<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=AllahuAkbarJihad</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=AllahuAkbarJihad"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/AllahuAkbarJihad"/>
	<updated>2026-10-10T23:32:55Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&amp;diff=315110</id>
		<title>Talk:Fred Phelps</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&amp;diff=315110"/>
		<updated>2007-10-13T01:53:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Liberal Activist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Liberal Activist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???==&lt;br /&gt;
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot;. I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No linking to Phelps's web sites==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites.  However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality?  As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page.  [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discussion of subject==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I drove by his &amp;quot;church&amp;quot; once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just moved it because it was under &amp;quot;Fred phelps,&amp;quot; and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.&lt;br /&gt;
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution. &lt;br /&gt;
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had &amp;quot;longer&amp;quot; hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach.  There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page.  Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree. I just don't think that the word &amp;quot;fag&amp;quot; is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings.  I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Edits by Jack ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please push your liberal views in an article about yourself.  This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing.  One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced.  This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today.  He goes to military funerals with signs that say &amp;quot;God Hates F*gs&amp;quot;.  That is an objective, well documented fact.  However, the sysops delete it from the main page.  However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up.  --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article.   Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible.  In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen.   The article is about his views and him.   And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is &amp;quot;literally following the Bible&amp;quot;, and please stop attacking Jack.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::1.  Not an attack, but a statement of my views.  2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window.  3.  I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade.  Just to add God's word.  4.  Your views of Phelps are &amp;quot;your views&amp;quot;.  Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine &amp;quot;his views&amp;quot;, not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Landover Baptist==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution &amp;quot;Focus on the Family&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;We Hate Gays&amp;quot;.  There's a reason that it's called the &amp;quot;Family Research Council&amp;quot;.  The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything.  Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label &amp;quot;PRO-lifers&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;ANTI-choicers&amp;quot;).  Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe.  So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree!  I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative!  Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot;!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important.  All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe.  Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family.  It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world.  There's a big difference.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his &amp;quot;hymns&amp;quot;, and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays?  That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me.  [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.)  --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If what you say is true, then &amp;quot;pro-family&amp;quot; must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are &amp;quot;anti-family&amp;quot;. That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone. &lt;br /&gt;
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What the #$@% ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is &amp;quot;The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend.&amp;quot;  Which is a very long way from &amp;quot;Love thine enemies&amp;quot; but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so.  [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phelps and Religion == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning.&amp;quot; -- Calvin.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== disgusting liberal bias  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong.  At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality.  [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be.  --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== God Hates Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nevermind... &amp;quot;When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and &amp;quot;widely reviling&amp;quot; her Gospel message.&amp;quot; That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The &amp;quot;God Hates Fags&amp;quot; Left].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&amp;diff=315109</id>
		<title>Talk:Fred Phelps</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&amp;diff=315109"/>
		<updated>2007-10-13T01:50:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* No linking to Phelps's web sites */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Liberal Activist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???==&lt;br /&gt;
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
==No linking to Phelps's web sites==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites.  However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality?  As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page.  [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discussion of subject==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I drove by his &amp;quot;church&amp;quot; once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just moved it because it was under &amp;quot;Fred phelps,&amp;quot; and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.&lt;br /&gt;
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution. &lt;br /&gt;
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had &amp;quot;longer&amp;quot; hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach.  There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page.  Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree. I just don't think that the word &amp;quot;fag&amp;quot; is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings.  I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Edits by Jack ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please push your liberal views in an article about yourself.  This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing.  One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced.  This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today.  He goes to military funerals with signs that say &amp;quot;God Hates F*gs&amp;quot;.  That is an objective, well documented fact.  However, the sysops delete it from the main page.  However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up.  --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article.   Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible.  In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen.   The article is about his views and him.   And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is &amp;quot;literally following the Bible&amp;quot;, and please stop attacking Jack.  [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::1.  Not an attack, but a statement of my views.  2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window.  3.  I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade.  Just to add God's word.  4.  Your views of Phelps are &amp;quot;your views&amp;quot;.  Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine &amp;quot;his views&amp;quot;, not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Landover Baptist==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution &amp;quot;Focus on the Family&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;We Hate Gays&amp;quot;.  There's a reason that it's called the &amp;quot;Family Research Council&amp;quot;.  The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything.  Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label &amp;quot;PRO-lifers&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;ANTI-choicers&amp;quot;).  Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe.  So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree!  I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative!  Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot;!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important.  All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe.  Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family.  It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world.  There's a big difference.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his &amp;quot;hymns&amp;quot;, and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays?  That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me.  [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.)  --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If what you say is true, then &amp;quot;pro-family&amp;quot; must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are &amp;quot;anti-family&amp;quot;. That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone. &lt;br /&gt;
