The Spectrium of politics goes like this:

that's socialism. also, it's not "independence" and she wrongfully puts it. it's dependence.

There you go again with textbook answers. What about someone like Lincoln. Lincoln was a nationalist for sure. Was he to the right of free traders? The most vocal free trade advocates of the time were the Confederate slave-owners who opposed him. Were they centrists?

Nope. Assuming anyone is in only one group would be wrong. Take me for example. I'm Pro-choice, and I support the reasons we went to war. Nobody has to fall into one group or the other. You could be a full blown communist in this country, people might make fun of you, but you can be one. You, like so many of the fools who talk about politics, assume that a person has to pick a side. There is a gray.

Also, textbook answers are far better than anything the internet can come up with. If you disagree with that, then you should try to have them removed from schools - I would totally help you with that, too. I hate them (*)(*)(*)(*)ing things.

Here is the issue. I consider myself to be a nationalist in the truest, historical sense of the word. I dispute the idea that my nationalism can be placed anywhere on that spectrum. For example, Lincoln was a nationialist. Some would argue that he was on the left because he favored abolition. Probably nobody would argue he was on the right. I would argue that he was neither on the left, nor the right. I would argue that your spectrum not only mischaracterizes nationialism, it slanders and confuses it.

The same goes for Free Trade. That's not a centrist position! It's a policy that nationalists like Lincoln opposed. Lincoln opposed Free Trade because he wished to protect American economic interests from British imperialism. Free Trade was an imperial policy. I say it still is.

One can also put forward a pretty strong argument that communism and fascism are in many ways very similar. For example, they both ignore the value of the individual. I say that chart is bogus. It's like a roadmap that points you in the wrong direction any way you look at it.

I almost forgot this thread is called liberal fascism. I didn’t read the book, but I tend to agree that liberalism, as we know it, is in many ways fascistic. I could start with the fact that Hitler was a proto-environmentalist, and a vegetarian to boot. Environmentalism as we know it seeks to deny scientific and technological advances upon which our progress depends. It seeks to block any development of the infrastructure and industry upon which our livelihood is premised. When you slam the door on human progress, you back the individual into a position of weakness. They can only be kept in that corner by coercive government in one form or another. Coercive government is fascist government. Liberals impose coercive government under the guise of "left wing" niceties. Hence the cover of the book. Fascism with a big happy smile. Fascism with a liberal face.

well, that's supposed to make a circle.

It makes a circle like a dog chasing his tail.

yup. no person or group is going to fall into one category or the other, but in general, Liberals are left wing, and republicans are right wing. it's more of a ideology than anything else. communists believe the government should rule everything, fascists believe the military should, free markets believe there is very little government intervention. a nationalist is just someone who feels that their countries traditional values should remain in tack. they don't feel the need to change. for example, Christians don't support gay marriage because that's one of the values of the bible. it doesn't mean that you can't be against the war even if you're a nationalist.

The nazis were socialists.