Fun thing about pyramids: Without the wide base, the top rests on nothing. The bottom can exist in a lesser state without the top, but the top *absolutely* needs the bottom so support itself.
@@xXRickTrolledXx Actually, it's the other way around: You can perfectly well have a shoe without shoelaces, and indeed some are designed with no shoelaces at all, but without its shoe a shoelace is nothing but a piece of string.
@Luís Andrade 1. The part of the video @Remedi quotes is about similarity between war and capitalism, not compatibility. Both are struggles, competitions from which winners and losers emerge, both tend to lead to monopolies/last mand standing situations. 2. That said, war and capitalism are very much compatible. At least small scale wars, ideally far from one's own shores are very good for business. Almost a perpetuum mobile of profit even: The more weapons you sell to the warring parties the longer the war rages on - in turn necessitating more weapons which you are all too happy to supply.
@Luís Andrade Imagine thinking that the military-industrial complex doesn’t exist. War is profitable and the desire for profit is capitalism’s main engine.
This statement goes to show for a fact the capitalism is just a monarchy with a greater emphasis on individualism than birthright. Although it might be the same thing once you factor in the wealth = wealth equation.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Except that Jonathan Haidt is wrong about a whole host of things. Have you actually read 'The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail'? A surprising number of self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies for a peer-reviewed paper. The Social Intuitionist Model that is proposed in that paper inherits those problems and then multiplies them out into Moral Foundations Theory... and in doing so ignores the ample work on what Intuition actually is that was coming to the fore between 2001 and 2011. But what, specifically, do you see as a "dishonest framing"? Bearing in mind that, if you're reading Haidt, you agree that the video presents Conservatism from a leftist point of view and therefore isn't dishonest (because dishonesty implies intent), so much as it is mistaken about the moral underpinnings of the conservative view.
I find it hilarious that conservatives claim to support rights of the individual when they are always trying to stop policies that allow for more individuality and self-expression.
@@gustavjacobsson3332 You can think whatever the hell you want, but you shouldn't bring it into the real world in a way that seriously limits other people's freedom of expression or agency. Ideally, a human's freedom should end where another human's freedom begins.
@@gustavjacobsson3332 you can take some liberals' belief that you should excise intolerant people from online circles, to the extreme of "And you are doing the same with what we're allowed to think,' but when we take white supremacists, who believe that white people are superior to other races, usually fundamentally, with many big names in it unironically advocating for an ethnostate where you would deport non-white people, usually with violence, and bring their arguments to even the next logical progression of calling for violence against these groups and thats the line; thats where you think we're extending the reasoning far beyond where it's applicable?
@@gustavjacobsson3332 being a white supremacist is innately morally abhorrent, so yes they does something unethical just in holding those beliefs and it speaks to serious moral failings on their part. As for twitter banning them for using its platform in a way that breaks their rules, that's entirely within their rights in a capitalist society. If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with capitalism comrade. And as for people choosing to criticize this hypothetical white supremacist, they is well within their rights, freedom of speech, association and thought are bot freedom from social consequences. Express a belief that people find unacceptable and you shouldn't be surprised that they turn against you. They have the right, just as you, to say what they want and to consort with whoever they want as private individuals. If people choose to "cancel" someone for being outed as a white supremacist by refusing to support then monetarily, then that is well within their rights as private individuals are free to associate with whoever they please. If you have a problem with any of this then you have a problem with capitalism and/or civil liberties. Which seems to be par for the course for modern reactionary conservatism.
As a former conservative fighting with this entire video series, everything you have said was deeply and uncomfortably true up to this point, and anybody who says otherwise is simply lying to themselves.
It becomes even more uncomfortable once you realize the implications it has, not only for your social life, but your relationships with not even the really conservative family members, but even the family members you once thought were cool. And heaven forbid you actually go digging into family history. As the saying goes "are we the baddies"?
Did you have much sympathy for the alt-Right and/or online trolls he spent most of his time on? I’ve always been against those goons but found a lot of what he said rather unrelatable to normie conservative/libertarian circles I’d been in and my own share of conservative beliefs (though I also hold many liberal ones, too).
@@connerclark3678 it depends what subcultures, hobbies, beliefs and even locations you inhabit to how much it becomes palatable. and yes, even now as a radical leftist, i still think it's important to understand why they are that way, even just as an inoculation to prevent more people becoming like them. further, if you found a lot of what he said unrelatable to more "moderate" forms of conservatism, there's a lot you don't know, because as someone who has lived from far right misogynist to far left socialist, what he is saying also applies to the moderate right as well, the only difference is degrees. i lived on the "moderate right" most of my life, until i got radicalized to the far right, then radicalized in the opposite direction. there's a lot of the moderate right's point's that are "framed" as libertarian's, but are structurally authoritarian. it's easy to listen to right libertarians and think that they are arguing for structural liberty because their rhetoric use's liberty way more often then democrats, but you would be empirically wrong. further, there's a lot of modern conservatives who really don't know their own history, conservatives who adore Friedman, but don't know he was agnostic, believed in all drug legalization, and was in favor of cross dressers. to me, what defines somebody more on the left and right, isn't so much their social positions (even though that still is important) its their economic positions. the economic positions, if set up correctly, while change the social positions, while if the economic positions are incorrect, no amount of social progressivism will make a difference in the long run, because the economics will reverse all of it. you can see it in the nimbyism of some older cali dems. yimbism is economically more leftist, and young dems are wise to pick up on it.
Which kind of makes sense, based on observations from the other video. The conservative mindset is very much against moving downward on their internal pyramid - to them, they are always at "the top". At that point, accepting welfare kept Ayn from descending further down said pyramid, so of course she would accept welfare because it's there. It's kind of the same mental process seen once someone super close to someone with a conservative mindset realizing that their best friend/child/etc (or of course, themselves) is subject to a potential status change, especially one that could directly affect them. You know, like coming out.
@rohirrim 98 Rand argued that involuntary taxation is theft and thus, believed that those welfare programs created and supported by that taxation were also theft of one's goods and property. Logically, if one accepts this reasoning as axiomatic, the final conclusion that is reached from these statements is that those beneficiaries of these programs are accomplices to that theft. By accepting welfare, Ayn Rand became what she claimed to hate; an accomplice in theft. That's why it is so noxious to many people.
It's possible to admire someone greatly, and disagree with them violently. That's me, with Rand. She WAS a principled person. No human being is perfect, and the person who finally convinced her to take Social Security had an article written about that effort. There is no such thing as a value that can't be horribly perverted --- and frikken god, her philosophy has given semi-intellectual standing to some horrible perversions since her death in 1982 (If I remember right, one or two days before John Belushi).
@@kohashiguchi1454 "She WAS" NO SHE WASN'T THAT'S THE POINT. You are being disingenuous and completely idiotic when you twist and squirm and say that "no one is perfect". It's not about being perfect. It's about SAYING something and living by it. Plenty of people live up to their beliefs and aren't cowards like Rand. She did not have conviction and trying to argue essentially that no one has conviction is absolutely insane.
I'm finishing my philosophy degree right now and you touched on a point with Nietzsche that always frustrated me, which is that Nietzsche always said he wasnt a conservative or a nationalist or a Nazi, but God damn his ideas were REALLY useful to conservatives and nationalists and Nazis
Yeah there's something to be said broadly about his use of language in general too. He could, for example, say that cultures have broad trends that tend to be specific to that culture, but he instead essentializes cultures and calls them "bloods", believing that there is a hierarchy of bloods. I believe he felt the best blood was Polish. Nietzsche, even if not blatantly racist, was flippant enough with his inflammatory use of language that he was in effect racist.
@Brady Fries The language of cultural "bloods", the ideas of "master/slave" types and the whole of the will to power. I think any attempt at an appeal to the natural will end up being conservative whether it means to or not
@Brady Fries it does in the sense that modern conservatism tries to blend the thoughts of natural hierarchies with a sense of meritocracy. While that's not strictly what Nietzsche was saying, will to power is easily misinterpreted as naturalist hierarchies that are defined by meritocracy.
@Luís Andrade hardly.literqly every since thing conserqtives do is hypocrocy and projection. If you still can't see through the blatant conservative propaganda i dearly hope you have someone who checks in on you daily so you don't harm yourself or burn your house down by accident.
It's weird that critics claim you nothing about conservatism. If Burke is lauded as the "father of modern conservatism," then all your critics need to do is to give a superficial glance at "Reflections on the French Revolution" to see where you're coming from. Burke can't stop himself from not only praising property and the monarchy but also lying about the French Revolutionaries. Another read that could accompany Burke's is Thomas Paine's reaction "Rights of Man." In it, Paine goes into depth about the flaws of Burke's argument and the lies Burke spreads about the revolution. It's funny, too, how conservative rhetoric-which consists of false narratives about the "left"-has always been filled with lies, even in its origin with Burke.
Don't forget about Joseh de Maistre, while Ed. Burk is the Godfather of "Liberal Conservatism" (whis is usually more conservative than liberal), Joseph is the Godfather of "Ultra/Radical Conservatism" the thing that eventually would evolved (absorving some elements from the left/socialism) ande became to what we know today as: Fascism/Nationalsocialism!!!
@White Wolf Wikipedia page on Edmund Burke: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke End of the first section: "In the 19th century, Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals. Subsequently in the 20th century, he became widely regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism." Sources given for that second sentence: Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Third Edition. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 74. F. P. Lock, Edmund Burke. Volume II: 1784-1797 (Clarendon Press, 2006), p. 585. The actual "thing that nobody says" is the Republican party somehow not being conservative. That's made up bull. Once again, the conservative tradition of denying reality for whatever benefit they can manage rears its head.
@White Wolf "By modern conservative they actually just mean Anglo American conservatism" Yeah sure, any sources for that asspull? Conservative people may be people, but they sure are simple ass people whose facades of complexity (or being capable of thought) crumble away with a few basic observations. Ayn Rand herself, whom later in life glady accepted collecting her Social Security benefits is a perfect example. She sure did a great job recognizing the reality that Social Security is a great thing to have! If only she wasn't inflicted with the fatal selfishness that also manifests in conservatism and had spent her life supporting the existence of such welfare systems instead... Immature teenagers that fail at growing up will sadly keep feeding the numbers of conservatives for eternity, while those of us who understand the importance and need for solidarity and usage of actual facts are forced to suffer their incompetence.
3.20 that guy casually riding on someone's shoulders above a crowd full of people carrying bayonets DUDE WHAT if you slip you're gonna get impaled, dog! 6.25 Daddy
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 Considering it’s a video analyzing a political belief, and not specifically in argument *for* a particular cause, it absolutely doesn’t even fit the defining of propaganda. I get it. You don’t like it. That doesn’t make it propaganda.
@@robertlind186 they clearly don't want to "preserve" individual liberty because they opposed the liberation of slaves, voting rights for women and now they oppose abortion and LGBT rights like marriage and goverment recognition, things that would materially make human beings freer, but suddently when it's not economic freedom (aka, when it doesn't benefit the already powerful) it's "too crazy", "not important" or "too much"
@@Shireke01 lovely staw man you have there, mind if I point out the flaws. The label democrat might in the 1860s fit an individual who wanted to preserve slavery, just as the label perhaps fit conservatives. Just becuase a label might have used to describe that doesnt mean it still describes or fits the label. Modern conservatives oppose slavery and support women's right. Just as most conservatives now also support gay marriage. Even Obama in 2008 opposed gay marriage... was he considered conservative in 2008? This isnt a conservative problem, this is a human problem
@@noahwatson4310 No, it's actually, and this is not a joke, him explaining a bad reaction to apple cider preceding a debate with Sam Harris. Just look up "JBP cider" or something.
@@wuba556 No, no one can. It's just the same empty crap as always. 1)He's racist! 2)OK, why is he racist? 1)Because he is! 2)Yeah, but are there specific reasons to believe this? 1)He's a bigot and eats meat! 2)Wtf does that have anything to do with this? 1)You're a racist just like Peterson! 2)What? 1) You hate black people because you like Peterson! 2) I don't think it works like that. 1) That's because you're so racist! You can't see it beyond your white privilege. 2) I'm a Native American. 1)... 2) So, why is he racist again? 1) Omg I am done talking to someone as racist as you. 2) ok bye...
America has been deep dicking Central and South America, from like late 1800’s Panama to the union busting of the 1950’s United Fruit company in Argentina, to Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, the “small” conflict in the Panama in 89-90, to Venezuela in the early 2000’s and Venezuela again today.
Being probably much older than your average follower of this channel, I have to say that not all older people are Conservatives, not all support white supremacy and more of that idiotic nonsense. As I said in a previous post, I've beaten up plenty of neo Nazis and fascists in my time (trust me - it feels damn good to see them cry like a baby) and I am now thoroughly happy with the fact that more and more people here and elsewhere finally are getting aware of the idea that the alt-Right is nothing but a rebranding of fascism and Nazism. Happy that finally a stance is being made against their neverending assault on democracy and people. You do it by reason and education of what this monster really entails and are not afraid to call them by their real name. At the height of the alt-right infestation, I sometimes felt I was the only one fighting them off, but it's such a relief and really heartening to see more and more young people doing the same what i have done for nearly 30 years now. Keep up the good work in educating the masses of the dangers imposed by the pepe the frog men. Not a big fan of violence nor am I propagating it, but in some cases you just have to "communicate" at their own level or the level they think is so tough. Because you always need to remember that they won't have any qualms about using violence against YOU. You will find that the vast majority are just teeny whiny little boys when you do. Again, not propagating violence, but as a very last means, it's effective against vermin like fascist and neo Nazis and all other names they cloak themselves in. So kids, remember, in some cases it's ok to beat a Nazi. Use their own means against them. Start hoaxes which are embarrassing to them, attack them relentlessly online when they spill their garbage, in short use their own tactics against them. Remember: Richard Spencer stated it was no fun being a neo Nazi anymore since the event of antifa. So it does work.
Anyone who makes vermin fascists cry is a friend of mine- especially because those people are so often self aggrandizing "alpha males," it's so satisfying to watch them fold faster then picnic tables.
Another element in which Conservatism falls short - and part of what made me break from it - is that despite aligning itself culturally with Christianity, I can scarcely think of a political movement that is more un-Christian. Conservatism posits that those in power are those who "deserve" to be in power. Christianity insists that _no one_ "deserves" to be in power (except God), because we humans are all, equally and habitually, sinners. And so that those who have privilege should stoop down to help our brethren - as God stoops to save our souls, even though He doesn't have to - because it's only by grace of God that we're in that position of privilege. It could just as easily be US in the gutter. It could just as easily be US as the weak, sick, disempowered, etc. We must not turn up our noses at the less fortunate, because we are just as much flawed and foolish and childish as them (from a godly perspective). If we didn't help them - if we weren't kind or charitable or forgiving to them - how could we expect those same things from others? Further, there's the fact that hierarchies put people into the unenviable position of trying to serve two masters: God and the ones at the top of the hierarchy. It's impossible, of course - no man can serve two masters - which leads to people having to choose between yielding to the fiats of the "King" (whether actual monarchs, dictators, or CEOs), even when it's immoral, or rebelling against the King to remain loyal to God. Not to mention that hierarchies have a habit of providing humans with the opportunity to rise through the ranks and seize power, no matter what immoral acts they must do or who must they screw over to get there. Conservatism engineers that system by design. As such, the most Christian, moral action would be to encourage Democracy, so as to not only elevate the downtrodden, but to remove temptation from the paths of those too (morally) weak to not seek power and wealth for its own sake.
Well, isn't that a testament to how malleable (organized) religion is to political power... And cognitive dissonance is nothing new to people that are too weak to break the ideological status quo.
THANK YOU. As a formerly VERY devout Christian, this always really bothered me. It was bad enough that in my circles the people who were middle class or higher weren't REALLY willing to help lower class or poor people, except maybe bake them a meal once in a blue moon, but they also didn't want the government to tax people in significantly higher tax brackets than even they were in to help poor people. And the real rub is that they're perfectly willing to legislate (or vote for someone who will legislate) certain kinds morality or prohibitions of what they view as immoral, such as gay marriage, but they're unwilling to legislate OTHER moral actions, such as, I don't know, NOT EXPLOITING THE WORKING CLASS. Which to me proves that a lot of people aren't REALLY Christians, but rather people who call themselves that because it looks good or makes them feel good or they're scared of hell and want fire insurance. They don't actually want to live out any of the inconvenient things their Bible tells them to, they just want to be right and not go to hell. Obviously these aren't the only reason, but they were very, VERY common ones in the conservative Christian circles I've run in. And, quite frankly, I don't think that discrepancy (cherry picking which parts of the Bible's moral code you want to legislate and which you don't) gets pointed out often enough to conservatives and/or Republicans who claim to be Christians. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. And again thank you for bringing up this point. I feel like the way certain parts of Christianity have been cherry picked and intertwined with the Right, and how other parts haven't, isn't talked about enough.
