don't want to...
It can get out of hand, and it is out of hand right now.
Especially with all the ugly stuff that museums are buying.
But that doesn't mean it's an entirely bad idea.
This is actually something conservatives need to get away from.
Just because the left has taken over all of the cultural transmission doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You know, attack the problem, not the concept.
So now we have page four of six.
How do I see the wider society?
Our civil liberties are being excessively curved in the name of counterterrorism.
Strongly agree.
And at the end of the day, taking away fundamental rights and freedoms from people does very little to help combat terrorism.
In fact, quite the opposite.
It trains the intelligence agency not to think creatively, not to really go after the actual bad guys, but to become lazy, to treat everybody like a bad guy.
And when you do that, everyone becomes bad guys.
You know, all civility is lost.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
Again, the assumption of a democratic political system.
Now, strongly agree.
You know, you want the honorable opposition.
A good leader wants criticism from their subordinates.
You know, who's smarter?
The sergeant or the platoon?
The platoon, because there's 30 of them.
Ultimately, they all need to do what the sergeant says, but a good sergeant is going to want feedback from them.
So, absolute nonsense.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Strongly disagree.
Privacy is a fundamental necessity psychologically for us.
You know, the conversation, your conversations with people vary depending upon who's there.
You're going to be a different person speaking to your mother than speaking to your girlfriend.
And if your mother and girlfriend are in the same room, you'll be still a different person.
If there is no privacy, then we can never trust another person.
We can never learn to trust another person.
We can never build strong bonds between people.
Permanent surveillance destroys civil society.
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Now, I'm going to put agree with this, because I have no problem with the death penalty for certainly rape, murder, treason, these sorts of things.
But at the same time, I don't really trust this incompetent legal system that we presently have with administering the death penalty.
There's a disturbing number of people that have been proven innocent after being put to death.
So, agree in principle, but in practice, not so much.
In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
Now, yeah, I'll put agree.
Not strongly agree, but agree that you need order, you need regimentation.
When there's an emergency situation, somebody needs to be in charge.
But this doesn't mean that you have this calcified system where nobody can ever escape it.
You know, you want a system that is fluid, that changes, that adapts.
But yes, you do need hierarchy.
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Strongly agree with this one.
Butter dance is not art.
Jason Pollock paintings are indistinguishable from an artist's apron.
And the amount of disgusting stuff out there that's being called art when it's just ugliness, no.
No, that's not art.
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
And I'm going to put disagree.
As I was saying with the eye for an eye thing, you know, punishment, yes, it's necessary.
But ultimately, if we eye for an eye, you can do more evil in five minutes than the amount of good you can do in your entire life.
You know, forgiveness, moving forward, these are fundamental.
There are cases where somebody's done something that's so beyond the pale that, yeah, put them to death.
Hang them.
Draw and quarter them.
But generally speaking, rehabilitation is a far better option.
It's far more efficient if we can reintegrate these people back into society rather than spending all the money keeping them in prison.
Doesn't mean I'm particularly soft on crime.
It means that I have a moral edge to me.
It's a waste of time to try and rehabilitate some criminals.
Again, I'm going to agree with this, that that's a true statement, but how do you determine the differences between those criminals and the ones that can be rehabilitated?
Quite frankly, it is good for us in a moral sense to try and rehabilitate, even if they probably can't be.
The business person and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Strongly agree.
You know, our soul is in music and art and writing.
That's where the human soul lies, and these are vital things.
But if you can't eat, if you don't have clothing or shelter, then you can't enjoy art.
And anybody can become an artist.
Okay, anybody can play an instrument.
And so even if you, even during a depression, you know, you might not have enough money to go buy a CD, but you can play an instrument yourself.
So there doesn't, writing and artistic industries are wonderful luxuries to have, but food and clothing are more important.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Note that it didn't say their first duty is to raise children.
This is, again, this atomized, replaceable cog society, where this is asking, are you sexist that you would hold women down?
No, the answer is that I view a married couple, a man and a wife, as one flesh.
They are now a team.
They are doing the same thing.
So typically, the typical organization of it is that the man has a career because generally you have to go outside the home to have a career these days, while the woman stays home because she needs to raise the babies.
You know, and she doesn't want to import some slave from Mexico to raise her children for her.
And so as a team, the man's career, him being the primary bread earner, is the family's career.
So he's earning the money, but the wife is doing the support role to enable him to earn money.
They're part of the same freaking team.
Okay?
The Marxists want to drive men and women apart.
They want to turn everybody into a replaceable cog.
But they should be...
So, this says Homemaker.
Well, homemaking can be a wifely duty.
It can be what she needs to do, but what if he gets laid off?
Or what if he's working on a patent or an invention that's going to make the family a lot of money?
