Oh also, people often use "liberal" synonymously with "left". I don't think this is an accurate way of describing the situation. In reality, Liberals and Conservatives are a part of the same political tradition, and are entirely disconnected from Left and Right.
You are absolutely right. I remember learning the difference between "liberal" and "leftist" from a Prager U video of all things. The political positions typically associated with each are fundamentally different and they should actually come into conflict because of it. However, the far left has successfully duped the liberals into thinking they are on the same side. Which I think has also disillusioned those few Liberals who escaped the trap. Forced to watch as there contemporaries fall prey to madness and "wokeness." It is rather tragic if you sit down and think about it.
The political dichotomy is a totally erroneous model of the true spectrum. It's not just over-simplifed, it leaves out an entire dimension of the political map, and that's why groups such as liberals, conservatives, etc. are mis- categorized. Look up the "political trichotomy" which accurately accounts for all 3 existing dimensions. There are basically three extremes: communists on the left and libertarians and absolutists on the right, but as distinctly separate from one another as they are to the communists on the far left. Each political ideology has its overarching supreme value at its core, which are mutually exclusive from one another, and any one comes at the expense of the other two; those values being, equality (communism) ; liberty (libertarianism) ; stability (absolutism). Moderates such as liberals and conservatives are naturally somewhere in between the three extremes, but with the Overton window shifting inexorably to the left towards communism.
@@dirtypure2023 He was talking about how the labor party destroyed itself by embracing the radical left and how jeremy corbyn hasn't a single original thought or idea in his head that doesn't come from either radical american "thinkers" or french philosophy.. It was in the interview he did with the sun after the last uk election.
The triangle was me Dev, been pushing you for a while to make a video on it. Traditional is more Stability though, but traditional ideas became tradition since they're stable so... I don't know why I keep editing this comment.
In my opinion, "tradition" is not the value of "fascism". In my opinion tradition is just a tool to achieve their real core value which is "stability".
Facists default to statist nationalism. Traditionalists default to a form of ethnonationalism. Both will take from aspects of each other and manipulate each other but they are at its core different
I think it depends on the state, Japan while very free culturally they encourage and promote tradition. This provides stability, they have some policies that help this but not oppressively so.
I was going to say something similar. The word "tradition" makes it sound arbitrary or without purpose. I was going to suggest "utility" instead, but "stability" works too I guess.
Liberty = The freedom not to watch the CHAZ video. Fraternity = Everyone not watching the CHAZ video together. Equality = Regardless of background or creed nobody gets to watch the CHAZ video.
I had always considered myself conservative or right of center because i viewed things in a linear fashion, but that pyramid makes alot of sense. Using that i would be firmly in the side of liberalism because i value personal freedom over everything else. Which is why i get annoyed by censorship from either side, whether its family values conservatives using 'protect the children' or hyper woke lefties wanting to shield minorities from 'hate speech'.
I've said on some of Dev's other videos that young(ish) moderates today have fought back against finger-wagging censorship on both sides. Take the world of Gaming, for example. During the 90s and early 00s, the Christian Right were trying to censor violent or sexual games for being "indecent", "bad for children", and so on. During the last decade, the Intersectional Left have tried to censor non-woke games for being "sexist", "exclusionary", and so on. Both the Right and Left are capable of being stupid and authoritarian. I don't care which of our proverbial neighbours kick their ball into our garden; all i care about is that it stops happening, and that they leave us in peace.
That's because the liberals and the fascists are outnumbered by commies nowadays forcing them into the same political party. If fascists outnumbered commies the liberals would be considered on the left, just like they were in the 50s
I was listening to this and was reminded of a quote. "Anybody that defines their opposition while rejecting their opposition's ability to do the same is not worthy of your trust and the facts. They only respect them because it is useful. And they will reject them both when it is no longer so."
That's where they fooled you. They convinced you that a Liberal is a Centrist. That it is merely a razor's edge between Left and Right, and that you need to pick a side, because you're "not on one."
I really have a problem with this paradigm of "tradition is Fascism" Tradition is just the world before 1700. Fascism is much more about state totalitarianism, and only incorporates tradition as long as it serves the state's needs. Demonizing traditionalism like this is what gets you into a situation where the social fabric of your country is so weak that a Fascist state arises from a desire for order at all costs. I don't think that being pressured to adhere to tradition by the society around you is fascism. I think that is a gross cope to justify living in degeneracy, I'll just be honest. Tradition is a cultural and philosophical concept. Fascism is a political concept based on the perfection of the state which transcends any philosophy, culture, or traditions.
You articuled very well my feelings about it. Generally I think the model works, but as several others have suggested before me, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the term 'security' instead of 'tradition'. Maybe?
I never understood why people reject the idea of an autocratic state. In some situation, a strong state with a simplified action-making process does more good than a democratic state with its heavy bureaucracy. The best examples are countries building themselves back up from war or poverty: De Gaulle's France, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Khadafi's Lybia.
@@thisismelv An autocratic state that does good by its citizenry is a fluke. A coincidence. A liberal democracy doing right by its citizenry is the system working as intended. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The French revolution is taught as the biggest achievement in modern history. But they don't talk too much alut the great Terror or how funny it is that they got rid of a King only to end up with an Emperor. I have learned recently how the American revolution did more for the world.
Except we do, we really do teach it here in France. Also, if you want to compare, the American Revolution can be seen as America needing to drag itself into abolishing slavery, where France was the first modern country to ban it within it's own borders, and England then made sure the rest of the world followed suit.
@MrATN800 Late, but France reverted on that stance pretty quickly under Napoleon. The US took time to abolish slavery, but when it did, it was permanent. Meanwhile, France did what France did best, and that was have a revolution, not know what to do, throw Europe in to chaos, become an empire, and then get beat leaving them worse off then before with a few reforms sticking around. Put quite simply, France is the definition of a country that knows something is wrong, but not what it is and they throw all of Europe into confusion as they try to figure it out.
Devs been killing it lately with the topics he's been covering. I love how he's able to use such simplistic language and visuals in order to concisely convey his points without being reductive or strawmaning. That's the Hallmark of someone who knows what they're talking about and I believe this is exactly what people need to look for in their political/social commentary. We need more rational, honest actors contributing to these dialogues, because the more Devs there are, the less wiggle room there will be left for radicals and ideologues to poison the well and subvert the topic being discussed.