@@renoftheshadows I think it's a matter of culture and identity. So many conservatives self-identify as Christians, without really understanding what it means or what Christ stands for. They treat "being Christian" the same as they treat "being a Dallas Cowboys fan". It's just a _team_ they see themselves as, to differentiate themselves from the "other teams". It's straight, blunt Tribalism.
While I would agree with you that the whole point of the thing (like it's named after the guy) should be the principles that Christ tries to embody and teach his disciples, the Bible is a big book and there's a whole lot of Old Testament baked into the Christian worldview that can overshadow what happens later. So much of what goes down in the earlier parts of the book focus on characters that either blindly follow God, because He knows best, or else are savagely punished for even the slightest deviation. Abraham is a hero because he is willing to slaughter his own boy, just because God told him to. Whereas Moses never gets to see the promised land because he does his magic wrong that one time. Murder, rape, theft, these are all bad things usually, and we should try not to do them, but the real lesson of the Old Testament is DO NOT DISOBEY GOD. The very structure of the religion is about submitting to God's authority. Give up your worries to God. Don't think about it. Just do it. The priest or pastor or whatever, is often set up as a proxy for God. That figure tells you how to live and you do what they say, because they know better than you. It's about coming together as a congregation, but it's in the service of one singular authority. From this perspective it seems natural to me that authoritarian or fascistic tendencies would not feel that far off. Add in the whole persecution complex of it's Us vs Them, of God vs The Devil, and you sow the distrust of others that is not very compatible with the idea of pluralistic society but is perfect for investing your collective power into that one Savior.
I, uh, hate to be the bearer of bad news but... No. The idea that "nobody deserves to be in power" is distinctly non-biblical. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1, NIV.
Hey man, the fact that you are willing to post what you've consumed that influences your perspective and arguments makes you 1000% more approachable and respectable than many others. At least if I disagree with you on something, I can look at what helped you form your decision and say, "Well, I understand where he's coming from.". It's super refreshing to see ideas and interpretations backed up with something other than "JUST GOOGLE IT!".
@@SirScheisalot keine Ahnung, Innuendo hat ihn in dem Zusammenhang erwähnt... ich meine soweit ich weiß ist er nach unseren heutigen standards schwer in rechts/links einzuordnen, aber mehr auch nicht :P
You know.. this is the first time conservatism has made any sort of sense to me. I never was even aware that there was a cohesive worldview underlying all the reactionary stuff. But it seems to me that there's a fundamental flaw in the hierarchical model -- hard work can only get you so far in a capitalist economy. Luck plays a far bigger part than most people realize, as does cheating, so to some degree at least those who make it to the top have climbed on the backs of everyone else in reach. The market isn't a level playing field, so its results aren't truly meritocratic. Also, if the pyramid is truly meant to be organized on the basis of effort they wouldn't be nearly as anti-inheritance-tax as they are. An inheritance in the millions gives you a massive leg up due to an accident of birth, requiring zero effort in the inheritor's part. This suggests to me that conservatism is just as interested in making sure the hierarchy benefits them (rather than any ideal of objective ranking) as they suspect liberalism is.
This is exactly why conservatives always ignore or deny evidence that the market is not meritocratic. As more information has become available, this evidence has only mounted, so the denial is becoming more and more ridiculous. For many conservatives it breaks down entirely, so they embrace the alt-right, which does not require them to defend capitalism because it is much more blatant about the kind of heirarchy it wants.
I suspect that's why they all oppose any form of real fairness or merit - they know that if such a thing were implemented, they'd all be cast into the mud where they belong.
The market isn't a level playing field because those at the top *have total control of the market.* Tax the poor so they can't climb the ladder and threaten the rich, support those already in power so that your position isn't threatened. There can never be a level playing field when the top of the pyramid manipulates the bottom. Democracy is level, mostly. Capitalism is a rigged claw machine that plays favorites.
@@DiaboloMootopia The problem is not in the fact that success in a market is not always based on merit. It's that a flawed meritocracy ought to be replaced by a nepotistic kleptocracy. That's always been the real hard-sell of socialism, which is why all these movements eventually end up terrorizing and shooting workers into compliance.
@@samuelwithers2221 Socialism does not create a level playing field because those at the top *have total control of the market.* Control the wealth and choices of the poor so they can't climb the ladder and threaten the rich socialist elite, support the children of those already in power so that your position isn't threatened. There can never be a level playing field when the top of the pyramid manipulates the bottom, which is what socialism is literally designed around. For example, it's why Lenin was so hostile to democracy. It's why the Bolsheviks championed all power to the soviets, only to manipulate their elections and even murder their non-Bolshevik leaders. Every socialist regime has done the same. Socialism is a rigged claw machine that plays favorites. For details, see *The Managerial Revolution* by James Burnham.
@Silent Psykosis That's an excuse to abuse people. Tha's what all conservatism tries to justify every time. Personal accountability is just the next bullshit excuse, last time it was racial inferiority, a little further back and it was just nobility. Also no. Your hunter example doesn't reflect reality. No one hunter killed the mammoth alone. It took a TEAM. While the leader may feel entitled to some more, he CANNOT take so much everyone else starves. Yet that's the bullshit you're arguing for. You conservatives always act like people did everything alone, therefore deserve to abuse others. But they DIDN'T. No rich people would be where they are if they didn't have hard-working people under them to do all the heavy lifting. From CEOs of Amazon to Gordan Ramsey. Someone needed to do the heavy lifting. Someone was carrying Gordan's video camera on his trips.
Probably cause power does go to the deserving in a capitalist economy. Bezo didn’t get to be rich by flipping burgers all day. Neither did Gates, Musk, Trump or any other rich fella you wanna draw out of a hat. They took several financial risks and built the idea of their business. The factory workers didn’t go through that process, hence why they’re still at the bottom. They have the freedom to do so but it’s their choice and overwhelmingly the choice is not to.
I'm someone who believes in the importance of exceptional individuals, which is why I find socialism appealing. It's hard to do anything cool or interesting when you're trapped in poverty, and when high class folk use their clout to suppress culture that doesn't suit their tastes. Fascism has an antagonistic relationship with art and science because it sees all deviation as insubordination.
But in socialism, you don't receive rewards for your great deeds as an exceptional individual. You can't finance your own initiative (either be artistic, scientific or industrial). You have to convince the government your ideas are worthy of investment. And should the government accept to finance your ideas or to put your skills to use, it will be to the goal the government decides. You have no self agency.
@@TheOsamaBahama I'd like to state that first of all the idea of "socialism" is very broad. It doesn't not have to be the government totally squandering self agency in general (Businesses can thrive on places where government is more prominent, lots of countries in Europe such as Norway for example. Socialism is not all totalitarian communism). I'd also like to point out that in America, where there is a rich history of capitalism playing it's role (America generally doesn't have a government where it's prominent, plus capitalistic businesses like Apple or Amazon are here) you already have to go to the government to even start one (You have to register it with the IRS). So in short: -You're use of "socialism" is wrong when you consider there's different economies based on it. -We already have government intervention with things such as the start of businesses, but that's not stopping anyone from doing it. -Since we already have this scenario is government acceptance of businesses we can still have self-agency.
@@dedket7777 You are totally right. The problem is people are talking about socialism, but aren't talking about the same thing. The impression I get from Innunendo Studios is he is against capitalism and wants a soviet style socialism (but democratic). You can be in favor of nordic style "socialism", with big welfare state. But nordic countries are still capitalist. So when people criticize capitalism and say they support socialism instead, I get concerned. Because they sound like they want to dismantle capitalism. People should say "social democracy" or some other term instead of socialism.
@@TheOsamaBahama As far as the video goes the impression is just that conservatism and fascism have the same ideals, but fascism takes it to emphasized point (this is with regard to nostalgia of the past and the idea that power will be given to those that are worthy). He doesn't give any implied message about wanting a socialist soviet-type state. It's a critique/historical analysis of the idea of conservatism and nothing more. I also never stated that Nordic countries were completely socialist, rather its just the government having more presence. On the idea that you get concerned with people supporting socialism and wanting to thus dismantle capitalism. That's more of a problem with your understanding of it, I guess. And that's not to say that it's a bad thing, we don't really understand a lot of things. Some of these people who critique it just wants more government regulation on markets, the liberal moderates. Socialism is a bit difficult to define in general. In hindsight it could be that socialism is more based on the heightened prominence of government (such as more government programs or regulations of the markets). But when you look into political philosophies like libertarian socialism/anarchism it gets a bit murky. If we look at anarchist historians like Rudolf Rocker, he basically states that philosophies like anarchism "recontruct[s] the economic life of the peoples from the ground up in the spirit of Socialism" (On Anarchism by Noam Chomsky). But Anarchism goes against the fact of the heightened prominence of government, it in fact wants to abolish it. And this is where the other definition of socialism goes, where socialism is defined as "workers control of labor" (this is mostly accredited to Marx, although in "The Communist Manifesto" he states that his philosophy is more close to other working class parties) workers control meaning that no capitalistic entity (such as a CEO, controls the profits as well as the labor itself). In short: -The video is just a critique/historical analysis of conservative thought, nothing more. -Conservatism and Fascism has the same principles but fascism heightens these principles -People who advocate for socialism don't always want to dismantle capitalism, save for anarchists and certain socialist parties. -Socialism itself hard to define, whether you want to go with the "heightened prominence of government" or "workers control of labor".
@@dedket7777 hmm, As someone from the Netherlands I see that the word socialism is always thrown at EU countries without actually knowing where the money comes from in those countries, you see the citizens pay for their own welfare, the lowest tax rate in my county is around 35% and it progressively gets higher when you earn more money, companies pay very little to the government. There was a point in which Ireland and the Netherlands were competing for companies to settle there with low tax rates. If capitalism would be "destroyed" the Netherlands and many other EU counties would have to stop their welfare state because if the people make no money, they can't pay for those who don't. That is why my country relies on high employment rates and peoples mentality to actually work for their living. They have made living off the government harder and harder because of integration problems. People that don't feel like a part of the country are more likely to just mooch of off it. That's why populist parties have gotten more popular. People are scared. The only reason our system works is because our government is trustworthy. From everything I have seen on the USA is that a lot of the people don't trust their government, and I don't blame them for being conservative when they don't.
"Kneel before me. I said... kneel! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel." And yes, that's an elegant summary of conservatism. As is the follow-up when the old man rises to show his defiance - Loki decides the old man needs to be killed. Ironically, this is what the right wing tends to say that socialism does - hammer down the nail that sticks out, and does not conform - even though conservatism has a much, much longer tradition of doing just that. And unlike with socialism, where totalitarian regimes use the ideology to justify hammering down the nail, it's right there in the conservative ideology that it's what you're supposed to do.
@@heavycritic9554 Now, here is the thing, and I'm just going to play devils advocate for a moment. The boogeyman of socialism and communism that conservatives like to scream about is not entirely unfounded. The communist party under Stallin in Russia killed possibly as many people as Hitler, over the course of the purges and Gulag. It was a terrible, hideous thing... And it followed basically the exact same pyramid system as fascism or conservatism. It's just the horseshoe effect at work, where either side, left or right, when taken to it's extreme starts to resemble the extreme of the other side.
@@archsteel7 To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, when leftists turn fascist they usually have to do a lot more twisting logic to make it work and always, *always* do fascism in the name of "we'll get there one day, we're just not there yet, and until we get there, you should trust ME" Whereas, when the right wing turns fascist, it's typically a LOT less at odds with its underlying, foundational principles, and there's no future status that you're working toward, other than becoming more fascist.
@@archsteel7: Yes, left-wing totalitarians are similar to right-wing ones, because they're not actually interested in the ideology, just power. The thing is that there is nothing in the ideologies of either socialism or communism that implies that a single person or small cadre of individuals should be at that the top and the rest should just obey. That's what dictators who pay lip service to the word "communism" or "socialism" do while, in reality, they couldn't care less about ideology. It's all about the power. The only real difference between a right-wing dictatorship and a left-wing dictatorship, is that the left-wing one starts out with the lower classes as its means of rising to power. Where they end up has little-to-nothing to do with politics.
"If people who I consider inferior are treated like my equal then the meritocratic value/incentive-generation machine collapses due to Marxist equality of outcome. Also, by the way, that same meritocratic value/incentive-generation machine will be fine if my children are given disproportionately better opportunities because... ... ... ...Well they came out of my ballsack. Look, if you won't buy that perhaps I can sell you on eugenics with these fine weapons I have?"
What I like about your work is that you define foundational values for each movement - and I have read much of what you cited - and then debate the moral validity of each position. Which strikes to the core of the value systems and ignores petty matters in the news that consume attention and divert away from the central debate. For this reason, your work is dangerous to the conservative movement.
@@Joao-de9gl When I first went to college (in 1997), I found and read Steve Kangas's Liberal FAQ. The intellectual answers fed into my superiority complex pretty well. Then I realized that most of the friends I was making through the furry fandom were liberal too. Made the mistake of being soft on liberalism to some conservative people I knew and got back-stabbed pretty badly. So I said, "F' this. I'm out." and exited stage left. Of all the things, the whole backstabbing by former friends part was the clinching moment that secured my transition. It's not something liberals can (or should do), but you can set the stage with the other parts. Maybe other people can make the leap without that? I should warn you, it took ten years of introspection and self-improvement to stop being a dick. And when I'm in an emotional extreme, I can feel old habits trying to kick in. It's a not switch you can turn on and off.
Matches up for me with conversations I've had with conservatives, but personally it's hard to say. I think for me I was always very egalitarian minded which made it easy for me to leave and move left as I found the positions I was taking and arguing for to be unjustified.
What conservatives "conserve" is wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful. Any reference to "values", or "tradition" made in defense of so-called conservatism is just a figleaf.
@@connorsimmonds9698 Because they're told to be suspicious of each other, and that all popular movements to bring people together to improve their lives are just alternate authoritarian systems, and they'd better stick with tradition, and the authoritarians they already know.
Conservatives can exist within a communist political framework. For example when the tianamen incident happend ,the students that revolted against the gorvement were advocating for traditional communism instead of the opening that the chinese did to the world. In that case those hard core communist students were conservatives. A conservative tries to conserve. Modern conservatives try to conserve democracy ,free market capitalism ,culture, language,constitutional rights etc... They dont try to conserve the monarchy or slavery. In other words the author of the video is very crafty (or deluded) and he managed to convice your dumb friend that its wrong to be a conservative by using falacious logic and some bad pictures.(if even that was the case as you claim).
@@natalyawoop4263 A conservatives tries to go back in time. About fourty years or so. Also, it is true that conservatism can exist within a _socialist_ framework, but not a communist one. Socialism isn't inherent to an horizontal social hiererchy, but communism is. Theres a reason the Nazis called themselves socialists. Well, there were two. First to be seen as the good guys, and second because even though the first death camp was for socialists, its the only long term way to have a solid hierarchy. With a heavely regulated economy that isn't made to make people equal, good luck going up the hierarchy. Socialism is good because if it starts on equal grounds, it will remain equal. But if it starts on a heavly unequal base, then it will remain unequal. Socialism (or feudalism btw) is needed for conservatism and all of its sub-beleifs (reactionarism, fascism, nationalism...) to maintain themselves, because even though *extremely* unlikely, a poor person can become rich under capitalism
So if conservatives think government should stay out of business, how do they square away rich people bribing politicians to give them favorable laws that gives them an advantage over other people? Like tax loopholes only they can use, for example. Or subsidy for corporate farms and other big corporations that small businesses and ordinary individuals don't get? And I disagree that the US is a capitalist democracy. These days it operates more as an oligarchy.
I think they see it as someone with resources leveraging their resources to get more. That's why these people are at the top of their hierarchy. These are the GREAT WHITES of the shark pool and therefore should be able to influence policy as per their greater power. It would be like asking what gives the aristocracy in pre-revolution France the right to decide things for the less powerful.