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What the #$@% ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is &amp;quot;The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend.&amp;quot;  Which is a very long way from &amp;quot;Love thine enemies&amp;quot; but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so.  [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phelps and Religion == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning.&amp;quot; -- Calvin.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== disgusting liberal bias  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong.  At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality.  [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be.  --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== God Hates Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nevermind... &amp;quot;When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and &amp;quot;widely reviling&amp;quot; her Gospel message.&amp;quot; That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The &amp;quot;God Hates Fags&amp;quot; Left].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314800</id>
		<title>Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314800"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:42:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Chomsky's Criticisms of the West */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|thumb|130px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Noam Avram Chomsky''' (born December 7, 1928) is a linguist who is best known for his writings on politics. He is an institute professor &amp;amp; professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the [[MIT|Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
He has always been very critical of [[America]]n and [[Israel]]i foreign policy and sympathizes with [[Palestine|Palestinians]] and has shown support for the terrorist organization [[Hezbollah]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&amp;amp;x_issue=11&amp;amp;x_article=1151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression. Chomsky counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of William Chomsky, an a [[Russian]] immigrant. His father taught [[Hebrew]], and published a scholarly edition of a medieval Hebrew grammar.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/chomsky_noam.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He received his education at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, and eventually earned his [[Ph. D.]] in 1955.  Since then, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Semitism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are &amp;quot;the most privileged and influential part of the population&amp;quot;, and that &amp;quot;Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. His statements show striking similarities with classic anti-Semitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has also been a vocal supporter of controversial author Norman Finkelstein who wrote ''The Holocaust Industry'', who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=311000&amp;amp;area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news University denies tenure to Holocaust academic], ''Mail &amp;amp; Guardian'', 12 June 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chomsky's Criticisms of the West==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the [[United States]] foreign policy.  Some of his criticisms are:&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic and secular leader [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in [[Guatemala]] in 1954&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973&lt;br /&gt;
#The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in [[El Salvador]] during the same time period&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons to a terror-state ([[Iran]]) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons of mass destruction to [[Saddam Hussein]] during the Iran-Iraq war.&lt;br /&gt;
#Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#Invading [[Iraq]] in 2003 against the ruling of the [[UN]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Blatant Support of [[Israel]] which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his [[Jew]]ish ethnicity&lt;br /&gt;
(Source: Hegemony or Survival)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of his critics claim that Chomsky's books are riddled with factual inaccuracies &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Despite this the above incidents are documented historical fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Linguistic Works==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Generative Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky advocates the view that the human brain has innate ability to generate gramatical sentences, thus all utterances which is deemed sensical to the speaker is necessarily grammatical, and the only role the liguist should play is to decipher its grammatical structure.  This view has been criticized by many linguists as [[nihilism|nihilistic]] in that it rejects the notion of ungrammatical sentences.  Noam Chomsky also pointed to instances of infants utter grammatical sentence fragments they have not been taught before as evidence for Generative Grammar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Universal Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky also proposed the theory that a kind of universal grammar, a grammar that underlies all human languages, is hard-wired in the human brain.  Thus all human languages are fundamentally the same, with only superficial differences.  This theory of universal grammar has been criticized by linguist Geoffrey Sampson as being not falsifiable, arguing that the grammatical generalizations made are simply observations about existing languages and not predictions about what is possible in a language.  To this day, the search for such universal grammar has been fruitless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For decades, Noam Chomsky and his followers have been trying to make sense of sentences such as: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
''Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
which are deemed to be ungrammatical by a lot of linguists; by using techniques such as linking theory, anti-c-command requirement, A-positions, Bijection Principle, weakest crossover configurations, bound variable anaphora, asymmetric linking, licensing conditions, index of apronoun, null operator analysis, variable binding, configurational conditions, inappropriate and appropriate antecedents, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/publications.html List of Chomsky's Publications]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk Chomsky Speaks about American Politics] Chomsky believes the Democrats and Republicans are a single entity&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&amp;amp;P1=1136# Video of Noam Chomsky with Hezbollah Leaders in Lebanon]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.grsampson.net/AGwg.html Grammar Without Grammaticality] by Geoffrey Sampson&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZZCvFtlw Chomsky on Middle East Television] Chomsky speaks about American Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chomsky, Noam}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:political people]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:authors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Liberal activists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314799</id>
		<title>Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314799"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:42:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Chomsky's Criticisms of the West */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|thumb|130px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Noam Avram Chomsky''' (born December 7, 1928) is a linguist who is best known for his writings on politics. He is an institute professor &amp;amp; professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the [[MIT|Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