Honestly, SFO is criminally undersubbed and it should be bigger than Sargon, nowadays. Dev just produces better content, but refuses to play the game RUclips's way, which I can absolutely respect.
@@SgtAbramovich I totally agree with you that he deserves way more attention, and I believe sooner or later he'll get it, but I also believe Sargon has earned his audience and notoriety as well. I can respect where you're coming from though.
@@RussianBot-xu7wl Sargon absolutely did earn his spot and audience, it's just that his new content is kinda meh, while Dev just reminds me a lot of Sargon's old stuff, the more philosophical meat I'm all about.
@@SgtAbramovich I can broadly see what you mean, but I don't see Sargon's new content as being any less philosophically based. Its simply more that Sargon's new stuff is focused more on being reactionary, while Dev is sticking predominantly to more broad, general topics of discussion. I can see why you would prefer the more broad discussions since it's easier to focus more on the substance of the topic, but I don't see one style as being inherintely superior in regards to facilitating the discussion itself. But like I said before, I can totally see where you're coming from, and can agree, to a certain extent.
This is actually amazing. Thanks to you and whoever showed it to you for bringing this to light. After looking through the comments, I took a look at Turd Flinging Monkey's and Academic Agent's discussions on political trichotomy. Hopefully this gets pushed into mainstream political discussions.
I've always found Fascism fascinatingly odd as an ideology. Socially, I definitely think it can be classified as its own corner in the triangle, but economically, it's really somewhat socialist, corporatism being the least socialist of the Fascist economic systems. Remember, Mussolini was still socialist in his thinking when he took power
It makes more sense when you remember Mussolini spent a decade as a comunist and then kept several of the ideas while rejecting several core tenants of communism the workers revolution being a big one he dumped. FDR (yes that one) even lauded the "fascist model of socialism" prior to ww2 haveing major socialist / comunist leaningings him self you can even parallel FDRs social programs with one's in Germany and see why his where failing till lend lease flooded the USA economy with hard money mostly in the form of gold.
@@david-468 yes and no while you are right he did ban the the private ownership of gold and in effect steal from the American people most of the land lease payments and other things we sold to the ally nations where payed for in hard spisce mostly again in gold. Lend lease is in many ways the capitalist secret that held up fdrs socialist and let's be real communist lie.
@@petman515 yes I probably agree with you In more ways then not however he more stole then banned private ownership of funds/gold, I mean that’s how war bonds (I.o.u.) became a thing lol, he is by far the most overrated president also IMO lol he was ok but he’s given credit that his successors deserve, idk sorry I’m rambling now lol
@@petman515 I’m trynna say, it would’ve been one thing if he said “we need your gold because of war” but he said “we will give you your gold back after the war” but didn’t really
7:03 THANK! YOU! I get so tired of being told that when I talk about how terrible Communism is that I never say anything bad about Fascism, ergo I must support Fascism because I'm only bashing Communism. We had a whole World War to show how flawed Fascism is. We destroyed it! I think that would be sign enough, and I don't have to repeat it every time I speak that Fascism was bad.
Charitable View Right: If it is not broken, then do not fix it. Left: If it is good, then it must be perfected. Center: If it is harmful, then replace it.
So it only uses progress to advance its traditional and cultural ideas. I mean that'll get you further than the communists. Something something electricity and candles
Fascism demands a spiritual rebirth of its people, though it does use 'wisdom of the past' to achieve it. Still, they have no interest in 'going back'.
I don't remember seeing a constitutional amendment stating that my right to own and build buildings however I want are an inherent right that no government can make laws against, dictating my behavior.
I'm all for ditching most building codes for houses under two stories, with exception to plumbing and electric. Some of the old houses built before such things have long outlasted their more regulated brethren.
Instead of "Left" and "Right" wing, I've been using the terms "Communal" and "Individual," respectively. It's much more descriptive and harder to muddy.
I try to avoid labels and drill down to principles and guiding axioms. As convenient as saying “leftists” is, I think it ignores the deeper contention based on fundamental tenets and the multifaceted nature of man
In my belief inequality is an infinately preferable state of affairs so long as a society is based upon meritocracy. Reciprocity the ultimate value on which a society should be based. As a propertarian I believe reciprocity should be enshrined into law under a constitution and the judiciary should be obliged to always rule in favor if reciprocity.
Propertarian is an ideology for dead man. How can an ideology sustain itself when its leaders, Doolittle and John Mark, crumble in the face of adversity? Why does the ideology worship an object set in stone? A constitution is merely a tool used to obtain freedom, it does not guarantee it. The people do.
I like a lot your videos SFO, you are tapping intro the true nature of the Philosopher and thus I respect you more than others that just anchor themselves into their own thoughts and political views. Keep the good work and keep on enlightening yourself in all walks of life, for it is the path of wisdom.
I think you've missed something. Fascism and Communism are both branches on the Socialist ideological family tree. The core beliefs are the same. The difference lies mainly in their revolutionary arguments, all of which are made in bad faith, with the aim of subordinating everyone to 'the party' or whatever equivalent is currently in vouge. The common perception of the two being entirely separate seems to be the work of modern marxists, trying to dump the blame for all of socialism's evils on one label that nearly no one actually defends, and is also conveniently so misunderstood that it can be applied ad hominem to anyone who argues with them.
Something Else to consider is that pre-enlightenment ideology still exists, it didn't magically go away. One could layer a second triangle over the enlightenment one, I imagine it might include Theism, Conservatism.... idk, I've thought about this a lot but I haven't actually bothered to really break it down in specific terms.
I’ve always been grateful for your videos, but this one above many others really puts many things into perspective. Thank you so much for making it and sharing it with us. This honestly is what I imagine a college lecture would have looked like back before ideologies took over.
I'm loving the positivity I've been seeing on these channels lately. Keep up the good vibes m'dude; that's gonna be a huge factor in pushing back the radicals and creating a sustainable sense of normalcy. 👍🏿
This triangle is ridiculously helpful. I was aware that there was problems with the traditional political spectrum before- oftentimes resulting in communism and Nazism described as the two ends, with everything else falling in between. That had always bothered me, but I didn't know another way of explaining why it wasn't true.