Ex-right winger here. There are a few answers there. First and foremost is this is a "distortion of capitalism" or "crony capitalism" argmuent and thus this practice can be legitimately criticized. But since the amount of money in corporate subsidies is low compared to the money spent on the welfare state (nevermind that each recipient of a subsidy gets WAY more than a recipient of welfare...also tax breaks don't count because anything that lowers taxes is good in the right wing mindset), that means the primary focus on cutting government is welfare. Another answer is that this is a form of investment. Supporting business is supposed to grow the economy faster which is supposed to help everyone. Why do this with businesses and not people in need? Because of that "earned hierarchy" idea. Rich companies have already proven their worth and so helping them is a) cheaper overall and b) more likely to result in good outcomes than giving to people who haven't proven they know what to do with the money (and indeed the right often thinks poverty proves these people DON'T know what to do). Finally, for a isolationist section of conservatives, supporting businesses within one's country is seen as necessary due to other countries protecting/helping their industries. This is mostly just a "we must be best at everything" idea or maybe vaguely gesturing at the need to be self-sufficient in case of being isolated or conflict. This is mostly driven by in-group/out-group anxiety rather than an idea of merit-based hierarchy.
I don't think they're against ALL government, just BIG government. I think the thought process is that without government, they don't have to pay taxes and all that jazz. They also advocate for state-level government, probably for a couple of reasons: 1) to give themselves legitimacy, to have a meat shield against backlash and 2) it's cheaper to deal with local authorities than a government body. An even more cynical me would ask: "If the government is weakened and its power to tax corporations diminished, would there even be local authorities to oversee foul play and penalize for it?" As to subsidies, I don't think corporations even think they need them, just that they _deserve_ them since they exist. If they didn't exist, well, there are other ways to increase profits, for example by lowering salaries and raising prices. For the moment, the government is this pesky instance that tries to enforce frivolous stuff like employee welfare, the environment, public safety, and so on. Okay, even with the tin foil hat off, as long as business exists to make money first, and people only serve instrumental value for that purpose, that's where the system will keep swaying. Even now the legislation _requires_ corporations to serve their investors' money, so there is a legal justification for just about anything that makes money. Exceptions do exist, but establishing them is always a struggle.
"And I disagree that the US is a capitalist democracy. These days it operates more as an oligarchy." Correct. I agree. Capitalism and democracy can't coexist. Take it from Adolf Hitler: "democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a peoples true values ....when they surrender themselves to the unlimited democratic rule of the masses, the capitalists slowly lose their former position; for the outstanding achievements of individuals are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of mere numbers" - Adolf Hitler speech to the industry club Jan 27, 1932
@@TheScourge007 I would argue against the idea that the amount of corporate subsidies being lower compared to money spent on the welfare state for individuals especially if you take our military budget into account. The US has literally waged war and toppled foreign governments for the benefit of one corporation or another, the costs of which far exceed any welfare spent on its citizens. One example off the top of my head is the Banana Wars the US waged in Central America due to economic interests of US fruit companies. Then there's the trillions of dollars we spend on various military contractors. Defense is one thing, but can anyone really justify things like the F-35 jet, which has a $1.5 trillion price tag? The endless war we're engaged in could also arguably be consider a form of corporate handout to the various companies that are a part of the military industrial complex, except we're not only giving them money as a handout, we're also paying in human lives.
Nope😂 Peterson fans will recognize that the "quote" contradicts the video. If you can't give the man a fair representation, don't try to claim you understand the man.
Adam smith's time was dominated by the landed aristocracy. In short he was against rents not profits. Marx was against profits. Theres a huge difference between a rentier and a businessman in the free market. Communism just sucks and thats the reason why people reject it.
@@DoelGr Marxism arose from Ricardian thought, which arose from Adam Smith. Marxism forced the bourgeoisie to take a step back, so now they have "neo-classical" economics, which is a school of thought a lot more contrarian to Adam Smith's theories than Marxism, especially Friedman's "economics"
I was brought up in a Conservative Christian fundamentalist (Evangelical) household. I am the black sheep of my family in part because, while I understand conservatism from an intellectual and educated point of view, I revile it. Your videos are spot on with what I was brought up with, what I was taught from the time I was able to understand the written word. The one break with conservatism my parents (and especially my father) had was a deep respect for education and knowledge. Even though I am a female, I was still encouraged to read and become educated, but only so long as I wanted to immerse myself in conservative and Evangelical Christian viewpoints. When I didn't, when I strayed into other aspects of history and philosophy and/or expressed my own nascent and far more liberal views, I would get grounded and have permissions taken away (or even get "a spanking") with the stated reason that I was "sassing". In simplistic terms, I define myself as one step left of socialist but it's really a lot more complicated than that. Intellectually, I comprehend conservatism and their view of how the world works. Emotionally, I cannot fathom it.
That's terrible but I hope you take into consideration that all practitioners of religion suffer crisis of faith and rebellion. You don't have to revile Catholicism. Wouldn't it just be best to rescue the best elements of your communal ties and pity the problematic ones. Must we throw out the baby with the bathwater. 😟
@@St1kyFinguzsounds to me like their family was the one that threw the baby out with the bath water. If that’s how they react to dissent then they aren’t good people and there’s not much to salvage.
@@St1kyFinguz If a faith is true, believe it. If you find it to be false, discard it. No half measures. Belonging to a religion isn't a trip to Build-A-Bear workshop, you don't get to pick and choose some parts of a belief as true and conveniently discard anything blatantly false or morally repugnant. I think it's safe to assume whatever baby may have been left in the bath was long dead by the time she got around to getting rid of the bathwater. It's perfectly fine for a crisis of faith to end in abandonment of that faith, for a supposed god to fail his own test. What possible reason would she have to embrace catholicism after being abused by and ultimately abandoning evangelical christianity? A vague sense of familiarity?
@@St1kyFinguz modern christianity is the bathwater, and it's boiling the baby. every single denomination needs a massive reform, you guys are all making the world a worse place. and i'm saying this as a christian
This is legitimately one of the best series on YT I've ever seen. For those of us that don't have the possibility to do all this research on our own it's nice to be able to do some cursory reading to understand what's what.
It wasn't much of a surprise to me. I used to be center right. I'd been drifting more and more left even before Trump entered the political stage, but he was the push I needed to abandon the Republicans and Conservatism. It is, however, enlightening to see the degree to which political discourse is controlled by Conservative models. And the degree to which those models were and are built on a foundation of aristocracy, whether feudal or corporate.
Society is a helluva drug. Just by being born and raised into the world you are you invariably are awash with certain thoughts and philosophies from that society.
Yeah! I've never seen myself as anything right of centre-left, but I actually didn't disagree with much of what the paragons of conservatism said. A lot of people *are* stupid and need to be directed the right way by their intellectual superiors *I say, pointing at conservatives*.
If you want a good (indirect) rebuttal of this concept that gifted individuals can provide for the good of the many by making decisions for the many without their input, I recommend the book The Dictator's Handbook. It lays out in stark terms and straightforward examples the impossibility of a narrow power structure benefiting the people, even if the powerful have the intellectual capacity and moral drive to do so. It then applies this principle to democracies and dictatorships both, and explains neatly *why* democracies provide a better quality of life for their citizens than dictatorships. Spoilers: The problem is that no one rules alone and rulers need to keep their enforcers and taxers *more* happy than a hypothetical replacement ruler could, and that the plight of those without power is ultimately just an externality you had best not value if you want to keep your position as ruler and/or head.
According to Burke's philosophy, the environment has no intrinsic value until it's despoiled to produce goods, and even then the poor slob who does the digging and refining is second best to the buyer. It's no wonder then that conservatives couldn't care less about the environment.
Burke literally wrote one of the early modern works on Aesthetics, in which he goes over the varied, natural wonders of the sublime beauty of nature. Literally, part of his theory of vale, (and STV and marginals in general) is meant to explain why non utilitarian things HAVE value.
But if there is value in saving the environment, all the sudden, these capitalists would love to save the environment. As an example, the mass adoption of renewable energy like solar, wind, and hydro come from these energy sources being cheaper than coal and natural gas. You are right on conservatives placing anything without monetary value as having no value. Leading to the polluted, ugly, and dangerous cities of the early second industrial revolution.
Very mixed feelings. True democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Disclaimer, I'm not a conservative and that's not my quote butthe quote makes sense to me.
@@zekezzekekan2144 That makes a lot of sense in a world where wolves outnumber the sheep. In my experience the wolves usually are dwarfed in number by the sheep, but have enough raw power to subvert any democratic measure one can try to implement. The sheep may outnumber the wolves but the wolves have much sharper teeth.
There's a problem with the quote. It assumes a false dichotomy. It assumes that there are only ravenous wolves or helpless sheep. The problem is that there's more than one type of wolf; one that literally looks like it's masquerading as a sheep, but not for any nefarious motivation, but to _defend_ the flock from its wolfy cousins. This propensity to protect the powerless can take many forms. I'm sure you have already thought of several.
@@histumness sorry wasn't one of my quote I think it was Thomas Jefferson or somebody else really famous that know what they were talking about. I was just explaining an analogy of what pure democracy looks like, a metaphor maybe. We're taking it too literal, you know what saying.
@White Wolf Hey, quick question: Could I rent you for Lord of the Rings marathon? You see, I'd really like to watch that trilogy on a big screen and you seem to be incredible at projection.
In spite of most conservatives vehemently claiming to being the "real" "free-thinkers", there sure seems to be a lot of blindly conforming to centuries-old dogma and ideas and avoiding questioning the state of things in any sort of depth or detail going on in this here ideology. 🤔 (Yes, yes, I know I am not being very original here...)
I think you got it wrong chief, Conservatives considered themselves freethinkers from a perspective of being unafraid to express politically incorrect thought. Which runs contrary to textbook progressives desires to squelch dissenting opinions.
Second the recommend for Elizabeth's book, Neoreaction: a Basilisk. It's really, really good. Also recommend Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke's various books about post-wwii nazism. Also love how she uses William Blake to counter Nick Land. William Blake deserves way more love than he gets.
"and modern conservatives love the 'natural hierarchies' of jordan peterson, who belives, quote, 'blblblbllblblblbllblblblblblbllblblblbllblb". i have never seen professional lobster misunderstander pordan jeterson's arguments so succinctly and eloquently described, thank you
Damn I thought you just pulled all of this out of twitter wars. Now I have to read things to understand things eugh I always wanted to know how people who made these big insight essays get their big ideas though, so thanks for this. This is a lot of extra labour
A large part is probably that a lot of the “guy talks into a microphone by himself about politics” videos on here tend towards exactly what people are accusing him of, unresearched drivel (on both sides honestly). So people get recommended this channel, and when they hear what it’s format is, dismiss it. Once they watch however, they find actual thought, effort, and research put into each video and realize that this is one of the few valuable discussions on the subject being put out to this platform.
I'm a little drunk and I'm gonna share something that's on my mind. I'm from Kazakhstan, yesterday, our president (our only president, the one wo's been a president for almost 30 years) stepped down. Following this, they renamed our capital to Nursultan, which is our former 1st president's first name. They also plan to rename all our major cities' biggest roads to Nazarbayev, which is his last name. I'm sitting here, working on my master's degree in social anthropology, living in Europe. And I have zero idea what to do. I sometimes whish we had conservatives and democrats at each other's throat. Gee. I'm just a little shaken with this and love you, innuendo studios.
Sorry for what happened. Not for dictator going away, but for the city being renamed. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. When I first read about that, I thought that was a joke. Proves how far dictatorial lunacy can go. As one person wrote in a comment, good we already have a city named Vladimir in Russia
@@KateeAngel thanks for you words! yeah, somebody on the russian side of the internet already jokes about Moscow being renamed to Vladimir Vladimirovitch, not to be confused with the already existing Vladimir lol
This remains one of the most succinct and important videos on describing conservative political theory-both its origins and *what it is* in *practice*-anyone could watch, and it deserves a MUCH bigger reach than what it has
I suggest you watch this video by The Distributist if you want a better intro to right wing thought that isn't full of strawmen: ruclips.net/video/N_kuFyN3Cwk/видео.html
@@regisglass5464 Its not because human change of thnking, it's because technology. And one of the conservative victory that prevails to this time its the fall or the URSS.
I see you have "The Dictator's Handbook" on your research list, which is a title I've been interested in hearing more analysis of. It really changed my mind about how power is accumulated, distributed, and maintained, and--sadly--has caused me to question whether democracy, as a form of governance, is even technically possible in the long term. As it stands, I sort of feel like there isn't a form of government we have thus far developed that can sufficiently emphasize empathy, cooperation, specialization, and fairness, while also resisting corruption. I'd be quite interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject, if you are so inclined.
@@laerslexikondermusica4480 I disagree about that, governance comes in many forms, from tribal hierarchies to multinational corporations. Military might is only one method of establishing power.
While not quite a democracy and glorifying the acquisition of wealth, Venice had the most incorruptible government I've read about, simply because of how many people were involved in different ways that buying them all or organizing all their interests would be hard even without competition.
The problem, as always, is people. People have a responsibility to be self-actualizing and empathetic independent of their governing body, because a government cannot be so for them no matter what form it takes. It's an exhausting responsibility, but an eternally necessary one.
I recommend Daniel Suarez’s “Daemon” and the sequel “Freedom.” Yes, they are fiction, but they are full of interesting ideas about which way we could go next.
Thank you, Innuendo Studios! You are doing great work! This series deserves to blow up on RUclips, it speaks to so much of the content that we've all seen, stumbled on, or been told about by a friend at some point. It's the type of content that we should all be posting links to in the comments sections of the conservative and Intellectual Dark Web streams that have been mushrooming across RUclips, sanitizing some pretty bad ideas.
No he actually doesn't, as someone who has read Burkes works and gone through his time in Parliament with the Whigs (interesting records I think you should read them) it seems that he is extremely wrong here, he gets multiple things wrong. When discussing burke and the autocracy he doesn't explain why Burke made those statements and what his underlying belief in them was. Quite frankly he seems to leave out the details of why Burke wanted to preserve them and its institutions, it wasn't to "keep the big guys in power" it was Burkes idea that with a revolution comes chaos and such people look for stability if you can help to preserve some of that it will lessen the damage. As we known as he predicted the French revolution that didn't happen and Robespierre was killed, Napoleon then soon rose to power to put in basically a much worse and dictatorial system. Burkes point is on institutions and how they preserve civil society and can stop violence. This man doesn't have a clue I doubt he even read the works. Same with Maistre he gets an insane amount wrong, especially leaving out the key differences of why Maistre isn't an influence in modern Conservative thinking anymore due to his Absolutism. Its lazy
@@joelprovides8930 Citation needed. Also, multiple experts agree with him. Not only that but the philosophers with the stupid "whigs"(ha) themselves quoted in the video prove they do believe all of thag with just a few quotes. And you failed to refute how modern conservatives continue to fundamentally believe some people to be more deserving of power than others and keep trying to prevent that. Cry me a river.
@@GuruPrasad-qu4vg So citing one's many sources, and reading up on and presenting the history of the ideology they're speaking about, with actual quotes, is now 'psychological profiling'? Be careful what words you use.
Thanks for posting this video about your research. As someone who generally doesn't read video descriptions or anything, that was really helpful. Every one of your videos are talking points for my friend group at college. You're doing awesome work!
As someone who actually genuinely believes in the things conservatives claim they believe, that’s literally what made me leftist, because everything conservatives support is actually completely opposed to how to even achieve those alleged principles of equality and freedom.
I just wanted to say that the first time I watched this i was quite conservative and simply never really looked into the people who lead the party or what it represented and merely took smaller independent YT channels(like timcast) for their word. Along with that i really thought the their trickle down economics worked. needless to say I'm now a staunch leftist and want to say to anyone who is still a conservative who's watch this video and does have conservative leanings. try looking up what neo-liberalism is and its a effect on the world post Reagan, thatcher and the 70s because it really put things into perspective and changed what I think and I think it'll change yours as well. and if Ian reads this thanks this changed my opinion.
I kept reading Neoreaction a Basilisk before going to bed. I had to stop because the topics it discussed kept making me so angry I couldn't get to sleep.
One major shift in European conservative thinking was the 1891 Papal Encyclica "Rerum Novarum" which sparked its own, Christian-conservative social theory parallel to the Marxist-socialist one. However, since the 1980s the Christian-Social branch of conservativism has vastly lost in power due to Reagnite-Thatcherist influence among conservative thinkers.