He has always been very critical of [[America]]n and [[Israel]]i foreign policy and sympathizes with [[Palestine|Palestinians]] and has shown support for the terrorist organization [[Hezbollah]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&amp;amp;x_issue=11&amp;amp;x_article=1151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression. Chomsky counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of William Chomsky, an a [[Russian]] immigrant. His father taught [[Hebrew]], and published a scholarly edition of a medieval Hebrew grammar.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/chomsky_noam.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He received his education at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, and eventually earned his [[Ph. D.]] in 1955.  Since then, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Semitism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are &amp;quot;the most privileged and influential part of the population&amp;quot;, and that &amp;quot;Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. His statements show striking similarities with classic anti-Semitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has also been a vocal supporter of controversial author Norman Finkelstein who wrote ''The Holocaust Industry'', who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=311000&amp;amp;area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news University denies tenure to Holocaust academic], ''Mail &amp;amp; Guardian'', 12 June 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chomsky's Criticisms of the West==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the [[United States]] foreign policy.  Some of his criticisms are:&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic and secular leader [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in [[Guatemala]] in 1954&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973&lt;br /&gt;
#The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in [[El Salvador]] during the same time period&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons to a terror-state ([[Iran]]) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons of mass destruction to [[Saddam Hussein]] during the Iran-Iraq war.&lt;br /&gt;
#Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#Invading [[Iraq]] in [[2003]] against the ruling of the [[UN]]&lt;br /&gt;
#Blatant Support of [[Israel]] which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his [[Jew]]ish ethnicity&lt;br /&gt;
(Source: Hegemony or Survival)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of his critics claim that Chomsky's books are riddled with factual inaccuracies &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Despite this the above incidents are documented historical fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Linguistic Works==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Generative Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky advocates the view that the human brain has innate ability to generate gramatical sentences, thus all utterances which is deemed sensical to the speaker is necessarily grammatical, and the only role the liguist should play is to decipher its grammatical structure.  This view has been criticized by many linguists as [[nihilism|nihilistic]] in that it rejects the notion of ungrammatical sentences.  Noam Chomsky also pointed to instances of infants utter grammatical sentence fragments they have not been taught before as evidence for Generative Grammar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Universal Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky also proposed the theory that a kind of universal grammar, a grammar that underlies all human languages, is hard-wired in the human brain.  Thus all human languages are fundamentally the same, with only superficial differences.  This theory of universal grammar has been criticized by linguist Geoffrey Sampson as being not falsifiable, arguing that the grammatical generalizations made are simply observations about existing languages and not predictions about what is possible in a language.  To this day, the search for such universal grammar has been fruitless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For decades, Noam Chomsky and his followers have been trying to make sense of sentences such as: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
''Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
which are deemed to be ungrammatical by a lot of linguists; by using techniques such as linking theory, anti-c-command requirement, A-positions, Bijection Principle, weakest crossover configurations, bound variable anaphora, asymmetric linking, licensing conditions, index of apronoun, null operator analysis, variable binding, configurational conditions, inappropriate and appropriate antecedents, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/publications.html List of Chomsky's Publications]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk Chomsky Speaks about American Politics] Chomsky believes the Democrats and Republicans are a single entity&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&amp;amp;P1=1136# Video of Noam Chomsky with Hezbollah Leaders in Lebanon]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.grsampson.net/AGwg.html Grammar Without Grammaticality] by Geoffrey Sampson&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZZCvFtlw Chomsky on Middle East Television] Chomsky speaks about American Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chomsky, Noam}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:political people]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:authors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Liberal activists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314796</id>
		<title>Noam Chomsky</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&amp;diff=314796"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:41:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Chomsky's Criticisms of the West */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|thumb|130px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Noam Avram Chomsky''' (born December 7, 1928) is a linguist who is best known for his writings on politics. He is an institute professor &amp;amp; professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the [[MIT|Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
He has always been very critical of [[America]]n and [[Israel]]i foreign policy and sympathizes with [[Palestine|Palestinians]] and has shown support for the terrorist organization [[Hezbollah]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&amp;amp;x_issue=11&amp;amp;x_article=1151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression. Chomsky counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of William Chomsky, an a [[Russian]] immigrant. His father taught [[Hebrew]], and published a scholarly edition of a medieval Hebrew grammar.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/chomsky_noam.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  He received his education at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, and eventually earned his [[Ph. D.]] in 1955.  Since then, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Semitism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are &amp;quot;the most privileged and influential part of the population&amp;quot;, and that &amp;quot;Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. His statements show striking similarities with classic anti-Semitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky has also been a vocal supporter of controversial author Norman Finkelstein who wrote ''The Holocaust Industry'', who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=311000&amp;amp;area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news University denies tenure to Holocaust academic], ''Mail &amp;amp; Guardian'', 12 June 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chomsky's Criticisms of the West==&lt;br /&gt;
Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the [[United States]] foreign policy.  Some of his criticisms are:&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic and secular leader [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in [[Guatemala]] in 1954&lt;br /&gt;
#The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973&lt;br /&gt;
#The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in [[El Salvador]] during the same time period&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons to a terror-state ([[Iran]]) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])&lt;br /&gt;
#Selling weapons of mass destruction to [[Saddam Hussein]] during the Iran-Iraq war.&lt;br /&gt;
#Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s&lt;br /&gt;
#Invading Iraq in 2003 against the ruling of the UN&lt;br /&gt;
#Blatant Support of Israel which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish ethnicity&lt;br /&gt;