You know, and she needs to go out and work then.
Then her wifely duty is going out and getting a job to earn for the family.
Okay, because husband and wife should be on the same side.
This assumes that they're not.
This assumes that they're just roommates who have sex with one another.
But you know what?
I promised I was going to try and be honest with this.
I mean, it's a completely bullshit question.
You know, it presupposes the feminist attitude towards marriage, which is that it's dating plus one.
And I think marriage is a hell of a lot more than that.
It's a building block of society.
But this assumes it isn't.
This assumes that it's just dating plus one.
And that I'm such a terrible person that I want to force women just to be domestic servants.
As opposed to I want to have a successful, happy life with a wife to share it with and children that were raised well and have better opportunities than I had.
No, I just want to hold women down.
So I'll put agree.
Since it says restricted to just homemakers, it doesn't mention raising children.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
Oh heck, and they're doing it for developed countries as well.
Strongly agree there.
Monsanto is a terrible company that should be disbanded.
Genetic modification could potentially be a wonderful technology.
Monsanto is absolutely abusing it, though.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
Agree.
This reflects what I was saying about leaders earlier.
No leader is going to be perfect.
And it's easy to Monday morning quarterback and complain and whine and refuse to become part of the system.
Actually trying to make things better and making mistakes along the way, you eventually learn a bit of humbleness.
You learn not to be quite so self-righteous and judgmental of your leaders when you do that.
So yes, making peace with the fact the establishment will never be perfect is an important aspect of maturity.
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Oh, good lord.
Five of six.
Propositions on religion.
Astrology accurately explains.
This is a scientific question, isn't it?
I mean, what if I reject modern astrology, but I follow Egyptian astrology?
What does this question have to do with anything?
I'm going to put strongly disagree because it's retarded, but so many assumptions go into this.
You cannot be moral without being religious.
And I'm going to go disagree with this.
In fact, I think nowadays with how far the church has fallen, it's probably easier to be moral if you aren't religious, if you don't adhere strongly to one heresy that's being promoted.
You know, it's easier to get closer to the truth with how far the church has fallen lately.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Strongly agree.
Bureaucracies tend to breed parasites, you know, whereas charity demands personal connections and relationships.
And really the best thing you can do to help somebody on hard times is give them an opportunity, as opposed to just throwing money at the problem.
So yeah, back when we had charity, I think things were a lot better off.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
You know, every day, thousands of people fly to Las Vegas to intentionally lose money in slot machines.
And all those people blame all their problems on bad luck when they chose to throw money at a bad bet.
Luck is what you make of it.
And whether something is good or bad, it's really how you respond to it.
So strongly disagree with that defeatist attitude.
It's important that my child's school instill religious values.
Now again, this assumes that we have government institutions, government institutionalized schools, which I don't think we should have.
And right now they are instilling the religious values of leftism, which I despise.
So I would prefer if they just taught the, you know, the reading, writing, arithmetic and kept to the so left the social values out of it.
I will take care of that.
Social and religious, I'll take care of that as a parent.
Now, final page, a look at sex.
Sex outside of marriage is usually immoral.
I'm just going to say strongly agree with that.
Certainly I'm no moral paragon, but the whole free sex casual sex culture does a lot of damage to people.
Makes it very hard to pair bond, and it's being treated like a toy, like candy, as opposed to something sacred that creates another human life.
Sex is far too important to waste it upon casual sex.
Same-sex cat, same-sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals are 100 times as likely to be child molesters as straight couples, so i'm gonna strongly disagree with that.
And furthermore, a child needs a mother and a father.
You know, if you know a widower or widower, that's a very sad situation.
That's very tragic because they just lost one of their parents.
But if, if you have two gay men or two lesbians for a parent, you are missing out on an important uh, important role model for your life.
You know, can you imagine a boy being raised by two lesbians?
Who will ever teach him to be a man?
You know no, you need a parent of each sex and if you don't have that, it's an extreme tragedy.
Pornography depicting consenting adults should be legal for the adult population, absolutely now.
On the one hand, this is identical to the drug argument.
It's um, it's not the government's place to start trying to regulate this stuff.
Furthermore, if you try and regulate it, you only make it worse.
If you tried to ban pornography, you're going to drive it underground and all the abuses that we're told exist in the porn industry, most of which are completely made up, would start to become true.
Uh it's, you know, I might not think it's the the best.
I think people use too much pornography.
I don't think it's particularly healthy for you, but that doesn't mean the government should be banning it.
You know it's.
And also honestly, where do you draw the line?
As soon as you ban some type of speech that doesn't have a demonstrable harm connected to it, an immediate and direct, demonstrable harm, then you're putting all speech at risk.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consulting and consenting adults is no business of the state.