Hi ,I’m from Middle East I will be grateful if u teach me English language and I will teach u Arabic language 😂,please if u accept let me know Best regards
@Ryan McCreedy No of course not. Most people are not so monstrous as to to gleefully subscribe to a bigoted philosophy. The point of these videos is to demonstrate the way those that DO gleefully follow these ideas, repackage them to gradually broaden the audience. They might not be able to convince you that black people are lesser, but if they can convince you there's nothing wrong with the economic system that put them down and kept them there... that's almost as good. It's ok if you don't believe "only whites deserve power" as long as you think "power goes where it should" whilst it's disproportionately enjoyed by old white men. And for every more reasonable person they can get to buy the diet version of their narrative they gain shelter from the scrutiny of their core value. Even so, at it's most basic it's simply about maintaining power. The fascist will step on any group to get it. As long as they can somehow categorize themselves out of that group.
@@crowstakingoff It's true though, although I was a bit too harsh. His description of his inflammatory reaction to cider in that article is that of a nervous breakdown he is in denial about. It is sad, I've been through something very similar so I know how horrible what he is describing is. I just hope he realises that he has some unaddressed problems that he needs to deal with and is healthier as a result.
8:30 and directly dollowing: "This time it's different, baby." It's never different. Regarding this and the previous video, I don't want this to be true. Not because I doubt your research, I certainly am not qualified to. But because it's a slower suicide pact than the fascist one, but it still leads to violent revolution in the long run, and I don't like that on principle. The tune is just a little different. That said, a lot of the things you've said in this and the other video seem to reflect things I've heard people say in arguments and attitudes I've banged my head against. The most maddening is "But it manipulates the market". Good. There should be no market for cars that won't break exploding ketchup bottles and poisonous waste sites near where people live. And cleaning the mess up after the fact is not a sustainable alternative. Being a person raised in the same culture as much of your intended audience, I have to agree that I do and always have seen hiarchies as . . . natural? But so's the poison in peach pits. Natural is not a synonym for Good (which would not surprise my parents because as a boy I once wanted to eat some poisonous berries that grew in our back yard and were hard to get rid of). I read the Prince and the Discorces on Titus Levy and what I got from them besides a respect for looking at things how they are rather than how you would want them to be is that part of how they are is that people absolutely hate being, in their own view, opressed. Any hirarchy where power flows to the few and nothing flows to anyone else is just asking for the sort of problems that end with guilletines and even more opression (I'm not a fan of the French Revolution). So, if you going to have a hirarchy, you want it as wide as humanly possible with as many proections for people lower down as is reasonable. Insisting that all power must go to you and your budies is not a long-term strategy for survival. You could survive quite happily for generation, don't get me wrong, but eventually, if you act like the kind of person people want to hang from lightpost, someone will hang you from a lightpost unless you're retired for your own good. An having better people in power is not a good answer because vertuous people are great and we all need as many of them as possible isn't a solution because the reason why they're great is that they're not all that common. And not everyone who thinks they're vertuous really, truely is. And any system that overly concentrates power is going to attract the sort of people you don't want to have it. That's why you make sure you have more than one locus of power when you design a constitution. It's a way of widening the pyramid. Britain avoided violent revolution in the 1840's not because they were run by better people, but because they compromised. They spread the hirarchy out and let more people into decisionmaking. I hate that there are people in my country who want to reverse that process and am now less baffeled at the people who actively vote for them. I think part of what this shows that it's hard to take a small piece of something that you agree with out of a matrix of something you don't and don't understand. It reaches out for the ideas that it used to be connected to and unless you're very careful and either replace those intellectual connection or provide the context it can attract similar ideas. Which would be why people who with a straight face insist that the form of capitalism talked about here is democratic and a meritocracy but they wind up supporting the opposite without even noticing it. Ayn Rand quoters worry me for this reason.
That compromise in Britain was Great Reform Act 1832. And we should not forget how repressive the conservative hacks until Lord Liverpool were governing during the years from the end of Napoleonic War up to 1832.
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 Conservatism was never about those things. Conservitive's love big goverment, esspecially when they can use it as a cudgel against wonen, people of color, LGBT people and religions not their own, the only low taxes they care about is "low taxes for the rich and high taxes for the poor because to them the inverse is communism", free-market is a lie because without regulation markets tend to skew towards monopoly and cronyism, they treat dissenting speech as litteral treason, they hate individualism to the point they criminalize and demonize and villify anything "not them" and love putting the economy in debt for their endless wars. But how expected of you to parrot the blatent Conservitive lies like your reading a grocerylist.
"The Reactionary Mind" and "Neoreaction" are both brilliant. I'll have to get down to "The Authoritarians" and "How Propaganda Works." If you haven't read them, I'd also recommend "Suburban Warriors," "Crabgrass Frontier," and Rick Perlstein's series of essays "Thinking Like a Conservative." Hell, read pretty much anything by Perlstein, he helped get the ball rolling for Corey Robin's theories.
Your essays on this and the previous topics have been fantastic. It helps that I agree with your conclusions, but your logic is well laid out and your insights are eye opening and compelling. Thank you for all of this series.
Conservatives: "Something short, quipy, and wrong about alt-right playbook." Innuendo Studios: This video. ^^ Hmmmm I think this kind of interaction was detailed somewhere....
Consider reading "The Red and the Blue," a history about the political tribalism arguably began forming when Newt Gingrich gained office. It's got some "faschy" themes.
Good old Newt made polarizing the discourse and destroying compromise literally the battle doctrine of the Republican party. And it has been ever since, for decades on now. I mean, things have been going wrong a lot longer, but he literally wrote a plan you can read about how to always call your opponents Satan and to never give them anything, even reasonable discourse.
Thank you so much for posting a list of sources! I spend a lot of time scouring the internet for books that focus on this topic/kind of analysis, so your list is such a blessing.
An extension on these two videos. I have noticed that my conservative friends tend to always argue, individual choice and always deny systemic problems. I think this is another difference between the way conservatives and liberals think.
If you think about it, there is a method to this particular madness. The problems of capitalism are most apparent at the large levels, at the scale of collections of people. But if you focus only on a specific individual's choice of what to buy, who to work for, etc, it seems to be a pretty iron-clad system. At the smallest scale, it seems to be a pretty good approximation of a meritocracy; it creates a hierarchy, but the people at the top are those who create value. Big capitalism is just a lot of small capitalism. I think that is a big part of conservative thought. They see everything as an extension of each individuals choices; societies are just a bunch of individuals. If every individual is acting rationally, then everything will work. And those who don't act rationally are choosing not to, and therefore are the architects of their own demise. What annoys me about this kind of thinking the most is... they *know it isn't true.* On some level, they have to know that. Because everything around them constantly tells them it isn't true. Advertising is probably the #1 most obvious example of this notion of individual choice. Advertising undeniably works, because if it didn't, companies wouldn't spend so much money on it. Yet on the level of an individual choice, most ads just don't seem like they could possibly work. A car ad with an attractive woman in it... how can associating a car with sex possibly cause a rational person to be more willing to buy that car? But it does work. And conservatives never even try to square that circle. Modern society inundates them with examples of how groups of people can act in predictable fashions to specific stimuli, how systemic group-think can exist and be utilized and manipulated, and so forth. But they never let that thought touch the thought that everyone is just an individual with individual choices. In the book The Authoritarians, Bob Altermeyer points to research that shows how cognitive dissonance is strong among authoritarian followers. They have a truly impressive ability to fundamentally believe two completely incompatible ideas at the same time. And I think it helps lead them to ideologies like this, because they have less resistance to them.
A huuuuge part of things that influence conservative thought in modern day (in my humble mildly educated opinion) is the Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, while reading this in history class i was shocked how similar it is to modern day arguments
Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive imo. You don’t have a say in decision that effect you. Who elected Jeff bezos who voted on how much carbon emissions are push into the environment. The workers don’t get to say how the value they helped to make gets distributed they have to listen to there boss with no say in the matter.
Capitalism is inherently authoritarian in nature, but that doesn't mean that it can't coexist as an economic system alongside a democratic government. Not to say the USA government is democratic, it was built specifically to undermine democracy, but it can coexist for a time. Eventually the people would democratically replace Capitalism.
thank you for this fantastic series. you're doing a great public service putting this information out there in this format. while i can't say you've convinced me of anything i didn't already believe, ive learned a lot from these videos, much of it stuff i never would have discovered for myself had you not extricated it from the toxic muck it's birthed from.
Stumbled upon your videos by chance, and they where eye opening. Not about my personnal values and beliefs, but more like ''damn! this is happening in my part of the world''. Great stuff, keep up the good work!
From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives. The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years. The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories. Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice. _Philip E. Agre_ _August 2004_
@@nathandrake5544 Potentially more ideal. Personally I think I lean towards the idea of "Progressive" in the term of "For the good of the greatest number of people, in as equal as a way as possible" All the "isms" can be corrupted, Tyranny can infiltrate some systems easier than others, but we have to always be vigilant for folks using systems for their own ends. I think Socialism is a lot more corruption resistant than capitalism, but I hesitate to throw my had into any one ring. I just want to see the world become better, with more opportunities for more people. That'd be pretty keen.
And I mean real socialism. People claim socialism is "when thr government does stuff", but that is just liberal reform, like medicare for all is for example just liberal reform. Socialism is all about democracy in the work place, and that does NOT mean government control, the most important part to socialism is democracy.
What a fantastic series of videos. Well researched, argued and presented. I've just sat and watched the first 10 or so non-stop, except for the point at 7:40 in this one, where I had to pause and laugh uncontrollably for a good 20 seconds.
Nietzsche also believed that slavery was necessary to the continuation of humanity, and that those meant to be subsidiary to others were actually happy being slaves.
In my reading of Nietzsche, the only thing about him that wasn't more right wing than left was his dismissal of religion. Which is really just a cleaner way of doing right wing thinking....instead of trying to use religion to your ends, with all its talk of endowed rights and whatnot, just dismiss it altogether.
@@cnking27 as an atheist leftist, I am somewhat troubled by the implication that atheism is right wing. My lack of belief in religion actually allowed me to move much farther left than when I was religious
"do your research" is just a hot button for them. They don't care if you do your research or not.... they just want to stir the nest.
@Brady Fries Nah, your president is doing a good job of doing that for you.
@@Chroniquee ooooh shit shots fired
All research is evil liberal propaganda.
Except when it agrees with them.
@@nwsportstilidie based
@@thomasholaday674 What does that mean? Anyways you should watch this video ruclips.net/video/4xqouhMCJBI/видео.html
Fun thing about pyramids: Without the wide base, the top rests on nothing. The bottom can exist in a lesser state without the top, but the top *absolutely* needs the bottom so support itself.
Perfect analogy
There is no shoe without the shoelace.
Fun fact: Also applicable to many D/s couples I know.
@@xXRickTrolledXx Actually, it's the other way around: You can perfectly well have a shoe without shoelaces, and indeed some are designed with no shoelaces at all, but without its shoe a shoelace is nothing but a piece of string.
Oh man, good thing geometry is exactly the same thing as society.../s
"This should ideally be... war, but capitalism would suffice"
It's honestly crazy how accurate this is, well done as always
@Luís Andrade 1. The part of the video @Remedi quotes is about similarity between war and capitalism, not compatibility. Both are struggles, competitions from which winners and losers emerge, both tend to lead to monopolies/last mand standing situations.
2. That said, war and capitalism are very much compatible. At least small scale wars, ideally far from one's own shores are very good for business. Almost a perpetuum mobile of profit even: The more weapons you sell to the warring parties the longer the war rages on - in turn necessitating more weapons which you are all too happy to supply.
@Luís Andrade Imagine thinking that the military-industrial complex doesn’t exist. War is profitable and the desire for profit is capitalism’s main engine.
This statement goes to show for a fact the capitalism is just a monarchy with a greater emphasis on individualism than birthright. Although it might be the same thing once you factor in the wealth = wealth equation.
This video is just dishonest framing what the hell are you talking about, again just proving Jonathan Haidt’s Point.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Except that Jonathan Haidt is wrong about a whole host of things.
Have you actually read 'The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail'? A surprising number of self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies for a peer-reviewed paper. The Social Intuitionist Model that is proposed in that paper inherits those problems and then multiplies them out into Moral Foundations Theory... and in doing so ignores the ample work on what Intuition actually is that was coming to the fore between 2001 and 2011.
But what, specifically, do you see as a "dishonest framing"? Bearing in mind that, if you're reading Haidt, you agree that the video presents Conservatism from a leftist point of view and therefore isn't dishonest (because dishonesty implies intent), so much as it is mistaken about the moral underpinnings of the conservative view.
I find it hilarious that conservatives claim to support rights of the individual when they are always trying to stop policies that allow for more individuality and self-expression.
@@gustavjacobsson3332 *citation needed
@@gustavjacobsson3332 You can think whatever the hell you want, but you shouldn't bring it into the real world in a way that seriously limits other people's freedom of expression or agency. Ideally, a human's freedom should end where another human's freedom begins.
@@gustavjacobsson3332 Oh no how could you possibly hold a conversation if there's a risk of getting criticized
@@gustavjacobsson3332 you can take some liberals' belief that you should excise intolerant people from online circles, to the extreme of "And you are doing the same with what we're allowed to think,' but when we take white supremacists, who believe that white people are superior to other races, usually fundamentally, with many big names in it unironically advocating for an ethnostate where you would deport non-white people, usually with violence, and bring their arguments to even the next logical progression of calling for violence against these groups and thats the line; thats where you think we're extending the reasoning far beyond where it's applicable?
@@gustavjacobsson3332 being a white supremacist is innately morally abhorrent, so yes they does something unethical just in holding those beliefs and it speaks to serious moral failings on their part.
As for twitter banning them for using its platform in a way that breaks their rules, that's entirely within their rights in a capitalist society. If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with capitalism comrade.
And as for people choosing to criticize this hypothetical white supremacist, they is well within their rights, freedom of speech, association and thought are bot freedom from social consequences. Express a belief that people find unacceptable and you shouldn't be surprised that they turn against you. They have the right, just as you, to say what they want and to consort with whoever they want as private individuals. If people choose to "cancel" someone for being outed as a white supremacist by refusing to support then monetarily, then that is well within their rights as private individuals are free to associate with whoever they please.
If you have a problem with any of this then you have a problem with capitalism and/or civil liberties. Which seems to be par for the course for modern reactionary conservatism.
As a former conservative fighting with this entire video series, everything you have said was deeply and uncomfortably true up to this point, and anybody who says otherwise is simply lying to themselves.
It becomes even more uncomfortable once you realize the implications it has, not only for your social life, but your relationships with not even the really conservative family members, but even the family members you once thought were cool. And heaven forbid you actually go digging into family history. As the saying goes "are we the baddies"?
As a former ancap, I feel ya. But it's really worth examining your beliefs.
Did you have much sympathy for the alt-Right and/or online trolls he spent most of his time on? I’ve always been against those goons but found a lot of what he said rather unrelatable to normie conservative/libertarian circles I’d been in and my own share of conservative beliefs (though I also hold many liberal ones, too).
@@connerclark3678 it depends what subcultures, hobbies, beliefs and even locations you inhabit to how much it becomes palatable. and yes, even now as a radical leftist, i still think it's important to understand why they are that way, even just as an inoculation to prevent more people becoming like them.
further, if you found a lot of what he said unrelatable to more "moderate" forms of conservatism, there's a lot you don't know, because as someone who has lived from far right misogynist to far left socialist, what he is saying also applies to the moderate right as well, the only difference is degrees. i lived on the "moderate right" most of my life, until i got radicalized to the far right, then radicalized in the opposite direction.
there's a lot of the moderate right's point's that are "framed" as libertarian's, but are structurally authoritarian. it's easy to listen to right libertarians and think that they are arguing for structural liberty because their rhetoric use's liberty way more often then democrats, but you would be empirically wrong.
further, there's a lot of modern conservatives who really don't know their own history, conservatives who adore Friedman, but don't know he was agnostic, believed in all drug legalization, and was in favor of cross dressers.
to me, what defines somebody more on the left and right, isn't so much their social positions (even though that still is important) its their economic positions. the economic positions, if set up correctly, while change the social positions, while if the economic positions are incorrect, no amount of social progressivism will make a difference in the long run, because the economics will reverse all of it.
you can see it in the nimbyism of some older cali dems. yimbism is economically more leftist, and young dems are wise to pick up on it.
as a present dsy conservative. this video is full of sh*t
Fun fact: Ayn Rand was on welfare when she died. Such a principled person!