Very close but I have things to add: The you got it right that the ultimate expression of Order isn't Nazism. It's Tsarism. The incredibly rigid social order couldn't allow people to reach their potential, and so those downtrodden would always have flipped the table and revolted. At the end your were circling around what "progress" means for the libertarians. I think the highest ethic for the libertarians is "Darwinism". So progress, economic or otherwise, will always resemble that struggle. Think anarcho-capitalism, the "free market of ideas", sexual experimentation etc. The Libertarians believe in a Darwinian hierarchy, which rejects the hierarchy of incompetence of Authoritarianism and the hierarchy of redistribution of Socialism. The Socialists believe In Equity, which rejects the dog-eat-dog brutality of Libertarianism and the oppression of Authoritarianism. The Authoritarians believe in a hierarchy of the great and the good, which rejects Socialism's equity between the noble and the degenerate, and Libertarianism's hierarchy of expedience.
Ironically societies don't favor libertarianism in all instances where we let this Darwinistic system play out. Libertarians always end up getting run out of their own system by either the right or progressives.
@@rexthompson5909 Libertarians are politically incompetent, and they are politically incompetent because they are politically passive. They are consistently out-competed by political interests which are better able to network, organize, and are more willing to wield power where libertarians can only negate it. Insofar as libertarians do engage with politics, they will do so in a purely reactive mode, which means their enemies are always the ones setting the agenda while libertarians can only react to it. Their playbook is all defense, so they can take never take ground but can always lose it, which they inevitably do. Libertarians will often pride themselves on their moderation and passivity. It's a comfortable place to be politically if you lack any kind of positive vision you wish to impose on the world and really just want t9 be left alone. This why libertarianism has for decades been the natural home of moderates, centrists, and the politically unambitious of all varieties, but it's this fundamental lack of fantaticism, or rather this anti-fanaticism, which ultimately makes Libertarianism unattractive to the kinds of highly motivated, passionate people who always make up the real movers and shakers of any political movement.
@@50centpb7 You're making it sound as if "live and let live" was generally (not situationally) a bad motto to follow. And also, you seem to lean on the side of energocracy, as in, effort being the ultimate value. I wonder where you come from with that.
the communism, liberalism, and fascism triangle if flawed. fascism is hyper national, but it also uses a lot of communist ideas. mussolini did not try or advocate for a return to old style rule, same with hitler. left leaning parties around the world supported fascism until things turned to war. tradition is nationalism, but monarchy is nationalism and was the enemy of the left wing when the term was coined. fascism promoted itself as a third way from socialism and capitalism.
I think this political spectrum does a much better job of explaining how and why Nazism was a “left wing” ideology than other spectrums. The Order vs. Freedom one does too, but this simplifies the criteria to where it’s clear on a more fundamental level, which I think is important and overlooked.
I subscribed today after hearing what youve been saying for a while, thanks for your insight on these things, this feels extremely grounded and put together to, this video is very impressive
This is a really good video dev. Sargon posted one like it a few months back and I favorited it so I could rewatch it because it wasn't super clear for me, but your explanation of this triangle clicked for me.
This was well-thought out. The last segment addressed something that I had been pondering ever since I watched your video on reactionaries. I always thought it was strange that socialists called liberals reactionaries, given that liberals tend to seek new solutions to problems that traditionalism fails to address. Liberals typically don't want to return to some previous paradigm, but the socialists still see that as being reactionary because from their perspective, anything other than progress on their own terms is regression. It's difficult to wrap my head around how they are able to see things that way. Here's an analogy I came up with. Socialists: Let's go north. Fascists: Let's go south. Liberals: Let's go west. Socialists: So you have chosen south.
I don't believe in truth. Truth is a word that represents the ideal according to whoever is advocating for the truth. One example is a pro-lifer claiming that the truth is that abortion is destructive to families and society alike. (What a surprise, truth just happens to align with what the pro-lifer believed) Reality is the word I prefer. The easiest way to explain the difference between truth and reality is this: something happens in a public space. 35 people saw it happen, and a security camera recorded it. The truth is what those 35 people saw, just ask them. Reality is what's on that recording. And yet, we STILL can't see reality for what it is. All of us will watch that video and see different things when we watch it. Human beings filter everything. I could cite things such as the two viral tests from a couple of years ago (is it "yanny" or "laurel"? Is the dress white/gold or blue/black), but the competing versions of the "truth" about the riots/protests is far more relevant at the moment.
@@rexthompson5909 if someone else uses their freedom to lie though, and they mislead and decieve people then those people arent actually free to make their own choices because they have bad information. Freedom has to be subservient to truth because if its the other way around lies will destroy freedom
@@lifeyoushouldtryit I was thinking about it from the perspective of "you must have freedom in order to pursue truth", but I handy considered how bad information can hinder freedom Also Iirc learning and becoming good at critical thinking and logic as well as rhetoric (logos, pathos and ethos) can help you sort through bad information to find qualitative information, sift through bullshit to find truth etc
@@lifeyoushouldtryit You have the real issue brought about by the Seinfeld quote from George Costanza: "It's not a lie if you believe it." Of course, that was the character being disingenuous, but what about the more common version: "I don't accept your premise, because your TRUTH doesn't fit my observations/experience/belief systems"? It's easy to just label that as ignorance, but the problem is we keep having official "TRUTHS" turn out to be "a little bit misleading" ("depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") or "a necessary untruth" (N95 masks aren't necessary for the public)" Who decides what is "enough TRUTH"? And don't say "the individual". Nobody could possibly thoroughly research every single political, economic or scientific issue that has the potential to get them cheated, imprisoned or killed if they get the "wrong" answer.
Fascists are not for tradition, they want equality. You probably think Nazis supported German values and traditions but they did not, they just replaced those traditions with something else. They went after Jews with equality in mind. Nazis attacked the black, red and gold flag despite that being the proper flag of Germany, using a swastika instead, a symbol from Asian religions. The Nazi party believed in an insane cult no regular German believed in. Where's the tradition? And Nazis did not believe in free market *AT ALL.* Communists did a good job convincing people that they are different from fascists. Sadly, this includes Devon.