(Source: Hegemony or Survival)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of his critics claim that Chomsky's books are riddled with factual inaccuracies &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Despite this the above incidents are documented historical fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Linguistic Works==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Generative Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky advocates the view that the human brain has innate ability to generate gramatical sentences, thus all utterances which is deemed sensical to the speaker is necessarily grammatical, and the only role the liguist should play is to decipher its grammatical structure.  This view has been criticized by many linguists as [[nihilism|nihilistic]] in that it rejects the notion of ungrammatical sentences.  Noam Chomsky also pointed to instances of infants utter grammatical sentence fragments they have not been taught before as evidence for Generative Grammar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Universal Grammar===&lt;br /&gt;
Noam Chomsky also proposed the theory that a kind of universal grammar, a grammar that underlies all human languages, is hard-wired in the human brain.  Thus all human languages are fundamentally the same, with only superficial differences.  This theory of universal grammar has been criticized by linguist Geoffrey Sampson as being not falsifiable, arguing that the grammatical generalizations made are simply observations about existing languages and not predictions about what is possible in a language.  To this day, the search for such universal grammar has been fruitless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For decades, Noam Chomsky and his followers have been trying to make sense of sentences such as: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
''Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
which are deemed to be ungrammatical by a lot of linguists; by using techniques such as linking theory, anti-c-command requirement, A-positions, Bijection Principle, weakest crossover configurations, bound variable anaphora, asymmetric linking, licensing conditions, index of apronoun, null operator analysis, variable binding, configurational conditions, inappropriate and appropriate antecedents, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/publications.html List of Chomsky's Publications]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk Chomsky Speaks about American Politics] Chomsky believes the Democrats and Republicans are a single entity&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&amp;amp;P1=1136# Video of Noam Chomsky with Hezbollah Leaders in Lebanon]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.grsampson.net/AGwg.html Grammar Without Grammaticality] by Geoffrey Sampson&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZZCvFtlw Chomsky on Middle East Television] Chomsky speaks about American Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chomsky, Noam}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:political people]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:authors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Liberal activists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314795</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314795"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:32:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Modern use */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Communists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another chart that is similar is the political compass. It is divided into four quadrants;&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Right (Classical liberals such as Adam Smith as well as libertarians) - These individuals value both economic and personal freedom. They are support the free market like conservatives but they align with liberals when it comes to civil rights and freedoms.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Left (Modern liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader would fall into this quadrant) - Modern liberals believe that government has no right invading people's personal lives (as long as they aren't harming others) but favour more government intervention in the economy to reduce poverty and to promote equality.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Right (Modern conservatives and at the more extreme end, fascists) - The authoritarian right promotes free market economics but believes that people's personal lives should be strictly regulated. Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Margaret Thatcher are in this quadrant. Fascists such as Augusto Pinochet are also included in this quadarant but are at the most extreme ends, while conservatives tend to fall between centrist and moderate authoritarian.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Left - This quadrant includes conservative socialists and communists. They believe that both the economy and public behaviour should be controlled, at least partially by the state. An example of moderate authoritarian leftists would be a Christian democratic party or the Roman Catholic Church (moderate left wing, moderate authoritarian). Communist murders such as Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin would be at the extreme ends of authoritarianism and at varying degrees of the left wing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyrannies have one thing in common, they are both high in authoritarianism. Whether it is left wing dictators such as Castro, Mugabe, or Kim Jong il, or right wing dictators such as Karimov, the Saudi royal family, or Alvaro Uribe; they are all extreme authoritarians. A person of any economic school of thought can be a dictator if they are willing to kill for that ideology, whether communist, capitalist, or otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314794</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314794"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:31:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Modern use */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Communists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another chart that is similar is the political compass. It is divided into four quadrants;&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Right (Classical liberals such as Adam Smith as well as libertarians) - These individuals value both economic and personal freedom. They are support the free market like conservatives but they align with liberals when it comes to civil rights and freedoms.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Left (Modern liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader would fall into this quadrant) - Modern liberals believe that government has no right invading people's personal lives (as long as they aren't harming others) but favour more government intervention in the economy to reduce poverty and to promote equality.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Right (Modern conservatives and at the more extreme end, fascists) - The authoritarian right promotes free market economics but believes that people's personal lives should be strictly regulated. Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Margaret Thatcher are in this quadrant. Fascists such as Augusto Pinochet are also included in this quadarant but are at the most extreme ends, while conservatives tend to fall between centrist and moderate authoritarian.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Left - This column includes conservative socialists and communists. They believe that both the economy and public behaviour should be controlled, at least partially by the state. An example of moderate authoritarian leftists would be a Christian democratic party or the Roman Catholic Church (moderate left wing, moderate authoritarian). Communist murders such as Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin would be at the extreme ends of authoritarianism and at varying degrees of the left wing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyrannies have one thing in common, they are both high in authoritarianism. Whether it is left wing dictators such as Castro, Mugabe, or Kim Jong il, or right wing dictators such as Karimov, the Saudi royal family, or Alvaro Uribe; they are all extreme authoritarians. A person of any economic school of thought can be a dictator if they are willing to kill for that ideology, whether communist, capitalist, or otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314793</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314793"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:31:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Modern use */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Communists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another chart that is similar is the political compass. It is divided into four quadrants;&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Right (Classical liberals such as Adam Smith as well as libertarians) - These individuals value both economic and personal freedom. They are support the free market like conservatives but they align with liberals when it comes to civil rights and freedoms.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Left (Modern liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader would fall into this quadrant) - Modern liberals believe that government has no right invading people's personal lives (as long as they aren't harming others) but favour more government intervention in the economy to reduce poverty and to promote equality.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Right (Modern conservatives and at the more extreme end, fascists) - The authoritarian right promotes free market economics but believes that people's personal lives should be strictly regulated. Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Margaret Thatcher are in this quadrant. Fascists such as Augusto Pinochet are also included in this quadarant but are at the most extreme ends, while conservatives tend to fall between centrist and moderate authoritarian.&lt;br /&gt;