Which kind of makes sense, based on observations from the other video. The conservative mindset is very much against moving downward on their internal pyramid - to them, they are always at "the top". At that point, accepting welfare kept Ayn from descending further down said pyramid, so of course she would accept welfare because it's there.
It's kind of the same mental process seen once someone super close to someone with a conservative mindset realizing that their best friend/child/etc (or of course, themselves) is subject to a potential status change, especially one that could directly affect them. You know, like coming out.
@rohirrim 98 Rand argued that involuntary taxation is theft and thus, believed that those welfare programs created and supported by that taxation were also theft of one's goods and property. Logically, if one accepts this reasoning as axiomatic, the final conclusion that is reached from these statements is that those beneficiaries of these programs are accomplices to that theft.
By accepting welfare, Ayn Rand became what she claimed to hate; an accomplice in theft. That's why it is so noxious to many people.
It's possible to admire someone greatly, and disagree with them violently. That's me, with Rand. She WAS a principled person. No human being is perfect, and the person who finally convinced her to take Social Security had an article written about that effort. There is no such thing as a value that can't be horribly perverted --- and frikken god, her philosophy has given semi-intellectual standing to some horrible perversions since her death in 1982 (If I remember right, one or two days before John Belushi).
meh objectivism is just the ramblings of a person traumatized by the onset of the soviet union and its horrors.
@@kohashiguchi1454 "She WAS" NO SHE WASN'T THAT'S THE POINT. You are being disingenuous and completely idiotic when you twist and squirm and say that "no one is perfect". It's not about being perfect. It's about SAYING something and living by it. Plenty of people live up to their beliefs and aren't cowards like Rand. She did not have conviction and trying to argue essentially that no one has conviction is absolutely insane.
I'm finishing my philosophy degree right now and you touched on a point with Nietzsche that always frustrated me, which is that Nietzsche always said he wasnt a conservative or a nationalist or a Nazi, but God damn his ideas were REALLY useful to conservatives and nationalists and Nazis
Yeah just that whole "Master slave mentality" thing is pretty in line w many white supremacist beliefs
Yeah there's something to be said broadly about his use of language in general too. He could, for example, say that cultures have broad trends that tend to be specific to that culture, but he instead essentializes cultures and calls them "bloods", believing that there is a hierarchy of bloods. I believe he felt the best blood was Polish. Nietzsche, even if not blatantly racist, was flippant enough with his inflammatory use of language that he was in effect racist.
@Brady Fries The language of cultural "bloods", the ideas of "master/slave" types and the whole of the will to power. I think any attempt at an appeal to the natural will end up being conservative whether it means to or not
@Brady Fries it does in the sense that modern conservatism tries to blend the thoughts of natural hierarchies with a sense of meritocracy. While that's not strictly what Nietzsche was saying, will to power is easily misinterpreted as naturalist hierarchies that are defined by meritocracy.
Nietzsche was solely interested in understanding the truth. Nazi ideology was Satanism which is to invert the truth . So Yeah that makes sense that
"Conservatism: a reactionary politics that has at best, mixed feelings about democracy"
I fucking love that quote. This series is legendary.
Vote harder...
Best quote in the video, though it has competition because there is a lot of good stuff in the video.
@Luís Andrade hardly.literqly every since thing conserqtives do is hypocrocy and projection. If you still can't see through the blatant conservative propaganda i dearly hope you have someone who checks in on you daily so you don't harm yourself or burn your house down by accident.
Not rlly
Ummm, no
It's weird that critics claim you nothing about conservatism. If Burke is lauded as the "father of modern conservatism," then all your critics need to do is to give a superficial glance at "Reflections on the French Revolution" to see where you're coming from. Burke can't stop himself from not only praising property and the monarchy but also lying about the French Revolutionaries. Another read that could accompany Burke's is Thomas Paine's reaction "Rights of Man." In it, Paine goes into depth about the flaws of Burke's argument and the lies Burke spreads about the revolution.
It's funny, too, how conservative rhetoric-which consists of false narratives about the "left"-has always been filled with lies, even in its origin with Burke.
Don't forget about Joseh de Maistre, while Ed. Burk is the Godfather of "Liberal Conservatism" (whis is usually more conservative than liberal), Joseph is the Godfather of "Ultra/Radical Conservatism" the thing that eventually would evolved (absorving some elements from the left/socialism) ande became to what we know today as: Fascism/Nationalsocialism!!!
@White Wolf Wikipedia page on Edmund Burke: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
End of the first section: "In the 19th century, Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals. Subsequently in the 20th century, he became widely regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism."
Sources given for that second sentence:
Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Third Edition. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 74.
F. P. Lock, Edmund Burke. Volume II: 1784-1797 (Clarendon Press, 2006), p. 585.
The actual "thing that nobody says" is the Republican party somehow not being conservative. That's made up bull.
Once again, the conservative tradition of denying reality for whatever benefit they can manage rears its head.
@White Wolf "By modern conservative they actually just mean Anglo American conservatism" Yeah sure, any sources for that asspull?
Conservative people may be people, but they sure are simple ass people whose facades of complexity (or being capable of thought) crumble away with a few basic observations. Ayn Rand herself, whom later in life glady accepted collecting her Social Security benefits is a perfect example. She sure did a great job recognizing the reality that Social Security is a great thing to have! If only she wasn't inflicted with the fatal selfishness that also manifests in conservatism and had spent her life supporting the existence of such welfare systems instead...
Immature teenagers that fail at growing up will sadly keep feeding the numbers of conservatives for eternity, while those of us who understand the importance and need for solidarity and usage of actual facts are forced to suffer their incompetence.
Isn't it a theme ever since Plato and "gold in soul" bullshit?
@Luís Andrade Then who would you consider the father of conservatism?
Wealthy people saying "I'm superior, I should have more power" in very creative ways.
Most wealthy people are the opposite of being conservatie
@@holzmann- If that was the case they wouldn't be rich.
3.20 that guy casually riding on someone's shoulders above a crowd full of people carrying bayonets DUDE WHAT if you slip you're gonna get impaled, dog!
6.25 Daddy
Daddy
Father
Aieeee papi uwu
Why do the revolution if you can't ride on some shoulders, right ?
@@TheFiresloth """"Shoulders""""
I used to think conservatives meant to conserve culture and morals..
Now I understand all they want is to preserve power.
Sure yeah lets just say they want to preserve power structures and not individual liberty... because philosophers most dont know about believe this
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 Considering it’s a video analyzing a political belief, and not specifically in argument *for* a particular cause, it absolutely doesn’t even fit the defining of propaganda.
I get it. You don’t like it. That doesn’t make it propaganda.
@@robertlind186 they clearly don't want to "preserve" individual liberty because they opposed the liberation of slaves, voting rights for women and now they oppose abortion and LGBT rights like marriage and goverment recognition, things that would materially make human beings freer, but suddently when it's not economic freedom (aka, when it doesn't benefit the already powerful) it's "too crazy", "not important" or "too much"
@@Shireke01 lovely staw man you have there, mind if I point out the flaws. The label democrat might in the 1860s fit an individual who wanted to preserve slavery, just as the label perhaps fit conservatives. Just becuase a label might have used to describe that doesnt mean it still describes or fits the label. Modern conservatives oppose slavery and support women's right. Just as most conservatives now also support gay marriage. Even Obama in 2008 opposed gay marriage... was he considered conservative in 2008? This isnt a conservative problem, this is a human problem
@@robertlind186 yeah, a conservative human problem lmao. You think klansmen and christians who oppose abortion would call themselves progressive?
That’s the most perfect Jordan Peterson quote to ever exist. Bravo.
"I shall make a citation on the philosophy of Jordan Peterson: *flaps his lips with his fingers as a crazy cartoon would"
you took him out off context again, he's clearly speaking in Morse code
-.-. .-.. . .- -. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .-. --- --- --
100%
@@noahwatson4310 No, it's actually, and this is not a joke, him explaining a bad reaction to apple cider preceding a debate with Sam Harris. Just look up "JBP cider" or something.
This is very good and It's always nice to see someone cite Peterson properly
been out of the Peterson loop for a long time, can someone explain this to my pet tarantula?
Owen556 watch The video
Owen556 tarantulas, tarantulas. they're so soft and their so furry.
@@wuba556 No, no one can. It's just the same empty crap as always.
1)He's racist! 2)OK, why is he racist? 1)Because he is! 2)Yeah, but are there specific reasons to believe this? 1)He's a bigot and eats meat! 2)Wtf does that have anything to do with this? 1)You're a racist just like Peterson! 2)What? 1) You hate black people because you like Peterson! 2) I don't think it works like that. 1) That's because you're so racist! You can't see it beyond your white privilege. 2) I'm a Native American. 1)... 2) So, why is he racist again? 1) Omg I am done talking to someone as racist as you. 2) ok bye...
@@wuba556 all that you need to know that he thought apple cider almost killed him and regrets not throwing a child.
As a Brazilian I really appreciate how you acknowledged the US imperialism in South America in the 80's
America has been deep dicking Central and South America, from like late 1800’s Panama to the union busting of the 1950’s United Fruit company in Argentina, to Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, the “small” conflict in the Panama in 89-90, to Venezuela in the early 2000’s and Venezuela again today.
Not to mention the US backed coups.
bah
Just in the 80's? Oh baby, the US never stops lol
Chilean here, feel the same.
Being probably much older than your average follower of this channel, I have to say that not all older people are Conservatives, not all support white supremacy and more of that idiotic nonsense. As I said in a previous post, I've beaten up plenty of neo Nazis and fascists in my time (trust me - it feels damn good to see them cry like a baby) and I am now thoroughly happy with the fact that more and more people here and elsewhere finally are getting aware of the idea that the alt-Right is nothing but a rebranding of fascism and Nazism. Happy that finally a stance is being made against their neverending assault on democracy and people. You do it by reason and education of what this monster really entails and are not afraid to call them by their real name. At the height of the alt-right infestation, I sometimes felt I was the only one fighting them off, but it's such a relief and really heartening to see more and more young people doing the same what i have done for nearly 30 years now. Keep up the good work in educating the masses of the dangers imposed by the pepe the frog men. Not a big fan of violence nor am I propagating it, but in some cases you just have to "communicate" at their own level or the level they think is so tough. Because you always need to remember that they won't have any qualms about using violence against YOU. You will find that the vast majority are just teeny whiny little boys when you do. Again, not propagating violence, but as a very last means, it's effective against vermin like fascist and neo Nazis and all other names they cloak themselves in. So kids, remember, in some cases it's ok to beat a Nazi. Use their own means against them. Start hoaxes which are embarrassing to them, attack them relentlessly online when they spill their garbage, in short use their own tactics against them. Remember: Richard Spencer stated it was no fun being a neo Nazi anymore since the event of antifa. So it does work.
Thank you for fighting against fascism for so long, it’s very inspirational
Out of the loop here, so is this why "antifa" is thrown around now like its the boogey man?
Anyone who makes vermin fascists cry is a friend of mine- especially because those people are so often self aggrandizing "alpha males," it's so satisfying to watch them fold faster then picnic tables.
Gigachad @johnverhoef
Hero
Another element in which Conservatism falls short - and part of what made me break from it - is that despite aligning itself culturally with Christianity, I can scarcely think of a political movement that is more un-Christian.
Conservatism posits that those in power are those who "deserve" to be in power. Christianity insists that _no one_ "deserves" to be in power (except God), because we humans are all, equally and habitually, sinners. And so that those who have privilege should stoop down to help our brethren - as God stoops to save our souls, even though He doesn't have to - because it's only by grace of God that we're in that position of privilege. It could just as easily be US in the gutter. It could just as easily be US as the weak, sick, disempowered, etc. We must not turn up our noses at the less fortunate, because we are just as much flawed and foolish and childish as them (from a godly perspective). If we didn't help them - if we weren't kind or charitable or forgiving to them - how could we expect those same things from others?
Further, there's the fact that hierarchies put people into the unenviable position of trying to serve two masters: God and the ones at the top of the hierarchy. It's impossible, of course - no man can serve two masters - which leads to people having to choose between yielding to the fiats of the "King" (whether actual monarchs, dictators, or CEOs), even when it's immoral, or rebelling against the King to remain loyal to God.
Not to mention that hierarchies have a habit of providing humans with the opportunity to rise through the ranks and seize power, no matter what immoral acts they must do or who must they screw over to get there. Conservatism engineers that system by design. As such, the most Christian, moral action would be to encourage Democracy, so as to not only elevate the downtrodden, but to remove temptation from the paths of those too (morally) weak to not seek power and wealth for its own sake.
Well, isn't that a testament to how malleable (organized) religion is to political power... And cognitive dissonance is nothing new to people that are too weak to break the ideological status quo.
THANK YOU. As a formerly VERY devout Christian, this always really bothered me. It was bad enough that in my circles the people who were middle class or higher weren't REALLY willing to help lower class or poor people, except maybe bake them a meal once in a blue moon, but they also didn't want the government to tax people in significantly higher tax brackets than even they were in to help poor people. And the real rub is that they're perfectly willing to legislate (or vote for someone who will legislate) certain kinds morality or prohibitions of what they view as immoral, such as gay marriage, but they're unwilling to legislate OTHER moral actions, such as, I don't know, NOT EXPLOITING THE WORKING CLASS. Which to me proves that a lot of people aren't REALLY Christians, but rather people who call themselves that because it looks good or makes them feel good or they're scared of hell and want fire insurance. They don't actually want to live out any of the inconvenient things their Bible tells them to, they just want to be right and not go to hell.
Obviously these aren't the only reason, but they were very, VERY common ones in the conservative Christian circles I've run in. And, quite frankly, I don't think that discrepancy (cherry picking which parts of the Bible's moral code you want to legislate and which you don't) gets pointed out often enough to conservatives and/or Republicans who claim to be Christians.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense. And again thank you for bringing up this point. I feel like the way certain parts of Christianity have been cherry picked and intertwined with the Right, and how other parts haven't, isn't talked about enough.
@@renoftheshadows I think it's a matter of culture and identity. So many conservatives self-identify as Christians, without really understanding what it means or what Christ stands for. They treat "being Christian" the same as they treat "being a Dallas Cowboys fan". It's just a _team_ they see themselves as, to differentiate themselves from the "other teams". It's straight, blunt Tribalism.
While I would agree with you that the whole point of the thing (like it's named after the guy) should be the principles that Christ tries to embody and teach his disciples, the Bible is a big book and there's a whole lot of Old Testament baked into the Christian worldview that can overshadow what happens later.
So much of what goes down in the earlier parts of the book focus on characters that either blindly follow God, because He knows best, or else are savagely punished for even the slightest deviation. Abraham is a hero because he is willing to slaughter his own boy, just because God told him to. Whereas Moses never gets to see the promised land because he does his magic wrong that one time. Murder, rape, theft, these are all bad things usually, and we should try not to do them, but the real lesson of the Old Testament is DO NOT DISOBEY GOD. The very structure of the religion is about submitting to God's authority. Give up your worries to God. Don't think about it. Just do it.
The priest or pastor or whatever, is often set up as a proxy for God. That figure tells you how to live and you do what they say, because they know better than you. It's about coming together as a congregation, but it's in the service of one singular authority. From this perspective it seems natural to me that authoritarian or fascistic tendencies would not feel that far off. Add in the whole persecution complex of it's Us vs Them, of God vs The Devil, and you sow the distrust of others that is not very compatible with the idea of pluralistic society but is perfect for investing your collective power into that one Savior.
I, uh, hate to be the bearer of bad news but... No. The idea that "nobody deserves to be in power" is distinctly non-biblical.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
Romans 13:1, NIV.
Hey man, the fact that you are willing to post what you've consumed that influences your perspective and arguments makes you 1000% more approachable and respectable than many others. At least if I disagree with you on something, I can look at what helped you form your decision and say, "Well, I understand where he's coming from.". It's super refreshing to see ideas and interpretations backed up with something other than "JUST GOOGLE IT!".
Ditto
same
Your short side tangents would be masterpieces to anyone else. Never stop.
That’s one of the best versions of “well said” I’ve ever heard, also I agree with you.
+
“The Man at the bottom contributes nothing to those above him”
Wait till this dude learns how rich people get money…
By using resources intelligently, of course. Capital, natural resources, poor people...