Fascism pays lip service to tradition while basically just being another variant of Socialism that stands opposed to Marxism. I agree with others in the comments that describing it as an emphasis on "order" makes more sense. Also Dev, you're well enough versed on the topic, you should know better than to equate Nazism and Fascism as interchangeable: Nazism is the Hegelian Synthesis of Socialism and Fascism, and is the actual inevitable outcome of the pursuit of Communism.
I was about to say. I'm pretty sure guys like the Dalai Lama had once spoken positively of traditional roots. So I guess he's a fascist in accordance to this.
@@somebody5702 well if you want a totall cultural rebirth and going to the past like Red Ice Tv for example their intro is literally : future is the past i don't think he said something that extreme
@@oxitocin7718 Granted, I don't know enough on Red Ice TV, so you're probably right about that. But he did get in trouble for saying the refugees from the middle east should return to the middle east to rebuild their homes and let Europe be for the European natives. To be fair that's what any actual refugee would do if possible, but there is a strong sense of traditionalism and an essence of cultural rebirth there, since it would be a wind back of the clock for both middle eastern and European countries.
Fascism is anti traditional, as you define it. Evolas tradition is very different from the use in day to day language. For example, Hitler was strongly anti monarchical
So by the triangle, what differentiates conservative concepts of tradition from fascist concepts of tradition? I admit asking tho mid-video, but it is still a valid question.
Conservative view on tradition is, hey it's a good thing, please follow? Fascists view is, follow or die The other difference is that conservatives aren't proactive in "conserving" tradition
Sargon made a video on a very similar subject three months ago. You described it as why each vertex of the triangle opposes the other two, he described it as why from the point of view of one vertex, both other vertices start looking identical.
Honestly 8 axis is still limiting. It's best to start by addressing ideologies as what they are, and move down from there, rather than start with the generalization (ie, left, right).
You're still equating equality to equity. You're also forgetting that Fascism is a development of socialism. Communism and Fascism are collectivist ideologies, Liberalism isn't.
Should tradition be replaced with order, it seems that tradition is just an easier way of getting order the fascists utilize. Otherwise I agree with this a lot, I think we all have been thumbing with this concept for a while ( I definitely have). In my philosophy classes the prisoner's dilemma was proposed, my professor divided the responses into three types: contractarianism, socialism, and capitalism. So this is Hobbes, Rousseau, and Adam Smith; a better way might be replacing Smith with Locke. This would look like Contractarianism, socialism, and Liberalism. Liberalism and socialism would look a lot like you described, but contract would replace fascism. Hobbesean thought is the bed work for authoritarianism and personifies order, the tradition you used is better served by Hobbes's sympathy for Monarchy. I think this would make a cleaner system.
Yeah it's stability and leads more to absoluteisem than fasisem. What peaple forget is that cultures and peaple keep traditions because they make a stable society not the other way around.
Please choose a more reasonable time to upload, us non Americans shouldn’t have to suffer like this. In future, please screw over the Asian time zones because they don’t matter.
I think Sargon had a very similar thought process in his right ordering of the world video. Edit: It was in this video where Sargon discuss the three topics discussed by Dev ruclips.net/video/bdLakUa3KX8/видео.html
Because they arnt really its more like following comunist ideals while rightly rejecting several core tenants as unworkable in practical realty mostly by filling in the failures if comunisem with an amount of capitalism and ending up with the worst of both systems. Or at least that's my grasp of it.
Hearing the word progress so much reminded me of a Fingertight album, In The Name of Progress; Maybe their ideas were seen as communistic back around '03, but idk, re-listening makes me think more to the Liberty angle at times.
I really like the triangle. However, identifying fascism with tradition or traditionalism is simply wrong. Mussolini was certainly not a traditionalist. His movement claimed to be for progress, for modernity, for overcoming the past and tradition and reaching for the stars. No wonder Marinetti, the founder of the Futurist movement, became a fascist. And Marinetti wasn't alone. The German version of fascism went somewhat differently, but, hard as it is for us to imagine, they too believed in progress. Only, their kind of progress. Even the modern jihadis believe in progress. From their dusty mosques or caves, they do believe that they will conquer the world, that everyone will submit to Allah or become a dhimmi, etc. And that's progress in their view. The liberal idea of progress, though not delineated as sharply as in other ideologies, carries its own set of distinct assumptions. It is a belief that in the long run life will only get better, that the paths that lead to dead ends may be tried but will inevitably be rejected, that along with greater technology respect for freedom and human rights will be winning. etc., etc., read Arthur C. Clarke. The essence of fascism is not tradition, but unity, not traditionalism, but belief in absolute power of the State over the people or any other organization. From this point, one can see that the triangle is not equilateral but isosceles, with socialism and fascism being very close to each other. The thing is: whenever any Socialist tries to go beyond pure theory, he very quickly finds out that the State needs to become stronger and force people to submit, that this power of the State goes very well with strong nationalism, and that hierarchy fits very well with this also. Socialism might theorize about dying out of State, ethnicity and hierarchy, but any attempt to put it into reality, eventually calls for strengthening these things. Combined with other socialist features, it becomes almost indistinguishable from fascism.
interesting, you also arrived at the political trichotomy that Turd Flinging Monkey have been talking about since a while ago. PD: I comment this before but I can't find it anymore, wtf
Perhaps, just far more succinctly and coherently stated? (I'm generally a fan of Sargon, but sometimes he's overly winded and ends up blurring the point of his arguments in the midst of excessive wordiness.)
It's a different way of talking about the same concept This tends to happen when discussing human psychology (at least iirc it does), people come to the same conclusions and label them different things depending upon how far their thought process goes It's all the same ideas fundamentally, just different names. The more information you have and the more you think these things through the deeper your understanding gets and the more conclusions you're able to make
@@rexthompson5909 Did tube cut answer? Anyway i get it man, stefan molyneux also likes hes own farts but when talking in depth philosophy you cant tabloid it really.