* The Authoritarian Left - This column includes conservative socialists and communists. They believe that both the economy and public behaviour should be controlled, at least partially by the state. An example of moderate authoritarian leftists would be a Christian democratic party or the Roman Catholic Church (moderate left wing, moderate authoritarian). Communist murders such as Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin would be at the extreme ends of authoritarianism and at varying degrees of the left wing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyrannies have one thing in common, they are both high in authoritarianism. Whether it is left wing dictators such as Castro, Mugabe, or Kim Jong il, or right wing dictators such as Karimov, the Saudi royal family, or Alvaro Uribe; they are all extreme authoritarians. A person of any economic school of thought can be a dictator if they are willing to kill for that ideology, whether communist, capitalist, or otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314792</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314792"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:26:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Modern use */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Communists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another chart that is similar is the political compass. It is divided into four quadrants;&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Right (Classical liberals such as Adam Smith as well as libertarians) - These individuals value both economic and personal freedom. They are support the free market like conservatives but they align with liberals when it comes to civil rights and freedoms.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Left (Modern liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader would fall into this quadrant) - Modern liberals believe that government has no right invading people's personal lives (as long as they aren't harming others) but favour more government intervention in the economy to reduce poverty and to promote equality.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Authoritarian Right (Modern conservatives and at the more extreme end, fascists) - The authoritarian right promotes free market economics but believes that people's personal lives should be strictly regulated. Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Margaret Thatcher are in this quadrant. Fascists such as Augusto Pinochet are also included in this quadarant but are at the most extreme ends, while conservatives tend to fall between centrist and moderate authoritarian.&lt;br /&gt;
* The Authoritarian Left&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314791</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314791"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:23:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* Modern use */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Communists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another chart that is similar is the political compass. It is divided into four quadrants;&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Right (Classical liberals such as Adam Smith as well as libertarians) - These individuals value both economic and personal freedom. They are support the free market like conservatives but they align with liberals when it comes to civil rights and freedoms.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Libertarian Left (Modern liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader would fall into this quadrant) - Modern liberals believe that government has no right invading people's personal lives (as long as they aren't harming others) but favour more government intervention in the economy to reduce poverty and to promote equality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314790</id>
		<title>Political Spectrum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&amp;diff=314790"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:18:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: /* External links */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The idea of a '''political spectrum''' stems from deliberative bodies in which groups of like-minded men would sit on opposite sides of a chamber, which gave rise to terms like &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; being attached to the views of the men on those sides. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was &amp;quot;adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights.&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Definitions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original definition referred to Church and State issues from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root was faith vs. rationalism, or the Church vs. [[secularism]]. The so-called &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;, defined as &amp;quot;traditional interests&amp;quot; referred to the Church &amp;amp; monarchy who ruled by the [[Divine right of kings]], and the so-called &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; constituted secular elements challenging the Church's long-held influence over civil government.  These definitions have always been problematic when attempting to assign Western notions of &amp;quot;left and right&amp;quot; to societies which traditionally have no conception of separation of church and states, such as in Islam &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1993/11/political-career-of-muhammad.html The Political Career of Muhammad], Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'' Annex II TO III. C. (ii) (b) p. 466.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or Czarist Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monarchy and titled nobility became known as the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot;; this idea however has been disabused in the United States where a landlord class of titled nobles never existed, and in fact is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Hence Europeans today, based upon their own cultural idioms and history, have an extremely discolored view of what  the &amp;quot;American right&amp;quot; is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another common misperception is, while the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; has become identified with defending and advocating [[Judeo-Christian]] values, [[secular]] [[atheist]] mass movements such as [[National Socialism]] are often either mistakenly or deliberately labeled as [[right-wing]]. This fallacy has been particularly well illustrated in our own time by examining the modern [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] [[regime]]s of [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]]. Both have their roots in the anti-clerical influences of Western [[Socialism]] against fundamentalist [[Islam]], and inherently promote &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; against oppressive religious [[theocracy]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ozconservative.com/whatisconsshort.htm What is conservatism?]Mark Richardson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; is often described as advocating &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; of traditional systems and institutions of a society, however the leftist regimes of [[Cuba]] and [[North Korea]] stoutly resist changes other leftist regimes abandoned 20 years ago after seven decades of stagnation and exploitation of the oppressed common people by a privileged leftist ruling elite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the left may challenge the authority, legitimacy and even existence of a Supreme power, the right is beholden to traditional faith-based cultural attitudes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Origins==&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of the [[French Revolution]], when the existing order, or ''[[Ancien Regime]]'' had been overthrown, the idea of [[nationalism]] did not exist throughout most of [[Europe]].  During the violent years of 1793 and 1794 in France, a love of the ''Patrie'', or the nation, was cultivated to replace the foundations upon which [[society]] had been built under the old order.  Under the stimulus of this movement for national unification, Catholicism was faced with the competition of a worship of national patriotism.  [[Nationalism]] grew out of this new will to construct and shape the political community. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David A. Bell, ''The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800'', (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_37/ai_109668489]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This transmutation of a love of God to a love of &amp;quot;the people&amp;quot; as being the basis for a social and political order spread across Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century.  