Ayn Rand was a dudette
*me, drunk:* scrolling through comments
*Innuendo:* THE AUSTRIANS!
*me, an austrian:* wat?!
Oh glaub mir die Österreichische Schule ist ah wahre Gaudi!
@@SirScheisalot Haha, mein Vater liest viel Nietzsche, aber mehr weiß ich über diese Gedankenschule auch nicht...
@@poisondamage2182 Nietzsche hat mit denen nichts zu tun....
@@SirScheisalot keine Ahnung, Innuendo hat ihn in dem Zusammenhang erwähnt...
ich meine soweit ich weiß ist er nach unseren heutigen standards schwer in rechts/links einzuordnen, aber mehr auch nicht :P
Lmao, you gonna wanna watch this again while sober
You know.. this is the first time conservatism has made any sort of sense to me. I never was even aware that there was a cohesive worldview underlying all the reactionary stuff. But it seems to me that there's a fundamental flaw in the hierarchical model -- hard work can only get you so far in a capitalist economy. Luck plays a far bigger part than most people realize, as does cheating, so to some degree at least those who make it to the top have climbed on the backs of everyone else in reach. The market isn't a level playing field, so its results aren't truly meritocratic.
Also, if the pyramid is truly meant to be organized on the basis of effort they wouldn't be nearly as anti-inheritance-tax as they are. An inheritance in the millions gives you a massive leg up due to an accident of birth, requiring zero effort in the inheritor's part. This suggests to me that conservatism is just as interested in making sure the hierarchy benefits them (rather than any ideal of objective ranking) as they suspect liberalism is.
This is exactly why conservatives always ignore or deny evidence that the market is not meritocratic. As more information has become available, this evidence has only mounted, so the denial is becoming more and more ridiculous. For many conservatives it breaks down entirely, so they embrace the alt-right, which does not require them to defend capitalism because it is much more blatant about the kind of heirarchy it wants.
I suspect that's why they all oppose any form of real fairness or merit - they know that if such a thing were implemented, they'd all be cast into the mud where they belong.
The market isn't a level playing field because those at the top *have total control of the market.* Tax the poor so they can't climb the ladder and threaten the rich, support those already in power so that your position isn't threatened. There can never be a level playing field when the top of the pyramid manipulates the bottom. Democracy is level, mostly. Capitalism is a rigged claw machine that plays favorites.
@@DiaboloMootopia The problem is not in the fact that success in a market is not always based on merit. It's that a flawed meritocracy ought to be replaced by a nepotistic kleptocracy. That's always been the real hard-sell of socialism, which is why all these movements eventually end up terrorizing and shooting workers into compliance.
@@samuelwithers2221 Socialism does not create a level playing field because those at the top *have total control of the market.* Control the wealth and choices of the poor so they can't climb the ladder and threaten the rich socialist elite, support the children of those already in power so that your position isn't threatened. There can never be a level playing field when the top of the pyramid manipulates the bottom, which is what socialism is literally designed around. For example, it's why Lenin was so hostile to democracy. It's why the Bolsheviks championed all power to the soviets, only to manipulate their elections and even murder their non-Bolshevik leaders. Every socialist regime has done the same. Socialism is a rigged claw machine that plays favorites.
For details, see *The Managerial Revolution* by James Burnham.
I'm glad people, more and more, are treating Jordan Peterson with the respect he deserves
In a just world, everyone would treat him with the respect he deserves: Zero
Ain't this a conservative worldview ?
@@GerBessa respect != power
bigcas78 You're either horribly immoral or just flat out wrong.
Before watching the video this comment was baffling.
5:50 "humans are innately unequal" "power goes to the deserving" sounds a lot like Peterson who denies his conservatism.
Hes not a conservative hes a liberal. When he talks about hierarchy hes not talking about economically but in terms of competence
@@laerslexikondermusica4480 which then results in economic
@Silent Psykosis
That's an excuse to abuse people. Tha's what all conservatism tries to justify every time. Personal accountability is just the next bullshit excuse, last time it was racial inferiority, a little further back and it was just nobility.
Also no. Your hunter example doesn't reflect reality. No one hunter killed the mammoth alone. It took a TEAM. While the leader may feel entitled to some more, he CANNOT take so much everyone else starves. Yet that's the bullshit you're arguing for.
You conservatives always act like people did everything alone, therefore deserve to abuse others. But they DIDN'T. No rich people would be where they are if they didn't have hard-working people under them to do all the heavy lifting. From CEOs of Amazon to Gordan Ramsey. Someone needed to do the heavy lifting. Someone was carrying Gordan's video camera on his trips.
Probably cause power does go to the deserving in a capitalist economy. Bezo didn’t get to be rich by flipping burgers all day. Neither did Gates, Musk, Trump or any other rich fella you wanna draw out of a hat. They took several financial risks and built the idea of their business. The factory workers didn’t go through that process, hence why they’re still at the bottom. They have the freedom to do so but it’s their choice and overwhelmingly the choice is not to.
@@Southernstereotype ignorant
This is a phenomenally charitable reading of Burke. He was actually way more crazy than this video implies.
I'm curious. I thought he sounded stupid enough.
@@comradefreedom8275Ooooooh boi, you haven't see anything yet
@@dungeonmonsterinc.2936 What are some examples in his work of his insanity?
I'm someone who believes in the importance of exceptional individuals, which is why I find socialism appealing. It's hard to do anything cool or interesting when you're trapped in poverty, and when high class folk use their clout to suppress culture that doesn't suit their tastes. Fascism has an antagonistic relationship with art and science because it sees all deviation as insubordination.
But in socialism, you don't receive rewards for your great deeds as an exceptional individual. You can't finance your own initiative (either be artistic, scientific or industrial). You have to convince the government your ideas are worthy of investment. And should the government accept to finance your ideas or to put your skills to use, it will be to the goal the government decides. You have no self agency.
@@TheOsamaBahama I'd like to state that first of all the idea of "socialism" is very broad. It doesn't not have to be the government totally squandering self agency in general (Businesses can thrive on places where government is more prominent, lots of countries in Europe such as Norway for example. Socialism is not all totalitarian communism). I'd also like to point out that in America, where there is a rich history of capitalism playing it's role (America generally doesn't have a government where it's prominent, plus capitalistic businesses like Apple or Amazon are here) you already have to go to the government to even start one (You have to register it with the IRS).
So in short:
-You're use of "socialism" is wrong when you consider there's different economies based on it.
-We already have government intervention with things such as the start of businesses, but that's not stopping anyone from doing it.
-Since we already have this scenario is government acceptance of businesses we can still have self-agency.
@@dedket7777 You are totally right. The problem is people are talking about socialism, but aren't talking about the same thing. The impression I get from Innunendo Studios is he is against capitalism and wants a soviet style socialism (but democratic). You can be in favor of nordic style "socialism", with big welfare state. But nordic countries are still capitalist. So when people criticize capitalism and say they support socialism instead, I get concerned. Because they sound like they want to dismantle capitalism. People should say "social democracy" or some other term instead of socialism.
@@TheOsamaBahama As far as the video goes the impression is just that conservatism and fascism have the same ideals, but fascism takes it to emphasized point (this is with regard to nostalgia of the past and the idea that power will be given to those that are worthy). He doesn't give any implied message about wanting a socialist soviet-type state. It's a critique/historical analysis of the idea of conservatism and nothing more. I also never stated that Nordic countries were completely socialist, rather its just the government having more presence.
On the idea that you get concerned with people supporting socialism and wanting to thus dismantle capitalism. That's more of a problem with your understanding of it, I guess. And that's not to say that it's a bad thing, we don't really understand a lot of things. Some of these people who critique it just wants more government regulation on markets, the liberal moderates.
Socialism is a bit difficult to define in general. In hindsight it could be that socialism is more based on the heightened prominence of government (such as more government programs or regulations of the markets). But when you look into political philosophies like libertarian socialism/anarchism it gets a bit murky. If we look at anarchist historians like Rudolf Rocker, he basically states that philosophies like anarchism "recontruct[s] the economic life of the peoples from the ground up in the spirit of Socialism" (On Anarchism by Noam Chomsky).
But Anarchism goes against the fact of the heightened prominence of government, it in fact wants to abolish it. And this is where the other definition of socialism goes, where socialism is defined as "workers control of labor" (this is mostly accredited to Marx, although in "The Communist Manifesto" he states that his philosophy is more close to other working class parties) workers control meaning that no capitalistic entity (such as a CEO, controls the profits as well as the labor itself).
In short:
-The video is just a critique/historical analysis of conservative thought, nothing more.
-Conservatism and Fascism has the same principles but fascism heightens these principles
-People who advocate for socialism don't always want to dismantle capitalism, save for anarchists and certain socialist parties.
-Socialism itself hard to define, whether you want to go with the "heightened prominence of government" or "workers control of labor".
@@dedket7777 hmm, As someone from the Netherlands I see that the word socialism is always thrown at EU countries without actually knowing where the money comes from in those countries, you see the citizens pay for their own welfare, the lowest tax rate in my county is around 35% and it progressively gets higher when you earn more money, companies pay very little to the government. There was a point in which Ireland and the Netherlands were competing for companies to settle there with low tax rates. If capitalism would be "destroyed" the Netherlands and many other EU counties would have to stop their welfare state because if the people make no money, they can't pay for those who don't. That is why my country relies on high employment rates and peoples mentality to actually work for their living. They have made living off the government harder and harder because of integration problems. People that don't feel like a part of the country are more likely to just mooch of off it. That's why populist parties have gotten more popular. People are scared. The only reason our system works is because our government is trustworthy.
From everything I have seen on the USA is that a lot of the people don't trust their government, and I don't blame them for being conservative when they don't.
Conservatism is and always has been the Loki speech from the first avengers film. "You were made to be ruled" or whatever.
"Kneel before me. I said... kneel! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
And yes, that's an elegant summary of conservatism. As is the follow-up when the old man rises to show his defiance - Loki decides the old man needs to be killed. Ironically, this is what the right wing tends to say that socialism does - hammer down the nail that sticks out, and does not conform - even though conservatism has a much, much longer tradition of doing just that. And unlike with socialism, where totalitarian regimes use the ideology to justify hammering down the nail, it's right there in the conservative ideology that it's what you're supposed to do.
There are ALWAYS men like that.
@@heavycritic9554 Now, here is the thing, and I'm just going to play devils advocate for a moment. The boogeyman of socialism and communism that conservatives like to scream about is not entirely unfounded. The communist party under Stallin in Russia killed possibly as many people as Hitler, over the course of the purges and Gulag. It was a terrible, hideous thing... And it followed basically the exact same pyramid system as fascism or conservatism. It's just the horseshoe effect at work, where either side, left or right, when taken to it's extreme starts to resemble the extreme of the other side.
@@archsteel7 To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, when leftists turn fascist they usually have to do a lot more twisting logic to make it work and always, *always* do fascism in the name of "we'll get there one day, we're just not there yet, and until we get there, you should trust ME"
Whereas, when the right wing turns fascist, it's typically a LOT less at odds with its underlying, foundational principles, and there's no future status that you're working toward, other than becoming more fascist.
@@archsteel7: Yes, left-wing totalitarians are similar to right-wing ones, because they're not actually interested in the ideology, just power. The thing is that there is nothing in the ideologies of either socialism or communism that implies that a single person or small cadre of individuals should be at that the top and the rest should just obey. That's what dictators who pay lip service to the word "communism" or "socialism" do while, in reality, they couldn't care less about ideology. It's all about the power.
The only real difference between a right-wing dictatorship and a left-wing dictatorship, is that the left-wing one starts out with the lower classes as its means of rising to power. Where they end up has little-to-nothing to do with politics.
My far less eloquent summation of conservative thought: "People who look and live like me are worth more."
Yes.
Umm... No
Yes.
"Might makes right"
"If people who I consider inferior are treated like my equal then the meritocratic value/incentive-generation machine collapses due to Marxist equality of outcome. Also, by the way, that same meritocratic value/incentive-generation machine will be fine if my children are given disproportionately better opportunities because... ... ... ...Well they came out of my ballsack. Look, if you won't buy that perhaps I can sell you on eugenics with these fine weapons I have?"
What I like about your work is that you define foundational values for each movement - and I have read much of what you cited - and then debate the moral validity of each position. Which strikes to the core of the value systems and ignores petty matters in the news that consume attention and divert away from the central debate. For this reason, your work is dangerous to the conservative movement.
I used to be a conservative when I was younger. Most of what you say matches up with my experience while I was on the inside. Well done.
Same here.
What made you change?
@Josef K what methods do you think are most effective?
@@Joao-de9gl When I first went to college (in 1997), I found and read Steve Kangas's Liberal FAQ. The intellectual answers fed into my superiority complex pretty well. Then I realized that most of the friends I was making through the furry fandom were liberal too. Made the mistake of being soft on liberalism to some conservative people I knew and got back-stabbed pretty badly. So I said, "F' this. I'm out." and exited stage left.
Of all the things, the whole backstabbing by former friends part was the clinching moment that secured my transition. It's not something liberals can (or should do), but you can set the stage with the other parts. Maybe other people can make the leap without that?
I should warn you, it took ten years of introspection and self-improvement to stop being a dick. And when I'm in an emotional extreme, I can feel old habits trying to kick in. It's a not switch you can turn on and off.
Matches up for me with conversations I've had with conservatives, but personally it's hard to say. I think for me I was always very egalitarian minded which made it easy for me to leave and move left as I found the positions I was taking and arguing for to be unjustified.
What conservatives "conserve" is wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful. Any reference to "values", or "tradition" made in defense of so-called conservatism is just a figleaf.
Sounds a bit utilitarian to me 😋
Brady Fries so is every other video.
Edit: I mean specifically that every other video in existence is propaganda.
So why do poor people vote for right wing parties? 🧐
@@connorsimmonds9698 Because they're told to be suspicious of each other, and that all popular movements to bring people together to improve their lives are just alternate authoritarian systems, and they'd better stick with tradition, and the authoritarians they already know.
@@ice9snowflake187 Have you heard of the great replacement?
I showed this and the Bigger Fish video to a friend who described themselve as a Conservative, she is no longer a Conservative.
Conservatives can exist within a communist political framework. For example when the tianamen incident happend ,the students that revolted against the gorvement were advocating for traditional communism instead of the opening that the chinese did to the world. In that case those hard core communist students were conservatives.
A conservative tries to conserve. Modern conservatives try to conserve democracy ,free market capitalism ,culture, language,constitutional rights etc... They dont try to conserve the monarchy or slavery.
In other words the author of the video is very crafty (or deluded) and he managed to convice your dumb friend that its wrong to be a conservative by using falacious logic and some bad pictures.(if even that was the case as you claim).
@@DoelGr "A conservative tries to conserve." Wrong.
@@natalyawoop4263 A conservatives tries to go back in time. About fourty years or so.
Also, it is true that conservatism can exist within a _socialist_ framework, but not a communist one. Socialism isn't inherent to an horizontal social hiererchy, but communism is. Theres a reason the Nazis called themselves socialists. Well, there were two. First to be seen as the good guys, and second because even though the first death camp was for socialists, its the only long term way to have a solid hierarchy. With a heavely regulated economy that isn't made to make people equal, good luck going up the hierarchy. Socialism is good because if it starts on equal grounds, it will remain equal. But if it starts on a heavly unequal base, then it will remain unequal. Socialism (or feudalism btw) is needed for conservatism and all of its sub-beleifs (reactionarism, fascism, nationalism...) to maintain themselves, because even though *extremely* unlikely, a poor person can become rich under capitalism
@Brady Fries You are a propaganda video
@Brady Fries but it is though.
So if conservatives think government should stay out of business, how do they square away rich people bribing politicians to give them favorable laws that gives them an advantage over other people? Like tax loopholes only they can use, for example. Or subsidy for corporate farms and other big corporations that small businesses and ordinary individuals don't get?
And I disagree that the US is a capitalist democracy. These days it operates more as an oligarchy.
I think they see it as someone with resources leveraging their resources to get more. That's why these people are at the top of their hierarchy. These are the GREAT WHITES of the shark pool and therefore should be able to influence policy as per their greater power. It would be like asking what gives the aristocracy in pre-revolution France the right to decide things for the less powerful.