I don't think that triangle chart is appropriate, it's skewed towards liberalism in a way. The true top corner would be Libertarianism. Liberals would be more central, maybe even more towards the top-right pane- or at least American/Classical Liberalism is. Though this chart also unduly has a slant or poisoning of the well against Tradition. Traditions become Traditions because they're the things that worked, they're the lessons of those that came before, the questions they're the answer towards becoming lost, and so without a question you lose sight of the answer, and abandon it, only for those problems to come again if you cannot find a new answer, if you can even address the question.
Dev is a liberal. He's going to gravitate toward a system that sees his ideas as the pinnacle good thing, that's just human nature. (He also flirts with the idea of libertarians being fascist, which just demonstrates he doesn't really _get_ libertarians).
Since the promulgation of the current Political Constitution, numerous political parties and movements have emerged and disappeared in Colombia. The main cause of this phenomenon is: A. Discredit that has historically characterized the leaders of traditional parties. B. The abundance of private economic resources to finance new political forces. C. Parties' strategy of promoting leaders who don't attract the attention of voters. D. The absence of political programs that represent the interests of large population groups.
or as we say in France now : "liberte? suprime, egalite? conte de fee, fraternite? sexiste!" liberty? cancelled, equality? fairy tale, fraternity? .." macron is champagne socialism's zenith.
Oh also, people often use "liberal" synonymously with "left". I don't think this is an accurate way of describing the situation. In reality, Liberals and Conservatives are a part of the same political tradition, and are entirely disconnected from Left and Right.
it was academic agent that came up with the triangle
You are absolutely right. I remember learning the difference between "liberal" and "leftist" from a Prager U video of all things. The political positions typically associated with each are fundamentally different and they should actually come into conflict because of it. However, the far left has successfully duped the liberals into thinking they are on the same side. Which I think has also disillusioned those few Liberals who escaped the trap. Forced to watch as there contemporaries fall prey to madness and "wokeness."
It is rather tragic if you sit down and think about it.
Thank you for the video! I love you too! :)
ruclips.net/video/1qATRlOvfr0/видео.html
The political dichotomy is a totally erroneous model of the true spectrum. It's not just over-simplifed, it leaves out an entire dimension of the political map, and that's why groups such as liberals, conservatives, etc. are mis- categorized.
Look up the "political trichotomy" which accurately accounts for all 3 existing dimensions. There are basically three extremes: communists on the left and libertarians and absolutists on the right, but as distinctly separate from one another as they are to the communists on the far left. Each political ideology has its overarching supreme value at its core, which are mutually exclusive from one another, and any one comes at the expense of the other two; those values being, equality (communism) ; liberty (libertarianism) ; stability (absolutism). Moderates such as liberals and conservatives are naturally somewhere in between the three extremes, but with the Overton window shifting inexorably to the left towards communism.
"The worst ideas always come from a combination of french intellectualism and american radicalism"
~Dr, David Starkey
What did he mean by that, exactly? Love Dr. Starkey, he's a treasure.
@@dirtypure2023
He was talking about how the labor party destroyed itself by embracing the radical left and how jeremy corbyn hasn't a single original thought or idea in his head that doesn't come from either radical american "thinkers" or french philosophy..
It was in the interview he did with the sun after the last uk election.
@@Hammerhead547 Thanks. I remember bits of that interview. Shame he was canceled for saying "damn blacks" or whatever lol.
@Azoth Ace which both came from ideas borrowed from the American and French revolutionaries.
I mean come on, Communism comes from La Commune de Paris.
@@kosmikme The Paris Commune took place in 1871. Marx wrote the communist manifesto in 1848.
The triangle was me Dev, been pushing you for a while to make a video on it. Traditional is more Stability though, but traditional ideas became tradition since they're stable so... I don't know why I keep editing this comment.
I knew it was gonna be you, I scrolled through looking for this.
@@jackcantdraw You know me so well
@@ZontarDow are you two good friends :3
@@jackcantdraw jack where did you go i haven't seen you in months i miss u ;_;
@@ShortFatOtaku I'm only in 3 1/2 Discords now, I spent far too much time just scrolling.
In my opinion, "tradition" is not the value of "fascism". In my opinion tradition is just a tool to achieve their real core value which is "stability".
Facists default to statist nationalism. Traditionalists default to a form of ethnonationalism.
Both will take from aspects of each other and manipulate each other but they are at its core different
I think it depends on the state, Japan while very free culturally they encourage and promote tradition. This provides stability, they have some policies that help this but not oppressively so.
Tradition is the thing that we did for hundreds of years that allowed modern society to develop
I was going to say something similar. The word "tradition" makes it sound arbitrary or without purpose. I was going to suggest "utility" instead, but "stability" works too I guess.
@@eliaspanayi3465 but also what we had to begin questioning in order to get to modernity. funny thing, right?
Liberty = The freedom not to watch the CHAZ video.
Fraternity = Everyone not watching the CHAZ video together.
Equality = Regardless of background or creed nobody gets to watch the CHAZ video.
2 years have now passed. The CHAZ video is the next YT suggestion in my sidebar..........
I WATCHED THE VIDEO NOW WHAT
That video is a frickin fever dream
Change Tradition to Order, and you just recreated the three ideologies in Victoria 2.
Victoria II is the answer to the west's political woes, confirmed!
Based game
Victoria III when?
Haha, I just wrote something similar
lol the triangle itself is in HOI3.
Fascism was largely a form of socialism/marxism. Fascism would be in the bottom center. The hard tradition corner would be a feudal monarchy
Agreed, the true right is monarchy, whether it’s conditional or not, feudal or not.
I had always considered myself conservative or right of center because i viewed things in a linear fashion, but that pyramid makes alot of sense. Using that i would be firmly in the side of liberalism because i value personal freedom over everything else.
Which is why i get annoyed by censorship from either side, whether its family values conservatives using 'protect the children' or hyper woke lefties wanting to shield minorities from 'hate speech'.
I've said on some of Dev's other videos that young(ish) moderates today have fought back against finger-wagging censorship on both sides.
Take the world of Gaming, for example. During the 90s and early 00s, the Christian Right were trying to censor violent or sexual games for being "indecent", "bad for children", and so on. During the last decade, the Intersectional Left have tried to censor non-woke games for being "sexist", "exclusionary", and so on.