In Germany it became a recognition and consciousness of &amp;quot;''das volk''&amp;quot;, later in Russia it was a dedication to the &amp;quot;''narodny''&amp;quot;.  By the mid-nineteenth century, Socialism as a doctrine sought to overthrow the existing order of society, the Church and aristocracy, by promoting atheism and nationalism.  The basic tenet was to replace the individual's commitment to love and serve God with the individual's commitment to love and serve the collective society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has always been [[authoritarian]] from its beginnings. It began as a reaction against the [[classical liberalism]] of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Henri de Saint-Simon, predicted those who did not obey his proposed [[economic plan]]ning boards would be ‘treated as cattle.’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalism can be defined as pride in one's native language and culture.  Socialist theoriticians, wanting to overthrow the exisitng order, stirred up nationalist resentment among the minorities within the larger German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The reaction among Austrian Socialists was quite different. A solution to the problem of nationalities became policy in Austria-Hungary on two levels: territorial autonomy for territorial minorities, and &amp;quot;personal autonomy&amp;quot; for members of minorities dispersed among peoples of different languages and cultures.  Minorities were to be granted the right to have their own schools and their own institutions. Many minorities realized it was better to remain subjects of the supra-national Hapsburg state than to be subordinate to repressive policies and actions of other national groups. Austrian Socialists rejected the idea of national liberation movements and the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy into independent national units. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. L. Talmon, ''The Unique and the Universal'', Secker &amp;amp; Warburg, London 1965. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the twentieth century, [[V.I. Lenin]] insisted on the right of subjugated peoples to break away from the great empires. Once the [[Bolsheviks]] were in power in Russia however, any attempt on the part of  the subjugated peoples to break away from the Socialist Union of nations was considered [[counter-revolutionary]] activity. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;talmon&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Friedrich Hayek]] of the London School of Economics and Political Science writing in the Spring of 1933 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, ''Memorandum on Nazi-Socialism spring of 1933''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
remarked,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Nothing could be more superficial than to consider the forces which dominate the Germany of today as reactionary — in the sense that they want a return to the social and economic order of 1914. The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the antiliberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &amp;quot;socialism of the chair&amp;quot; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i30/30b00401.htm 'The Road to Serfdom'],  The Chronicle of Higher Education, ''The Chronicle Review'', Volume 53, Issue 30, Page B4, March 30, 2007. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern use==&lt;br /&gt;
The Left/Right scale is a misleading way of comparing political systems. People use the Left/Right approach out of habit, but it leads to confusion. For example, [[Fascism]] is often placed on the Right and [[Socialism]] on the Left. Yet fascism is [[National Socialist German Workers Party|&amp;quot;National&amp;quot; Socialism]].  Indeed, the left/right scale is just an obsolete reference to the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1790's.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/nolanchart.html Beyond Left/Right]&lt;br /&gt;
by [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/marshall-fritz.html Marshall Fritz], 1987.  Retrieved from lairdwilcox.com 05/25/07. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 1970, Denver advertising executive David Nolan invented the Nolan Chart to overcome the inherently illogical weakness of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq02 Why did the Advocates create the World's Smallest Political Quiz?] Retrieved from theadvocates.org 06/01/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|The Nolan Chart overcomes the weaknesses of the outdated Left/Right political spectrum.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Economic&amp;quot; category includes what you do as a producer and consumer. These are your actions that can be described in money. Examples are earning a wage, buying a car, renting a motorhome.&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Civil&amp;quot; (or personal) category includes what you do in relationships and expressing yourself. These actions are NOT measured in money. Examples are the way you worship God, or don't; what books or magazines give you pleasure; your personal tradeoffs between today's fun and tomorrow's health. The Bill of Rights is aimed at your freedoms in this category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nolan saw how political families can be understood by the degree of INDIVIDUAL choice they offer in these categories. You can use this improved way of mapping political thought to better understand your local, national and international political environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Left/Liberals like personal choice in civil matters and central decision-making in economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged and promote equality. Left/Liberals place high value on good intentions.  They accept diversity in social behavior but seek more equality in economics. They work with Libertarians in defending civil liberties and with Socialists in advancing economic central planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right/Conservatives like personal choice in economics and central decision-making in civil matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to it's moral fiber. Right/Conservatives place high value on laws and legislation.  They accept diversity in economics but seek similarity in social behavior. They work with Libertarians in defending economic freedoms and with Populists in enforcing community standards in social matters. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialists &amp;amp; [[Populist]]s favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to &amp;quot;correct wrongs.&amp;quot; While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Liberals/Libertarians like personal choice in both civil and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to safeguard people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility and tolerance. Libertarians accept diversity in both social behavior and in economic situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centrists favor selective governmental intervention and temporary affiliations with others. They take a strong stance on few issues, preferring the middle position in most matters. Centrists emphasize practical solutions to current public issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you &amp;quot;go too far&amp;quot; (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Extreme polarization==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of gays and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nomenklatura]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Communist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Socialist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fascist]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Political profiling]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.gif&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html&amp;amp;h=697&amp;amp;w=724&amp;amp;sz=181&amp;amp;tbnid=eAv0lAZBMDi55M:&amp;amp;tbnh=135&amp;amp;tbnw=140&amp;amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bspectrum&amp;amp;start=2&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=images&amp;amp;ct=image&amp;amp;cd=2 a 2-d view] with left-right based on US politics and a novel vertical axis&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alvaro_Uribe&amp;diff=314789</id>