Ex-right winger here. There are a few answers there. First and foremost is this is a "distortion of capitalism" or "crony capitalism" argmuent and thus this practice can be legitimately criticized. But since the amount of money in corporate subsidies is low compared to the money spent on the welfare state (nevermind that each recipient of a subsidy gets WAY more than a recipient of welfare...also tax breaks don't count because anything that lowers taxes is good in the right wing mindset), that means the primary focus on cutting government is welfare.
Another answer is that this is a form of investment. Supporting business is supposed to grow the economy faster which is supposed to help everyone. Why do this with businesses and not people in need? Because of that "earned hierarchy" idea. Rich companies have already proven their worth and so helping them is a) cheaper overall and b) more likely to result in good outcomes than giving to people who haven't proven they know what to do with the money (and indeed the right often thinks poverty proves these people DON'T know what to do).
Finally, for a isolationist section of conservatives, supporting businesses within one's country is seen as necessary due to other countries protecting/helping their industries. This is mostly just a "we must be best at everything" idea or maybe vaguely gesturing at the need to be self-sufficient in case of being isolated or conflict. This is mostly driven by in-group/out-group anxiety rather than an idea of merit-based hierarchy.
I don't think they're against ALL government, just BIG government. I think the thought process is that without government, they don't have to pay taxes and all that jazz. They also advocate for state-level government, probably for a couple of reasons: 1) to give themselves legitimacy, to have a meat shield against backlash and 2) it's cheaper to deal with local authorities than a government body. An even more cynical me would ask: "If the government is weakened and its power to tax corporations diminished, would there even be local authorities to oversee foul play and penalize for it?"
As to subsidies, I don't think corporations even think they need them, just that they _deserve_ them since they exist. If they didn't exist, well, there are other ways to increase profits, for example by lowering salaries and raising prices. For the moment, the government is this pesky instance that tries to enforce frivolous stuff like employee welfare, the environment, public safety, and so on.
Okay, even with the tin foil hat off, as long as business exists to make money first, and people only serve instrumental value for that purpose, that's where the system will keep swaying. Even now the legislation _requires_ corporations to serve their investors' money, so there is a legal justification for just about anything that makes money. Exceptions do exist, but establishing them is always a struggle.
"And I disagree that the US is a capitalist democracy. These days it operates more as an oligarchy."
Correct. I agree. Capitalism and democracy can't coexist. Take it from Adolf Hitler:
"democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a peoples true values ....when they surrender themselves to the unlimited democratic rule of the masses, the capitalists slowly lose their former position; for the outstanding achievements of individuals are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of mere numbers" - Adolf Hitler speech to the industry club Jan 27, 1932
@@TheScourge007 I would argue against the idea that the amount of corporate subsidies being lower compared to money spent on the welfare state for individuals especially if you take our military budget into account. The US has literally waged war and toppled foreign governments for the benefit of one corporation or another, the costs of which far exceed any welfare spent on its citizens. One example off the top of my head is the Banana Wars the US waged in Central America due to economic interests of US fruit companies.
Then there's the trillions of dollars we spend on various military contractors. Defense is one thing, but can anyone really justify things like the F-35 jet, which has a $1.5 trillion price tag? The endless war we're engaged in could also arguably be consider a form of corporate handout to the various companies that are a part of the military industrial complex, except we're not only giving them money as a handout, we're also paying in human lives.
Peterson fans will say this quote was out of context
Nope😂 Peterson fans will recognize that the "quote" contradicts the video.
If you can't give the man a fair representation, don't try to claim you understand the man.
BlackPrivileged name one original thing Peterson has said
I told you lol
They are so predictable I find it hard to think they are real people
@@gatosospechosop3 WHY?😕
What would be the point of me doing so?
@@trotskyeraumpicareta4178 *_Cartoonishly Angsty Marxist Guy doesn't believe in the humanity of other people..._*
"Imagine my shock"😂
Thank you for pointing out the disconnect between Adam Smith and everything people (conservatives) say is Adam Smith.
Adam smith's time was dominated by the landed aristocracy. In short he was against rents not profits. Marx was against profits. Theres a huge difference between a rentier and a businessman in the free market.
Communism just sucks and thats the reason why people reject it.
@Cian Abroad the Tea, as the Brits put it.
@@DoelGr Marxism arose from Ricardian thought, which arose from Adam Smith. Marxism forced the bourgeoisie to take a step back, so now they have "neo-classical" economics, which is a school of thought a lot more contrarian to Adam Smith's theories than Marxism, especially Friedman's "economics"
I was brought up in a Conservative Christian fundamentalist (Evangelical) household. I am the black sheep of my family in part because, while I understand conservatism from an intellectual and educated point of view, I revile it. Your videos are spot on with what I was brought up with, what I was taught from the time I was able to understand the written word. The one break with conservatism my parents (and especially my father) had was a deep respect for education and knowledge. Even though I am a female, I was still encouraged to read and become educated, but only so long as I wanted to immerse myself in conservative and Evangelical Christian viewpoints. When I didn't, when I strayed into other aspects of history and philosophy and/or expressed my own nascent and far more liberal views, I would get grounded and have permissions taken away (or even get "a spanking") with the stated reason that I was "sassing". In simplistic terms, I define myself as one step left of socialist but it's really a lot more complicated than that. Intellectually, I comprehend conservatism and their view of how the world works. Emotionally, I cannot fathom it.
That's terrible but I hope you take into consideration that all practitioners of religion suffer crisis of faith and rebellion.
You don't have to revile Catholicism. Wouldn't it just be best to rescue the best elements of your communal ties and pity the problematic ones.
Must we throw out the baby with the bathwater. 😟
@@St1kyFinguz yes.Yes we must. Religion, after all, is the Opium of the Masses. ;p
@@St1kyFinguzsounds to me like their family was the one that threw the baby out with the bath water. If that’s how they react to dissent then they aren’t good people and there’s not much to salvage.
@@St1kyFinguz If a faith is true, believe it. If you find it to be false, discard it. No half measures. Belonging to a religion isn't a trip to Build-A-Bear workshop, you don't get to pick and choose some parts of a belief as true and conveniently discard anything blatantly false or morally repugnant. I think it's safe to assume whatever baby may have been left in the bath was long dead by the time she got around to getting rid of the bathwater. It's perfectly fine for a crisis of faith to end in abandonment of that faith, for a supposed god to fail his own test. What possible reason would she have to embrace catholicism after being abused by and ultimately abandoning evangelical christianity? A vague sense of familiarity?
@@St1kyFinguz modern christianity is the bathwater, and it's boiling the baby. every single denomination needs a massive reform, you guys are all making the world a worse place.
and i'm saying this as a christian
This is legitimately one of the best series on YT I've ever seen. For those of us that don't have the possibility to do all this research on our own it's nice to be able to do some cursory reading to understand what's what.
Well, today's uploads were enlightening on how many conservative beliefs I turned out to unconsciously hold.
Ditto.
It wasn't much of a surprise to me. I used to be center right. I'd been drifting more and more left even before Trump entered the political stage, but he was the push I needed to abandon the Republicans and Conservatism.
It is, however, enlightening to see the degree to which political discourse is controlled by Conservative models. And the degree to which those models were and are built on a foundation of aristocracy, whether feudal or corporate.
Society is a helluva drug. Just by being born and raised into the world you are you invariably are awash with certain thoughts and philosophies from that society.
Yeah! I've never seen myself as anything right of centre-left, but I actually didn't disagree with much of what the paragons of conservatism said. A lot of people *are* stupid and need to be directed the right way by their intellectual superiors *I say, pointing at conservatives*.
If you want a good (indirect) rebuttal of this concept that gifted individuals can provide for the good of the many by making decisions for the many without their input, I recommend the book The Dictator's Handbook. It lays out in stark terms and straightforward examples the impossibility of a narrow power structure benefiting the people, even if the powerful have the intellectual capacity and moral drive to do so. It then applies this principle to democracies and dictatorships both, and explains neatly *why* democracies provide a better quality of life for their citizens than dictatorships.
Spoilers: The problem is that no one rules alone and rulers need to keep their enforcers and taxers *more* happy than a hypothetical replacement ruler could, and that the plight of those without power is ultimately just an externality you had best not value if you want to keep your position as ruler and/or head.
According to Burke's philosophy, the environment has no intrinsic value until it's despoiled to produce goods, and even then the poor slob who does the digging and refining is second best to the buyer. It's no wonder then that conservatives couldn't care less about the environment.
Burke literally wrote one of the early modern works on Aesthetics, in which he goes over the varied, natural wonders of the sublime beauty of nature. Literally, part of his theory of vale, (and STV and marginals in general) is meant to explain why non utilitarian things HAVE value.
But if there is value in saving the environment, all the sudden, these capitalists would love to save the environment. As an example, the mass adoption of renewable energy like solar, wind, and hydro come from these energy sources being cheaper than coal and natural gas.
You are right on conservatives placing anything without monetary value as having no value. Leading to the polluted, ugly, and dangerous cities of the early second industrial revolution.
Favorite Quote (9:36) = Conservatism: a reactionary politics that has, at best, mixed feelings about democracy.
Very mixed feelings. True democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Disclaimer, I'm not a conservative and that's not my quote butthe quote makes sense to me.
@@zekezzekekan2144 That makes a lot of sense in a world where wolves outnumber the sheep. In my experience the wolves usually are dwarfed in number by the sheep, but have enough raw power to subvert any democratic measure one can try to implement.
The sheep may outnumber the wolves but the wolves have much sharper teeth.
There's a problem with the quote. It assumes a false dichotomy. It assumes that there are only ravenous wolves or helpless sheep. The problem is that there's more than one type of wolf; one that literally looks like it's masquerading as a sheep, but not for any nefarious motivation, but to _defend_ the flock from its wolfy cousins. This propensity to protect the powerless can take many forms. I'm sure you have already thought of several.
@@histumness sorry wasn't one of my quote I think it was Thomas Jefferson or somebody else really famous that know what they were talking about. I was just explaining an analogy of what pure democracy looks like, a metaphor maybe. We're taking it too literal, you know what saying.
@@zemorph42 take it up with Thomas Jefferson or whoever wrote the quote I was just passing along Don't kill the messenger LOL.
This video man. Pure truth spoken.
È una piacevolissima scoperta trovarti sui video di Breadtube.
Comunque il video riassunto da Zizek sarebbe: it's an *SNIFF* ideology
More like propaganda
@@user-xi3qb9ts9r Great response.
@@user-xi3qb9ts9r "Facts and research are propaganda"
Something a fascist would say
@White Wolf Hey, quick question: Could I rent you for Lord of the Rings marathon? You see, I'd really like to watch that trilogy on a big screen and you seem to be incredible at projection.
And thus the lobsters did stir. For the calling of their status quo as been made.
In spite of most conservatives vehemently claiming to being the "real" "free-thinkers", there sure seems to be a lot of blindly conforming to centuries-old dogma and ideas and avoiding questioning the state of things in any sort of depth or detail going on in this here ideology. 🤔
(Yes, yes, I know I am not being very original here...)
Could say the same to the consumers to content such as this.
I think you got it wrong chief,
Conservatives considered themselves freethinkers from a perspective of being unafraid to express politically incorrect thought.
Which runs contrary to textbook progressives desires to squelch dissenting opinions.
@@St1kyFinguz ahh so being a free thinker is being able to separate urself from group think.. I see
Just because an idea is centuries old doesn't mean it's wrong.
Except the fact that just because time passes doesn't mean its a bad idea.
8:42 "and start a war with no exit strategy"
O wow, Trump literally said exactly that for Iran just yesterday. "I don't need an exit strategy"
This is my surprised reaction.
Second the recommend for Elizabeth's book, Neoreaction: a Basilisk. It's really, really good. Also recommend Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke's various books about post-wwii nazism.
Also love how she uses William Blake to counter Nick Land. William Blake deserves way more love than he gets.
"and modern conservatives love the 'natural hierarchies' of jordan peterson, who belives, quote, 'blblblbllblblblbllblblblblblbllblblblbllblb". i have never seen professional lobster misunderstander pordan jeterson's arguments so succinctly and eloquently described, thank you
Damn I thought you just pulled all of this out of twitter wars. Now I have to read things to understand things eugh
I always wanted to know how people who made these big insight essays get their big ideas though, so thanks for this. This is a lot of extra labour
". . . And Jordan Peterson, who believes blehblhebheblehblheble."
Dude, pause and read it. It's even better.
"If lobsters subservient, why not humans??"
It's nuts to me that Ian hasn't broken at least half a million subs yet. This is one of the best youtube channels out there.
A large part is probably that a lot of the “guy talks into a microphone by himself about politics” videos on here tend towards exactly what people are accusing him of, unresearched drivel (on both sides honestly). So people get recommended this channel, and when they hear what it’s format is, dismiss it.
Once they watch however, they find actual thought, effort, and research put into each video and realize that this is one of the few valuable discussions on the subject being put out to this platform.
because he whines too much.
@@user-du6rc4pe5t You seem thoughtless.
@@troelshundtofte8957
Ian loves you.
Because he can't brainwash people that easily? Or there aren't enough brainwashed to subscribe?
I'm a little drunk and I'm gonna share something that's on my mind. I'm from Kazakhstan, yesterday, our president (our only president, the one wo's been a president for almost 30 years) stepped down. Following this, they renamed our capital to Nursultan, which is our former 1st president's first name. They also plan to rename all our major cities' biggest roads to Nazarbayev, which is his last name. I'm sitting here, working on my master's degree in social anthropology, living in Europe. And I have zero idea what to do. I sometimes whish we had conservatives and democrats at each other's throat.
Gee. I'm just a little shaken with this and love you, innuendo studios.
Sorry for what happened. Not for dictator going away, but for the city being renamed. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. When I first read about that, I thought that was a joke. Proves how far dictatorial lunacy can go. As one person wrote in a comment, good we already have a city named Vladimir in Russia
@@KateeAngel thanks for you words! yeah, somebody on the russian side of the internet already jokes about Moscow being renamed to Vladimir Vladimirovitch, not to be confused with the already existing Vladimir lol
Jesus Christ I'm sorry to hear that, I'm never gonna refer to your country's capital as “Nursultan”, screw that
Oh man, it's an egopolis in the making.
Except it's real and unironic which makes it doubly dumb and bad.
@@mbucchinmammtmaronn2685 Thank you
This remains one of the most succinct and important videos on describing conservative political theory-both its origins and *what it is* in *practice*-anyone could watch, and it deserves a MUCH bigger reach than what it has
I suggest you watch this video by The Distributist if you want a better intro to right wing thought that isn't full of strawmen:
ruclips.net/video/N_kuFyN3Cwk/видео.html
The role of conservatives throughout history has been to lose slowly.
The victories tend to be atrocities.
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 are things the same as they were 50 years ago?
@@regisglass5464 perfect
@@regisglass5464 Its not because human change of thnking, it's because technology. And one of the conservative victory that prevails to this time its the fall or the URSS.
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 thank you
@@brayansalinas4199 the current russian dictatorship is a conservative victory?
Love doing a microeconomics class and learning about Walrasian equilibriums and being like "oh wait it's that Jean Valjean guy"
I see you have "The Dictator's Handbook" on your research list, which is a title I've been interested in hearing more analysis of. It really changed my mind about how power is accumulated, distributed, and maintained, and--sadly--has caused me to question whether democracy, as a form of governance, is even technically possible in the long term. As it stands, I sort of feel like there isn't a form of government we have thus far developed that can sufficiently emphasize empathy, cooperation, specialization, and fairness, while also resisting corruption. I'd be quite interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject, if you are so inclined.
It is not. Self governance is necessary. All government is done through military might
@@laerslexikondermusica4480 I disagree about that, governance comes in many forms, from tribal hierarchies to multinational corporations. Military might is only one method of establishing power.
While not quite a democracy and glorifying the acquisition of wealth, Venice had the most incorruptible government I've read about, simply because of how many people were involved in different ways that buying them all or organizing all their interests would be hard even without competition.
The problem, as always, is people. People have a responsibility to be self-actualizing and empathetic independent of their governing body, because a government cannot be so for them no matter what form it takes. It's an exhausting responsibility, but an eternally necessary one.
I recommend Daniel Suarez’s “Daemon” and the sequel “Freedom.” Yes, they are fiction, but they are full of interesting ideas about which way we could go next.
Thank you, Innuendo Studios! You are doing great work! This series deserves to blow up on RUclips, it speaks to so much of the content that we've all seen, stumbled on, or been told about by a friend at some point. It's the type of content that we should all be posting links to in the comments sections of the conservative and Intellectual Dark Web streams that have been mushrooming across RUclips, sanitizing some pretty bad ideas.