Both the Right and Left are capable of being stupid and authoritarian. I don't care which of our proverbial neighbours kick their ball into our garden; all i care about is that it stops happening, and that they leave us in peace.
That's because the liberals and the fascists are outnumbered by commies nowadays forcing them into the same political party. If fascists outnumbered commies the liberals would be considered on the left, just like they were in the 50s
I was listening to this and was reminded of a quote.
"Anybody that defines their opposition while rejecting their opposition's ability to do the same is not worthy of your trust and the facts. They only respect them because it is useful. And they will reject them both when it is no longer so."
I'm offended that you forgot the most important and often overlooked part of the political triangle.
The radical centrist
because they will no longer matter after the Centricide
Centricide seems to be (again) the only reasonable way
That's where they fooled you. They convinced you that a Liberal is a Centrist. That it is merely a razor's edge between Left and Right, and that you need to pick a side, because you're "not on one."
Time to burn that fence.. 😈
All I know is my gut says maybe.
If I don't survive, tell my wife: "hello."
I really have a problem with this paradigm of "tradition is Fascism"
Tradition is just the world before 1700. Fascism is much more about state totalitarianism, and only incorporates tradition as long as it serves the state's needs. Demonizing traditionalism like this is what gets you into a situation where the social fabric of your country is so weak that a Fascist state arises from a desire for order at all costs.
I don't think that being pressured to adhere to tradition by the society around you is fascism. I think that is a gross cope to justify living in degeneracy, I'll just be honest. Tradition is a cultural and philosophical concept. Fascism is a political concept based on the perfection of the state which transcends any philosophy, culture, or traditions.
You articuled very well my feelings about it. Generally I think the model works, but as several others have suggested before me, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the term 'security' instead of 'tradition'. Maybe?
@@dirtypure2023 Order would probably be better than security.
I never understood why people reject the idea of an autocratic state. In some situation, a strong state with a simplified action-making process does more good than a democratic state with its heavy bureaucracy.
The best examples are countries building themselves back up from war or poverty: De Gaulle's France, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Khadafi's Lybia.
To your average liberal, everything before 1965 was totalitarianism.
@@thisismelv An autocratic state that does good by its citizenry is a fluke. A coincidence. A liberal democracy doing right by its citizenry is the system working as intended. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
when u wanna play some last of us 2 but ur buddy sucks so bad u have to revert back to politics
Bad at last of us 2 sounds an insult that could start fighting
Tbf, it's a mix of both game sucking and friend sucking
@@H250V gay
do people like games they're bad at?
@@StayFractalesque i suck at Mega Man but i love it anyway
The French revolution is taught as the biggest achievement in modern history.
But they don't talk too much alut the great Terror or how funny it is that they got rid of a King only to end up with an Emperor.
I have learned recently how the American revolution did more for the world.
Except we do, we really do teach it here in France. Also, if you want to compare, the American Revolution can be seen as America needing to drag itself into abolishing slavery, where France was the first modern country to ban it within it's own borders, and England then made sure the rest of the world followed suit.
@MrATN800 Late, but France reverted on that stance pretty quickly under Napoleon. The US took time to abolish slavery, but when it did, it was permanent. Meanwhile, France did what France did best, and that was have a revolution, not know what to do, throw Europe in to chaos, become an empire, and then get beat leaving them worse off then before with a few reforms sticking around. Put quite simply, France is the definition of a country that knows something is wrong, but not what it is and they throw all of Europe into confusion as they try to figure it out.
Devs been killing it lately with the topics he's been covering.
I love how he's able to use such simplistic language and visuals in order to concisely convey his points without being reductive or strawmaning.
That's the Hallmark of someone who knows what they're talking about and I believe this is exactly what people need to look for in their political/social commentary.
We need more rational, honest actors contributing to these dialogues, because the more Devs there are, the less wiggle room there will be left for radicals and ideologues to poison the well and subvert the topic being discussed.
Honestly, SFO is criminally undersubbed and it should be bigger than Sargon, nowadays. Dev just produces better content, but refuses to play the game RUclips's way, which I can absolutely respect.
@@SgtAbramovich
I totally agree with you that he deserves way more attention, and I believe sooner or later he'll get it, but I also believe Sargon has earned his audience and notoriety as well.
I can respect where you're coming from though.
@@RussianBot-xu7wl
Sargon absolutely did earn his spot and audience, it's just that his new content is kinda meh, while Dev just reminds me a lot of Sargon's old stuff, the more philosophical meat I'm all about.
@@SgtAbramovich
I can broadly see what you mean, but I don't see Sargon's new content as being any less philosophically based.
Its simply more that Sargon's new stuff is focused more on being reactionary, while Dev is sticking predominantly to more broad, general topics of discussion.
I can see why you would prefer the more broad discussions since it's easier to focus more on the substance of the topic, but I don't see one style as being inherintely superior in regards to facilitating the discussion itself.
But like I said before, I can totally see where you're coming from, and can agree, to a certain extent.
The definition of the smoothbrain take.
This is actually amazing. Thanks to you and whoever showed it to you for bringing this to light. After looking through the comments, I took a look at Turd Flinging Monkey's and Academic Agent's discussions on political trichotomy. Hopefully this gets pushed into mainstream political discussions.
I've always found Fascism fascinatingly odd as an ideology. Socially, I definitely think it can be classified as its own corner in the triangle, but economically, it's really somewhat socialist, corporatism being the least socialist of the Fascist economic systems. Remember, Mussolini was still socialist in his thinking when he took power
It makes more sense when you remember Mussolini spent a decade as a comunist and then kept several of the ideas while rejecting several core tenants of communism the workers revolution being a big one he dumped. FDR (yes that one) even lauded the "fascist model of socialism" prior to ww2 haveing major socialist / comunist leaningings him self you can even parallel FDRs social programs with one's in Germany and see why his where failing till lend lease flooded the USA economy with hard money mostly in the form of gold.
@@petman515 I know a year later but don’t forget to mention where the “influx of gold” came from, was American citizens
@@david-468 yes and no while you are right he did ban the the private ownership of gold and in effect steal from the American people most of the land lease payments and other things we sold to the ally nations where payed for in hard spisce mostly again in gold.