		<title>Alvaro Uribe</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alvaro_Uribe&amp;diff=314789"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:11:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Alvaro Uribe Velez''' (July 4th, 1952 - ) is the repressive [[right]]ist [[dictator]] of the Republic of [[Colombia]].  Alvaro Uribe was born in Medellin, capital of the department of Antioquia in Colombia.  Uribe holds a degree in law from the Universidad de Antioquia and a post-graduate degree in Management and Administration from Harvard University. From 1998 to 1999 after being awarded the [[Simon Bolivar]] fellowship by the British Council in Bogotá, he worked as an associate professor at Oxford University. He is perhaps the greatest president in ''modern'' Colombian history {{fact}} and has maintained a steadfast alliance with the United States. Urbie was elected as President in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, by large majorities. President Uribe and his government have been linked to right wing death squads which operate throughout the countryside, killing suspected insurgents as well as innocent peasants [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/16/Colombia.Watergate.reut/index.html].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early career==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1976 he became head of the Real Estate Department of the city of Medellín's Public Works.  From 1977 to 1978 he was Secretary General of the Labor Ministry and from 1980 to 1982, head of the Department of Civil Aeronautics. He was the mayor of his native city of Medellín in 1982 and later, from 1984 to 1986, he was elected as city counselor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was elected governor of the department of Antioquia for the 1995-1997 period, during which he developed a model of communal participation in key government decisions such as the creation of new jobs, education, the granting of official state contracts and public safety, which he called Community State.  During his term as governor, Alvaro Uribe sized down the number of government jobs by 34% and the number of official vehicles by 35%. Such savings in government spending meant schooling for 103,000 new students. As governor he also devised a program by which, 40,000 people received training in the peaceful negotiation of conflicts.  200,000 of Antioquia's poor became eligible for free health care under the nation's subsidized health insurance System.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was also responsible for the paving of 939 kilometers of roads. More than double the amount of paved roads in all of Antioquia's history. And extensive repair work was done on the roads which link Antioquia with the nation's capital, Bogotá. The number of kidnapping cases in the department, went down by 60% thanks to the cooperation of the community with the local authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was elected Senator for the periods 1986-1990 and 1990-1994, terms during which he received the Star Senator, Senator with the Best Programs and Best Senator awards.&lt;br /&gt;
==Situation in Colombia==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was democratically elected with 62 per cent of the vote and has built roads and lowered crime rates in major cities.  He has been harshly criticized by human rights groups for alleged violations of human rights. There are accusations that Uribe has personal connections to the United Self-Defence group of Colombia (AUC) terrorist group. The Colombian military is known to work hand-in-hand with this terrorist group because they share a common enemy, the leftist terrorist group [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=96 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)], Retrieved from the Terrorism Knowledge Base, June 4 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Protestors in Washington and Bogota have leveled harsh criticism at Uribe and his regime. They allege of around 400 unionist killed in Colombia, there have been 10 convictions so far.[http://colombiaherald.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/demonstrators-in-washington-call-uribe-an-assassin-pictures/]. Amnesty International in a statement acknowledged, &amp;quot;undoubtedly, Colombia is facing an extremely difficult situation due to the action of armed groups refusing to respect international humanitarian law and to acknowledge the right of the civilian population to stay out of the hostilities&amp;quot; but &amp;quot;expressed dismay for the measures adopted to guarantee greater security are being aime at others whose security against abuses of power maybe undermined.&amp;quot; [http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_colombia].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Source==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/americas/21colombia.html?ex=1327035600&amp;amp;en=ad8d53a3750a2092&amp;amp;ei=5088&amp;amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;amp;emc=rss&lt;br /&gt;
*http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_colombia&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/16/Colombia.Watergate.reut/index.html&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Heads of state]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right&amp;diff=314788</id>
		<title>Right</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right&amp;diff=314788"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:08:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Right, in terms, of politics, is a term used to describe people who are socially and economically conservative. The term has slightly different meanings in Europe and the United States. In Europe the left/right dicotomy is used to discuss economics only. Hitler on an economic scale, was not an extreme right wingers (laissez faire capitalism) but he was an extreme authoritarian (the state is more important then the individual). Also Ron Paul, a libertarian candidate is fairly right wing on economics but is moderate socially while Bush is both right wing and authoritarian. Fidel Castro would be an authoritarian leftist, while leftists like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky would be liberal leftists.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right&amp;diff=314787</id>
		<title>Right</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right&amp;diff=314787"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:06:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: New page: Right, in terms, of politics, is a term used to describe people who are socially and economically conservative. The term has slightly different meanings in Europe and the United States.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Right, in terms, of politics, is a term used to describe people who are socially and economically conservative. The term has slightly different meanings in Europe and the United States.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alvaro_Uribe&amp;diff=314786</id>
		<title>Alvaro Uribe</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alvaro_Uribe&amp;diff=314786"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:04:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Alvaro Uribe Velez''' (July 4th, 1952 - ) is the repressive [[right]]ist [[dictator]] of the Republic of [[Colombia]].  Alvaro Uribe was born in Medellin, capital of the department of Antioquia in Colombia.  Uribe holds a degree in law from the Universidad de Antioquia and a post-graduate degree in Management and Administration from Harvard University. From 1998 to 1999 after being awarded the [[Simon Bolivar]] fellowship by the British Council in Bogotá, he worked as an associate professor at Oxford University. He is perhaps the greatest president in ''modern'' Colombian history {{fact}} and has maintained a steadfast alliance with the United States. Urbie was elected as President in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, by large majorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early career==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1976 he became head of the Real Estate Department of the city of Medellín's Public Works.  From 1977 to 1978 he was Secretary General of the Labor Ministry and from 1980 to 1982, head of the Department of Civil Aeronautics. He was the mayor of his native city of Medellín in 1982 and later, from 1984 to 1986, he was elected as city counselor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was elected governor of the department of Antioquia for the 1995-1997 period, during which he developed a model of communal participation in key government decisions such as the creation of new jobs, education, the granting of official state contracts and public safety, which he called Community State.  During his term as governor, Alvaro Uribe sized down the number of government jobs by 34% and the number of official vehicles by 35%. Such savings in government spending meant schooling for 103,000 new students. As governor he also devised a program by which, 40,000 people received training in the peaceful negotiation of conflicts.  200,000 of Antioquia's poor became eligible for free health care under the nation's subsidized health insurance System.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was also responsible for the paving of 939 kilometers of roads. More than double the amount of paved roads in all of Antioquia's history. And extensive repair work was done on the roads which link Antioquia with the nation's capital, Bogotá. The number of kidnapping cases in the department, went down by 60% thanks to the cooperation of the community with the local authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was elected Senator for the periods 1986-1990 and 1990-1994, terms during which he received the Star Senator, Senator with the Best Programs and Best Senator awards.&lt;br /&gt;