People who say this guy doesn't do his research are inevitably revealing that they didn't do theirs
No he actually doesn't, as someone who has read Burkes works and gone through his time in Parliament with the Whigs (interesting records I think you should read them) it seems that he is extremely wrong here, he gets multiple things wrong. When discussing burke and the autocracy he doesn't explain why Burke made those statements and what his underlying belief in them was. Quite frankly he seems to leave out the details of why Burke wanted to preserve them and its institutions, it wasn't to "keep the big guys in power" it was Burkes idea that with a revolution comes chaos and such people look for stability if you can help to preserve some of that it will lessen the damage. As we known as he predicted the French revolution that didn't happen and Robespierre was killed, Napoleon then soon rose to power to put in basically a much worse and dictatorial system. Burkes point is on institutions and how they preserve civil society and can stop violence. This man doesn't have a clue I doubt he even read the works. Same with Maistre he gets an insane amount wrong, especially leaving out the key differences of why Maistre isn't an influence in modern Conservative thinking anymore due to his Absolutism. Its lazy
@@joelprovides8930 Citation needed.
Also, multiple experts agree with him.
Not only that but the philosophers with the stupid "whigs"(ha) themselves quoted in the video prove they do believe all of thag with just a few quotes.
And you failed to refute how modern conservatives continue to fundamentally believe some people to be more deserving of power than others and keep trying to prevent that.
Cry me a river.
@@joelprovides8930 this channel is typical left tube garbage using psychological profiling as a cudgel just like the abuses of leftist regimes
@@GuruPrasad-qu4vg So citing one's many sources, and reading up on and presenting the history of the ideology they're speaking about, with actual quotes, is now 'psychological profiling'? Be careful what words you use.
@@akashpisharody look for the implicit assumptions
Thanks for posting this video about your research. As someone who generally doesn't read video descriptions or anything, that was really helpful. Every one of your videos are talking points for my friend group at college. You're doing awesome work!
the softest laugh at 00:57 ".../challenged/" was absolutely d e l i g h t f u l
As someone who actually genuinely believes in the things conservatives claim they believe, that’s literally what made me leftist, because everything conservatives support is actually completely opposed to how to even achieve those alleged principles of equality and freedom.
I just wanted to say that the first time I watched this i was quite conservative and simply never really looked into the people who lead the party or what it represented and merely took smaller independent YT channels(like timcast) for their word. Along with that i really thought the their trickle down economics worked. needless to say I'm now a staunch leftist and want to say to anyone who is still a conservative who's watch this video and does have conservative leanings. try looking up what neo-liberalism is and its a effect on the world post
Reagan, thatcher and the 70s because it really put things into perspective and changed what I think and I think it'll change yours as well. and if Ian reads this thanks this changed my opinion.
I just got done reading Neoreaction a Basilisk. What a stellar book. I would also recommend the book Democracy in Chains, by Nancy MacLean!
I kept reading Neoreaction a Basilisk before going to bed. I had to stop because the topics it discussed kept making me so angry I couldn't get to sleep.
@@noahwatson4310 in my experience, you should do both. Read the original authors and then read analysis/critiques to help get a deeper understanding
One major shift in European conservative thinking was the 1891 Papal Encyclica "Rerum Novarum" which sparked its own, Christian-conservative social theory parallel to the Marxist-socialist one. However, since the 1980s the Christian-Social branch of conservativism has vastly lost in power due to Reagnite-Thatcherist influence among conservative thinkers.
Hi ,I’m from Middle East
I will be grateful if u teach me English language and I will teach u Arabic language 😂,please if u accept let me know
Best regards
It seems as if this video has elevated the discourse, and encouraged no small proportion of people to read more, myself included.
Thanks for that.
Conservatism fall victim to selection bias: “the system must be good, it produced and empowers me”
If I had one wish. It would be that the average magakid could get past the 30sec mark without having a seizure.
@Ryan McCreedy No of course not. Most people are not so monstrous as to to gleefully subscribe to a bigoted philosophy. The point of these videos is to demonstrate the way those that DO gleefully follow these ideas, repackage them to gradually broaden the audience. They might not be able to convince you that black people are lesser, but if they can convince you there's nothing wrong with the economic system that put them down and kept them there... that's almost as good. It's ok if you don't believe "only whites deserve power" as long as you think "power goes where it should" whilst it's disproportionately enjoyed by old white men. And for every more reasonable person they can get to buy the diet version of their narrative they gain shelter from the scrutiny of their core value. Even so, at it's most basic it's simply about maintaining power. The fascist will step on any group to get it. As long as they can somehow categorize themselves out of that group.
I was worried that you were actually gonna recite a Peterson quote in this video 🤣
He did
I stand corrected. Innuendo Studios doesn't recite it, at least. Thanks.
@Wesley Shiflet So he had a nervous breakdown and blamed it on a glass of cider? Talk about lack of self awareness.
Tim K this is not a good comment
@@crowstakingoff It's true though, although I was a bit too harsh. His description of his inflammatory reaction to cider in that article is that of a nervous breakdown he is in denial about. It is sad, I've been through something very similar so I know how horrible what he is describing is. I just hope he realises that he has some unaddressed problems that he needs to deal with and is healthier as a result.
7:46 HELP THAT TOOK ME OUT BECAUSE I WASNT EXPECTING IT AT ALL
Hibribiribiribiri
8:30 and directly dollowing: "This time it's different, baby." It's never different.
Regarding this and the previous video, I don't want this to be true. Not because I doubt your research, I certainly am not qualified to. But because it's a slower suicide pact than the fascist one, but it still leads to violent revolution in the long run, and I don't like that on principle. The tune is just a little different.
That said, a lot of the things you've said in this and the other video seem to reflect things I've heard people say in arguments and attitudes I've banged my head against. The most maddening is "But it manipulates the market". Good. There should be no market for cars that won't break exploding ketchup bottles and poisonous waste sites near where people live. And cleaning the mess up after the fact is not a sustainable alternative.
Being a person raised in the same culture as much of your intended audience, I have to agree that I do and always have seen hiarchies as . . . natural? But so's the poison in peach pits. Natural is not a synonym for Good (which would not surprise my parents because as a boy I once wanted to eat some poisonous berries that grew in our back yard and were hard to get rid of). I read the Prince and the Discorces on Titus Levy and what I got from them besides a respect for looking at things how they are rather than how you would want them to be is that part of how they are is that people absolutely hate being, in their own view, opressed. Any hirarchy where power flows to the few and nothing flows to anyone else is just asking for the sort of problems that end with guilletines and even more opression (I'm not a fan of the French Revolution).
So, if you going to have a hirarchy, you want it as wide as humanly possible with as many proections for people lower down as is reasonable. Insisting that all power must go to you and your budies is not a long-term strategy for survival. You could survive quite happily for generation, don't get me wrong, but eventually, if you act like the kind of person people want to hang from lightpost, someone will hang you from a lightpost unless you're retired for your own good.
An having better people in power is not a good answer because vertuous people are great and we all need as many of them as possible isn't a solution because the reason why they're great is that they're not all that common. And not everyone who thinks they're vertuous really, truely is. And any system that overly concentrates power is going to attract the sort of people you don't want to have it. That's why you make sure you have more than one locus of power when you design a constitution. It's a way of widening the pyramid.
Britain avoided violent revolution in the 1840's not because they were run by better people, but because they compromised. They spread the hirarchy out and let more people into decisionmaking. I hate that there are people in my country who want to reverse that process and am now less baffeled at the people who actively vote for them.
I think part of what this shows that it's hard to take a small piece of something that you agree with out of a matrix of something you don't and don't understand. It reaches out for the ideas that it used to be connected to and unless you're very careful and either replace those intellectual connection or provide the context it can attract similar ideas. Which would be why people who with a straight face insist that the form of capitalism talked about here is democratic and a meritocracy but they wind up supporting the opposite without even noticing it. Ayn Rand quoters worry me for this reason.
That compromise in Britain was Great Reform Act 1832. And we should not forget how repressive the conservative hacks until Lord Liverpool were governing during the years from the end of Napoleonic War up to 1832.
I have had a gut feeling that I despise all conservative philosophy for a while. Now I know I was correct after all.
Brady Fries ah, a true intellectual. o bestow your incredible and awesome takes upon my feeble, beta marxist sjw brain
@@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356 Conservatism was never about those things.
Conservitive's love big goverment, esspecially when they can use it as a cudgel against wonen, people of color, LGBT people and religions not their own, the only low taxes they care about is "low taxes for the rich and high taxes for the poor because to them the inverse is communism", free-market is a lie because without regulation markets tend to skew towards monopoly and cronyism, they treat dissenting speech as litteral treason, they hate individualism to the point they criminalize and demonize and villify anything "not them" and love putting the economy in debt for their endless wars.
But how expected of you to parrot the blatent Conservitive lies like your reading a grocerylist.
"The Reactionary Mind" and "Neoreaction" are both brilliant. I'll have to get down to "The Authoritarians" and "How Propaganda Works." If you haven't read them, I'd also recommend "Suburban Warriors," "Crabgrass Frontier," and Rick Perlstein's series of essays "Thinking Like a Conservative." Hell, read pretty much anything by Perlstein, he helped get the ball rolling for Corey Robin's theories.
Your essays on this and the previous topics have been fantastic. It helps that I agree with your conclusions, but your logic is well laid out and your insights are eye opening and compelling. Thank you for all of this series.
Conservatives: "Something short, quipy, and wrong about alt-right playbook."
Innuendo Studios: This video. ^^
Hmmmm I think this kind of interaction was detailed somewhere....
Well he didn't bring them up, which is what he said should be done I suppose.
He's speaking past them
Consider reading "The Red and the Blue," a history about the political tribalism arguably began forming when Newt Gingrich gained office. It's got some "faschy" themes.
Good old Newt made polarizing the discourse and destroying compromise literally the battle doctrine of the Republican party. And it has been ever since, for decades on now. I mean, things have been going wrong a lot longer, but he literally wrote a plan you can read about how to always call your opponents Satan and to never give them anything, even reasonable discourse.
Thank you so much for posting a list of sources! I spend a lot of time scouring the internet for books that focus on this topic/kind of analysis, so your list is such a blessing.
An extension on these two videos. I have noticed that my conservative friends tend to always argue, individual choice and always deny systemic problems. I think this is another difference between the way conservatives and liberals think.
If you think about it, there is a method to this particular madness.
The problems of capitalism are most apparent at the large levels, at the scale of collections of people. But if you focus only on a specific individual's choice of what to buy, who to work for, etc, it seems to be a pretty iron-clad system. At the smallest scale, it seems to be a pretty good approximation of a meritocracy; it creates a hierarchy, but the people at the top are those who create value. Big capitalism is just a lot of small capitalism.
I think that is a big part of conservative thought. They see everything as an extension of each individuals choices; societies are just a bunch of individuals. If every individual is acting rationally, then everything will work. And those who don't act rationally are choosing not to, and therefore are the architects of their own demise.
What annoys me about this kind of thinking the most is... they *know it isn't true.* On some level, they have to know that. Because everything around them constantly tells them it isn't true.
Advertising is probably the #1 most obvious example of this notion of individual choice. Advertising undeniably works, because if it didn't, companies wouldn't spend so much money on it. Yet on the level of an individual choice, most ads just don't seem like they could possibly work. A car ad with an attractive woman in it... how can associating a car with sex possibly cause a rational person to be more willing to buy that car?
But it does work. And conservatives never even try to square that circle. Modern society inundates them with examples of how groups of people can act in predictable fashions to specific stimuli, how systemic group-think can exist and be utilized and manipulated, and so forth. But they never let that thought touch the thought that everyone is just an individual with individual choices.
In the book The Authoritarians, Bob Altermeyer points to research that shows how cognitive dissonance is strong among authoritarian followers. They have a truly impressive ability to fundamentally believe two completely incompatible ideas at the same time. And I think it helps lead them to ideologies like this, because they have less resistance to them.
@@GeneralBolas Thanks that was kind of what I was getting at but I was far more lazy than you in explaining myself
@@GeneralBolas I literally ignore ads all the time and I can't recall a single instance where I actually purchased something advertised to me.
A huuuuge part of things that influence conservative thought in modern day (in my humble mildly educated opinion) is the Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, while reading this in history class i was shocked how similar it is to modern day arguments
Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive imo.
You don’t have a say in decision that effect you. Who elected Jeff bezos who voted on how much carbon emissions are push into the environment. The workers don’t get to say how the value they helped to make gets distributed they have to listen to there boss with no say in the matter.
Yeah cuz all rich people in power were democracy elected
Capitalism is inherently authoritarian in nature, but that doesn't mean that it can't coexist as an economic system alongside a democratic government. Not to say the USA government is democratic, it was built specifically to undermine democracy, but it can coexist for a time. Eventually the people would democratically replace Capitalism.
I’m watching this entire series for a second time and I can’t figure out this mans aversion to saying “the description” 😭
Literally lol'd at the Jordan Peterson bit. Ahhh jeez... there's so many better comments on here. I feel dumb now.
If you never felt dumb, you probably are dumb. Find some good books and think hard ;)
6:25 that's a lot of words for: "please daddy punish me"
Thank you for this comment
thank you for this fantastic series. you're doing a great public service putting this information out there in this format. while i can't say you've convinced me of anything i didn't already believe, ive learned a lot from these videos, much of it stuff i never would have discovered for myself had you not extricated it from the toxic muck it's birthed from.
that ayn rand quote is something else
This is such great work and it’s asking a lot of the questions I ask. This RUclips channel is fucking incredible.
Stumbled upon your videos by chance, and they where eye opening. Not about my personnal values and beliefs, but more like ''damn! this is happening in my part of the world''. Great stuff, keep up the good work!
It never fails.. everytime I rewatch this I seem to understand it better. Been like 8 months since the last time I did it.
yeah, me too. All the alt-right playbook really
From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats.
More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition.
People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.
The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy.
In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.
Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.
_Philip E. Agre_
_August 2004_
Best political channel on youtube, right here. Good work as always.
That’s my favorite Jordan Peterson quote.
I mean, this was good mate. I wouldn't have minded this in the main video.
Honestly, Ian's previous video was the first one that... didn't *quite* hit the mark for me. Until I watched this follow-up.
I like all the paintings you used in this video!
The Peterson quote made me realize how much I love this channel, and I immediately signed up on Patreon.
You are consistently blowing my mind with these videos
So... that means we should go be progressive rather than just liberal.
That'd be ideal, yeah.
No it means you should be a socialist.
@@nathandrake5544 Potentially more ideal. Personally I think I lean towards the idea of "Progressive" in the term of "For the good of the greatest number of people, in as equal as a way as possible"
All the "isms" can be corrupted, Tyranny can infiltrate some systems easier than others, but we have to always be vigilant for folks using systems for their own ends. I think Socialism is a lot more corruption resistant than capitalism, but I hesitate to throw my had into any one ring. I just want to see the world become better, with more opportunities for more people. That'd be pretty keen.
Yeah like definitely look into socialism more. A good place to start is richard Wolff
And I mean real socialism. People claim socialism is "when thr government does stuff", but that is just liberal reform, like medicare for all is for example just liberal reform. Socialism is all about democracy in the work place, and that does NOT mean government control, the most important part to socialism is democracy.
What a fantastic series of videos. Well researched, argued and presented. I've just sat and watched the first 10 or so non-stop, except for the point at 7:40 in this one, where I had to pause and laugh uncontrollably for a good 20 seconds.
Just found your channel. Keep up with the great work! I love it!
This is an excellent analysis; it's so eye opening, it's flaw is that it's not yet more widely known.
You're providing a great service here sir. It's appreciated.
Nietzsche also believed that slavery was necessary to the continuation of humanity, and that those meant to be subsidiary to others were actually happy being slaves.
In my reading of Nietzsche, the only thing about him that wasn't more right wing than left was his dismissal of religion. Which is really just a cleaner way of doing right wing thinking....instead of trying to use religion to your ends, with all its talk of endowed rights and whatnot, just dismiss it altogether.
@@cnking27 as an atheist leftist, I am somewhat troubled by the implication that atheism is right wing. My lack of belief in religion actually allowed me to move much farther left than when I was religious
Innuendo Studios 2020! Let's do it
Stayed up till 12:00am exactly to watch this and it was totally worth it great video! interested to see more.