Lend lease is in many ways the capitalist secret that held up fdrs socialist and let's be real communist lie.
@@petman515 yes I probably agree with you In more ways then not however he more stole then banned private ownership of funds/gold, I mean that’s how war bonds (I.o.u.) became a thing lol, he is by far the most overrated president also IMO lol he was ok but he’s given credit that his successors deserve, idk sorry I’m rambling now lol
@@petman515 I’m trynna say, it would’ve been one thing if he said “we need your gold because of war” but he said “we will give you your gold back after the war” but didn’t really
7:03 THANK! YOU! I get so tired of being told that when I talk about how terrible Communism is that I never say anything bad about Fascism, ergo I must support Fascism because I'm only bashing Communism. We had a whole World War to show how flawed Fascism is. We destroyed it! I think that would be sign enough, and I don't have to repeat it every time I speak that Fascism was bad.
The biggest mistake in political debate is ignoring the cognitive capacities of the living thing you want to apply your system.
Charitable View
Right: If it is not broken, then do not fix it.
Left: If it is good, then it must be perfected.
Center: If it is harmful, then replace it.
Fixed it
Left: if it's old then it's bad
Right: if it is good, then it must be perfected, if its already perfect, thek do not fix it
I disagree that fascism rejects progress but only sees progress through the ideals of the state and its people.
So it only uses progress to advance its traditional and cultural ideas. I mean that'll get you further than the communists. Something something electricity and candles
@Roger Dodger No. A fascist state won't do radical change but it will do change. It does not do so as an idealization of its tradition.
@Roger Dodger So USA is facists for having classical liberal values as tradition?
Insert
I fail to see how the supreme fascist value is traditionalism. Hitler didn't reinstall the Kaiser and Mussolini tried to dethrone Victor Emmanuel.
cultural tradition, not necessarily tradition in leadership
Fascism demands a spiritual rebirth of its people, though it does use 'wisdom of the past' to achieve it. Still, they have no interest in 'going back'.
I prefer the “Libertarian dodecahedron.”
I’m at “all gun laws are infringement” but above “Suspend all building codes.”💯
🎩
🐍 no step on SNEK! 🇺🇸🇭🇰
I don't remember seeing a constitutional amendment stating that my right to own and build buildings however I want are an inherent right that no government can make laws against, dictating my behavior.
Has anybody finished labeling a buckyball yet?
I'm all for ditching most building codes for houses under two stories, with exception to plumbing and electric. Some of the old houses built before such things have long outlasted their more regulated brethren.
@@giin97 Imagine thinking that the Constitution is legitimate.
This post was made by Lysander Spooner gang.
To be fair, when you’re so Left that you damn near fall of the scale, technically everything else is indeed “far right”
You should look up turd flinging monkey's political tricomity on bitchute his already did a analysis on this ages ago.
Miss that guy.
@@RobzdaBlade did he finally get purged off of RUclips or is he just uploading only to bitchute now?
@@peterb8904 Search Dlive, sir.
@@peterb8904 Kind of. He is mostly on Bitchute and DLive but his sex toy reviews get uploaded to RUclips.
@@peterb8904 yep, tfm is on bitchute and dlive
Fascism does not exemplify tradition overall. It exemplifies order. Individualism is lost in it. Tradition is not fascism
Instead of "Left" and "Right" wing, I've been using the terms "Communal" and "Individual," respectively. It's much more descriptive and harder to muddy.
I try to avoid labels and drill down to principles and guiding axioms. As convenient as saying “leftists” is, I think it ignores the deeper contention based on fundamental tenets and the multifaceted nature of man
In my belief inequality is an infinately preferable state of affairs so long as a society is based upon meritocracy. Reciprocity the ultimate value on which a society should be based. As a propertarian I believe reciprocity should be enshrined into law under a constitution and the judiciary should be obliged to always rule in favor if reciprocity.
How dare u?!
Freedom is not the absence of difficulty, but the absence of coercion.
What do you mean 'rule in favor of reciprocity'?
@@dirtypure2023 Presumably, "I did what you asked me to do, repay me".
Propertarian is an ideology for dead man. How can an ideology sustain itself when its leaders, Doolittle and John Mark, crumble in the face of adversity? Why does the ideology worship an object set in stone? A constitution is merely a tool used to obtain freedom, it does not guarantee it. The people do.
I like a lot your videos SFO, you are tapping intro the true nature of the Philosopher and thus I respect you more than others that just anchor themselves into their own thoughts and political views.
Keep the good work and keep on enlightening yourself in all walks of life, for it is the path of wisdom.
CHAZ WHEN DEV?!
What if the delay is PART of the Chaz video?
I think you've missed something. Fascism and Communism are both branches on the Socialist ideological family tree. The core beliefs are the same. The difference lies mainly in their revolutionary arguments, all of which are made in bad faith, with the aim of subordinating everyone to 'the party' or whatever equivalent is currently in vouge. The common perception of the two being entirely separate seems to be the work of modern marxists, trying to dump the blame for all of socialism's evils on one label that nearly no one actually defends, and is also conveniently so misunderstood that it can be applied ad hominem to anyone who argues with them.
This is such an intelligent channel. No wonder it has so little traction.
Nick fuentes isnt alt right or facsist. He is a paleoconservative and a nationalist.
He is beginning to see the political trichotomy.
Virgin compass vs Chad trichotomy.
The truth of it is there
"He's starting to believe."
- Morpheus
Liberty above all
I just discovered your channel today. I can't wait for more future content!
thank you!
Chaz dev......its becoming a meme
Dev’s Chaz video got cancelled faster than Chaz.
what is Chaz?
@@DriftedVisionMan Capital Hill Autonomous Zone
Something Else to consider is that pre-enlightenment ideology still exists, it didn't magically go away. One could layer a second triangle over the enlightenment one, I imagine it might include Theism, Conservatism.... idk, I've thought about this a lot but I haven't actually bothered to really break it down in specific terms.
Fascism is per definition not tradionalist. A very important part of it is futurism, the polar oposite of tradion.