==Situation in Colombia==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uribe was democratically elected with 62 per cent of the vote and has built roads and lowered crime rates in major cities.  He has been harshly criticized by human rights groups for alleged violations of human rights. There are accusations that Uribe has personal connections to the United Self-Defence group of Colombia (AUC) terrorist group. The Colombian military is known to work hand-in-hand with this terrorist group because they share a common enemy, the leftist terrorist group [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=96 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)], Retrieved from the Terrorism Knowledge Base, June 4 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Protestors in Washington and Bogota have leveled harsh criticism at Uribe and his regime. They allege of around 400 unionist killed in Colombia, there have been 10 convictions so far.[http://colombiaherald.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/demonstrators-in-washington-call-uribe-an-assassin-pictures/]. Amnesty International in a statement acknowledged, &amp;quot;undoubtedly, Colombia is facing an extremely difficult situation due to the action of armed groups refusing to respect international humanitarian law and to acknowledge the right of the civilian population to stay out of the hostilities&amp;quot; but &amp;quot;expressed dismay for the measures adopted to guarantee greater security are being aime at others whose security against abuses of power maybe undermined.&amp;quot; [http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_colombia].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Source==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/americas/21colombia.html?ex=1327035600&amp;amp;en=ad8d53a3750a2092&amp;amp;ei=5088&amp;amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;amp;emc=rss&lt;br /&gt;
*http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_colombia&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/16/Colombia.Watergate.reut/index.html&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Heads of state]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314785</id>
		<title>Democratic Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314785"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:02:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines [[democracy]], [[civil liberties]], and [[socialism]]. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most of mainstream America which considers [[socialism]] synonomous with [[dictatorship]] and [[capitalism]] synanomous with [[democracy]] but this is not how democratic socialists view the world. [[Capitalism]] can sometimes be associated with brutal [[dictatorship]]s; the Somoza dynasty in [[Nicaragua]], the Karimov regime in [[Uzbekistan]], and the brutal reign of [[Chile]]an [[dictator]] [[Augusto Pinochet]] (who was installed in a US-backed military coup) are all example of brutal capitalist tyrannies. Capitalism can be associated with democracy and dictatorship much the same way socialism can. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as [[Marxist]]s and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and [[France]]. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include [[Venezuela]] and [[Bolivia]] (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the [[America]]n Mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of [[human rights abuses]] or just an ideological disagreement).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314784</id>
		<title>Democratic Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314784"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:01:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines [[democracy]], [[civil liberties]], and [[socialism]]. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most of mainstream America which considers [[socialism]] synonomous with [[dictatorship]] and [[capitalism]] synanomous with [[democracy]] but this is not how democratic socialists view the world. [[Capitalism]] can sometimes be associated with brutal [[dictatorship]]s; the Somoza dynasty in [[Nicaragua]], the Karimov regime in [[Uzbekistan]], and the brutal reign of [[Chile]]an [[dictator]] [[Augusto Pinochet]] (who was installed in a US-backed military coup) are all example of brtual capitalist tyrannies. Capitalism can be associated with democracy and dictatorship much the same way socialism can. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as [[Marxist]]s and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and [[France]]. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include [[Venezuela]] and [[Bolivia]] (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the [[America]]n Mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of [[human rights abuses]] or just an ideological disagreement).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314783</id>
		<title>Democratic Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314783"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:01:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines [[democracy]], [[civil liberties]], and [[socialism]]. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most of mainstream America which considers [[socialism]] synonomous with [[dictatorship]] and [[capitalism]] synanomous with [[democracy]] but this is not how democratic socialists view the world. [[Capitalism]] can sometimes be associated with brutal [[dictatorship]]s; the Somoza dynasty in [[Nicaragua]], the Karimov regime in [[Uzbekistan]], and the brutal reign of [[Chile]]an [[dictator]] [[Augusto Pinochet]] (who was installed in a US-backed military coup) are all example of brtual capitalist tyrannies. Capitalism can be associated with democracy and dictatorship much the same way socialism can. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as [[Marxist]]s and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and [[France]]. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include [[Venezuela]] and [[Bolivia]] (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the [[America]]n Mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of [[human rights abuses]] or just an ideological disagreement).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Political Ideologies]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Democracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Socialism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314782</id>
		<title>Democratic Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314782"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:00:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines [[democracy]], [[civil liberties]], and [[socialism]]. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most of mainstream America which considers [[socialism]] synonomous with [[dictatorship]] and [[capitalism]] synanomous with [[democracy]] but this is not how democratic socialists view the world. [[Capitalism]] can sometimes be associated with brutal [[dictatorship]]s; the Somoza dynasty in [[Nicaragua]], the Karimov regime in [[Uzbekistan]], and the brutal reign of [[Chile]]an [[dictator]] [[Augusto Pinochet]] (who was installed in a US-backed military coup) are all example of brtual capitalist tyrannies. Capitalism can be associated with democracy and dictatorship much the same way socialism can. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as [[Marxist]]s and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and [[France]]. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include [[Venezuela]] and [[Bolivia]] (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the [[America]]n Mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of [[human rights abuses]] or just an ideological disagreement).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314781</id>
		<title>Democratic Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Socialism&amp;diff=314781"/>
		<updated>2007-10-12T16:00:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AllahuAkbarJihad: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Democratic Socialism is a political ideology that combines [[democracy]], [[civil liberties]], and [[socialism]]. It is an ideology that is in opposition to most of mainstream America which considers [[socialism]] synonomous with [[dictatorship]] and [[capitalism]] synanomous with [[democracy]] but this is not how democratic socialists view the world. Capitalism can sometimes be associated with brutal dictatorships; the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua, the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, and the brutal reign of Chilean dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] (who was installed in a US-backed military coup) are all example of brtual capitalist tyrannies. Capitalism can be associated with democracy and dictatorship much the same way socialism can. Democratic socialists are not as ideologically rigid as [[Marxist]]s and other Communists and will usually allow private enterprise to exist but will strictly regulate it. Some Democratic Socialist countries in the First World include the Scandinavian countries and [[France]]. Emerging socialist democracies in the Third World include [[Venezuela]] and [[Bolivia]] (although the former and sometimes the latter are considered dictatorships by many in the [[America]]n Mainstream, it is not known whether this is because of [[human rights abuses]] or just an ideological disagreement).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AllahuAkbarJihad</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>