What type of right winger are you? Quiz



I thought alt-lite would be highest, but at least it’s second highest. Though it is generally surprising as I don’t promote extreme nationalism and I’m not socially conservative.


Lol bullshit





I’m interventionist (kinda) but I’m not a neocon in the sense of 2nd/3rd gen neoconservatism. fuck that liberal shit. i certainly don’t believe in toppling regimes just to instate democracies


70 % National Socialist lol. I guess as a leftie I sort of break he test, but I thought this was pretty funny.


This is a quiz intended for right wingers, so it’s not surprising that it screws with lefties, it got me accurately for example



“What type of American liberal or leftist do you most hate?”

I have never spent more time answering a single question… went on a whim and just clicked Dem elites.

“Who is your favorite president of the last century?”

Real answer is Roosevelt I but I clicked Nixon as he’s closest.

Also accidentally clicked Pinochet before I realised the question only wanted me to select one person from both questions. Probably upped my alt scores.

@Nationalist_Libertarian Our views are so different yet so close.

I expected Paleoconservative to be a bit higher though.

Out of interest, what did you do on the economy questions?

National Liberal should be on this list. National Conservative already is (paleocon)





We’re both nationalists, but we disagree on economic measures and have different priorities,

Basically I said I’m in favour of Keynesian economics and I lean towards a free market, I also said that tarrifs are useful in the short term, e.g building up an industry but should be abandoned in the long run, I also said I liked universal Heath care.




so did i

i didn’t specifically click keynesian on that single question, i went american (chicago+tariffs), but i did on other occassions say the state should intervene in the economy fiscally to correct failures

i yo-yo between this and selective permanent tariffs that alternate to suit demand and to create an equilibrium. in this test I selected the latter.

but I do sometimes hold your version of this view, for example, for fintech.

but aren’t your views redundant in a developed economy? what have we got to build up?

same, pretty redundant in non-american sphere.


I’m guessing you are not a futurist, then?



I explicitly said I don’t care about climate change because I won’t be alive.

“In the long-run, we’re all dead” - Keynes = my life motto.

Besides, I agree with Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman that growth, essentially, is dead. There’s a whole book on it. Technological change will never again be revolutionary.

In the century after the Civil War, an economic revolution improved the American standard of living in ways previously unimaginable. Electric lighting, indoor plumbing, motor vehicles, air travel, and television transformed households and workplaces. But has that era of unprecedented growth come to an end? Weaving together a vivid narrative, historical anecdotes, and economic analysis, The Rise and Fall of American Growth challenges the view that economic growth will continue unabated, and demonstrates that the life-altering scale of innovations between 1870 and 1970 cannot be repeated. Gordon contends that the nation’s productivity growth will be further held back by the headwinds of rising inequality, stagnating education, an aging population, and the rising debt of college students and the federal government, and that we must find new solutions. A critical voice in the most pressing debates of our time, The Rise and Fall of American Growth is at once a tribute to a century of radical change and a harbinger of tougher times to come.[/quote]

Here’s two different views on it:


Have you heard, that Libertarianism is a G a t e w A Y to left politics?


When your Keynesian but lie about it on the same test [quote=“Cameronism, post:13, topic:111156”]
but aren’t your views redundant in a developed economy? what have we got to build up?

In Ireland and much of Europe diversification is necessary, too much of our economy is based on our corp tax and that’s being threatened by economically literate governments like Therasa May.


Does such writing take the cognitive capacities of quantum computing into account? It’s all about that technological singularity if you don’t think humans are capable of it anymore. I’ll read those when I have more time, but on the surface I agree. America is obsolete.


I admit, tests like these can be a bit flawed through own responses, since I consider Keynesian to be a bit of an insult, and I don’t fully agree with Keynesian doctrine, even though on those it’s probably the closest to my view.

But I do fundamentally agree with the state interfering fiscally.

It’s just that in general, or perhaps in the long-run, I prefer a state that isn’t very regulated and has lax fiscal policies.

Many industries simply will never be viable in countries like Ireland though. I don’t see much viability in the “new industry” argument when it comes to developed economies.

I mean let’s take the United States, which is pretty much the zenith of development in terms of diversity. Every industry is established. What else to protect?

Yes, the book was only published some 400 days ago.

Heck, it even explicitly argues that the IT revolution is not remotely comparable to previous revolutions, since it did not fundamentally alter life as we know it. Even extends to say that the prospect of driverless cars is possibly one of the most overhyped ‘microchanges’ to life.

However, the book doesn’t really agree with the concept of post-scarcity possibility, which is what many people talking about quantum computing generally lean to anecdotally.

Sure, but then, if you think about it, doesn’t that ultimately stop human progress in itself and just confirm his views that our lives will never again be changed in a revolution-like way?

We live radically different daily lives from our great great great grandparents, great great grandparents, great grandparents, grandparents but to a lesser extent our parents, where it is fairly comparable and hearing stories you’d hardly be surprised at what’s happening, since it’s basically you’re life. Will our grandchildren live a life remotely different to ours?

The book is some 750 pages long, you’d rather benefit more from the author’s own two-A4 summary.