Strongly agree, I might not, I might not like it, I might not encourage it, but ultimately what you do is your own business.
And if the government tries to turn non-crimes into crimes, then things just get worse.
No one can feel naturally homosexual and strongly disagree on that.
Now, there are, obviously there are huge environmental components that go into homosexuality.
Um, you know, certainly there's.
Uh, there's a disturbing amount, like the number of homosexuals that report being interfered with sexually as children is vastly out of proportion.
So yes, there are environmental aspects to it, but that doesn't mean there aren't natural inclinations, you know, and there seems to be a lot of evidence that some people are more naturally inclined to be homosexual than others.
Again, this is a scientific question really, although we're not allowed to investigate this sort of stuff these days.
These days, openness about sex has gone too far.
Yeah, i'm gonna say agree, but not strongly agree because, you know, prudishness is no better.
Prudishness is its own sort of obsession with sex.
You know, and so the the modern environment we have is, on the one hand, as obsessed with sex as teenagers, but also as prudish and nervous about talking about it and yet always throwing it in your face.
It's a very juvenile approach to sex.
I I think frank discussion about sex is absolutely fine, but we we approach in a very childish manner these days.
So now let's see where I stand.
So on the left right of free markets versus communism, where I stand extremely strongly for free markets, with one except a couple of exceptions.
Well, first of all, I don't consider corporations to be naturally part of the free market.
Corporations need governments to exist.
A government needs to legislate a corporation into existing.
Without a government, you don't have a corporation.
There are certainly times when corporations could be wonderful, but anything the government legislates should be very careful.
Any interference the government makes, they should be very, very careful about it, because most times they'll do more harm than good.
And so that's on the economic side.
I generally prefer free markets, although sometimes some tariffs can make sense, some environmental protection can make sense, and some standing up for your culture can make sense.
Ideally, in a well-ordered republic or monarchy, this should be 3 to 5% of GDP that you're spending during peacetime.
Maybe, maybe 10%.
Now, on the authoritarian-libertarian scale, I tend to, like, order is very important, but you need a fluid order.
Okay, when you get right down to it, there are three things that justify a government's existence.
You know, in this order of priority.
First, the highest role of government, the highest purpose of government should be to serve the moral, spiritual, and intellectual development of its citizens.
Next, persistence and stability.
You know, as Heinlein said, if you're going to discuss the moral behavior of an animal, an animal that is extinct has no moral behavior.
If a government isn't stable and predictable, if you don't know what the laws are going to be next week, or if it doesn't persist into the future, if it fails to reproduce itself, then there's no government anymore.
There is no society.
So it's already failed.
And finally, the third, if it's doing all three, is prosperity and happiness.
These are the least important justifications of government.
Certainly during a depression, the government should not be spending money on bread and circuses to keep people happy.
Now the thing I find with liberal democracy is it tends to get the last one, prosperity and happiness.
Sure, it does a lot of that.
We have all the license nowadays, but we have no freedom.
Persistence and stability, it is doing a very poor job of that.
The institutions are pretty stable.
They're not going anywhere.
But nobody knows what the laws are going to be next week.
And certainly the federal government of the United States, of Canada, Britain, these are going to persist into the future, but are they going to be recognizable?
Because the native populations are not reproducing.
Just look at the places that are demanding Sharia law.
So persistence and stability, not a very good job.
And as for the moral, spiritual, and intellectual development of people, this is at an all-time low.
Our governments are absolutely failing, and they're spending, what, 40% of GDP right now is what they're mostly spending.
Beyond unacceptable.
So yeah, between authoritarian and libertarian, generally best to err on the side of libertarian, because you do want a fluid society, but you also want to acknowledge the importance of hierarchy.
You don't want pure anarchism, because pure anarchism is just going to lead to a stealth hierarchy, a non-explicit hierarchy, one that's very corrupt and easy to manipulate.
So let's see where this puts me.
And I am dead center.
Now, a couple weeks ago, a couple weeks ago, Sargon of Akkad, great YouTuber, took this test himself, and he got left libertarian.
He was just a couple squares away from me.
A guy that thinks that we should slash government spending by 90%.
And that the entire modern order, liberal democracy itself, is a terrible joke that's controlled by marketers.
Where your vote is worthless when everybody votes.
You know, I think that we should bring back caning, and in some cases, even drawing and quartering.
I support a strong monarch or a very strong republic.
And as far as I'm concerned, this whole left-wing, we're headed towards the left singularity where everybody eats everybody.
And yet, according to this, I am smack dab in the middle of things.
Which just goes to show you, folks, that your starting assumptions are going to determine what your answers are.
This entire test is extremely loaded and intentionally biased.
Now, got the easy video out of the way.
I've got some Arini's Insight videos that I do need to get around to uploading.