Perfect. I'm gonna use this new chart. I'm getting really sick of the left right dynamic so this will be a nice change
I’ve always been grateful for your videos, but this one above many others really puts many things into perspective. Thank you so much for making it and sharing it with us. This honestly is what I imagine a college lecture would have looked like back before ideologies took over.
Very shimsteresting... Nice to see/hear this from you Devo, I think you're a good person
I'm loving the positivity I've been seeing on these channels lately.
Keep up the good vibes m'dude; that's gonna be a huge factor in pushing back the radicals and creating a sustainable sense of normalcy. 👍🏿
Nah turn your back for half a second and you'll find out later he's shot a guard.
Just wanna say I’m here after seeing these terms during the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony 😝
lol
This triangle is ridiculously helpful. I was aware that there was problems with the traditional political spectrum before- oftentimes resulting in communism and Nazism described as the two ends, with everything else falling in between. That had always bothered me, but I didn't know another way of explaining why it wasn't true.
The traditions of my people is freedom...
Very close but I have things to add:
The you got it right that the ultimate expression of Order isn't Nazism. It's Tsarism. The incredibly rigid social order couldn't allow people to reach their potential, and so those downtrodden would always have flipped the table and revolted.
At the end your were circling around what "progress" means for the libertarians. I think the highest ethic for the libertarians is "Darwinism". So progress, economic or otherwise, will always resemble that struggle. Think anarcho-capitalism, the "free market of ideas", sexual experimentation etc.
The Libertarians believe in a Darwinian hierarchy, which rejects the hierarchy of incompetence of Authoritarianism and the hierarchy of redistribution of Socialism.
The Socialists believe In Equity, which rejects the dog-eat-dog brutality of Libertarianism and the oppression of Authoritarianism.
The Authoritarians believe in a hierarchy of the great and the good, which rejects Socialism's equity between the noble and the degenerate, and Libertarianism's hierarchy of expedience.
Ironically societies don't favor libertarianism in all instances where we let this Darwinistic system play out. Libertarians always end up getting run out of their own system by either the right or progressives.
I would say libertarians view progress as a process, socialists view it as a destination, and authoritarians view it as a threat.
@@50centpb7 elaborate
@@rexthompson5909
Libertarians are politically incompetent, and they are politically incompetent because they are politically passive. They are consistently out-competed by political interests which are better able to network, organize, and are more willing to wield power where libertarians can only negate it.
Insofar as libertarians do engage with politics, they will do so in a purely reactive mode, which means their enemies are always the ones setting the agenda while libertarians can only react to it. Their playbook is all defense, so they can take never take ground but can always lose it, which they inevitably do.
Libertarians will often pride themselves on their moderation and passivity. It's a comfortable place to be politically if you lack any kind of positive vision you wish to impose on the world and really just want t9 be left alone. This why libertarianism has for decades been the natural home of moderates, centrists, and the politically unambitious of all varieties, but it's this fundamental lack of fantaticism, or rather this anti-fanaticism, which ultimately makes Libertarianism unattractive to the kinds of highly motivated, passionate people who always make up the real movers and shakers of any political movement.
@@50centpb7
You're making it sound as if "live and let live" was generally (not situationally) a bad motto to follow. And also, you seem to lean on the side of energocracy, as in, effort being the ultimate value. I wonder where you come from with that.
the communism, liberalism, and fascism triangle if flawed. fascism is hyper national, but it also uses a lot of communist ideas. mussolini did not try or advocate for a return to old style rule, same with hitler. left leaning parties around the world supported fascism until things turned to war. tradition is nationalism, but monarchy is nationalism and was the enemy of the left wing when the term was coined. fascism promoted itself as a third way from socialism and capitalism.
I think this political spectrum does a much better job of explaining how and why Nazism was a “left wing” ideology than other spectrums. The Order vs. Freedom one does too, but this simplifies the criteria to where it’s clear on a more fundamental level, which I think is important and overlooked.
I subscribed today after hearing what youve been saying for a while, thanks for your insight on these things, this feels extremely grounded and put together to, this video is very impressive
I think you're wrong on Fascism being associated with tradition. I think Fraternite translates better into unity of purpose.
This is a really good video dev. Sargon posted one like it a few months back and I favorited it so I could rewatch it because it wasn't super clear for me, but your explanation of this triangle clicked for me.
This was well-thought out. The last segment addressed something that I had been pondering ever since I watched your video on reactionaries. I always thought it was strange that socialists called liberals reactionaries, given that liberals tend to seek new solutions to problems that traditionalism fails to address. Liberals typically don't want to return to some previous paradigm, but the socialists still see that as being reactionary because from their perspective, anything other than progress on their own terms is regression.
It's difficult to wrap my head around how they are able to see things that way. Here's an analogy I came up with.
Socialists: Let's go north.
Fascists: Let's go south.
Liberals: Let's go west.
Socialists: So you have chosen south.
my position on that is that we should be free to take the benefits of tradition and equality without having either forced on us.
Based.
I am a libertarian, but freedom isnt my highest value, truth is.
You have to have freedom in order to pursue truth
I don't believe in truth. Truth is a word that represents the ideal according to whoever is advocating for the truth. One example is a pro-lifer claiming that the truth is that abortion is destructive to families and society alike. (What a surprise, truth just happens to align with what the pro-lifer believed)
Reality is the word I prefer. The easiest way to explain the difference between truth and reality is this: something happens in a public space. 35 people saw it happen, and a security camera recorded it. The truth is what those 35 people saw, just ask them. Reality is what's on that recording.
And yet, we STILL can't see reality for what it is. All of us will watch that video and see different things when we watch it. Human beings filter everything. I could cite things such as the two viral tests from a couple of years ago (is it "yanny" or "laurel"? Is the dress white/gold or blue/black), but the competing versions of the "truth" about the riots/protests is far more relevant at the moment.
@@rexthompson5909 if someone else uses their freedom to lie though, and they mislead and decieve people then those people arent actually free to make their own choices because they have bad information.
Freedom has to be subservient to truth because if its the other way around lies will destroy freedom
@@lifeyoushouldtryit I was thinking about it from the perspective of "you must have freedom in order to pursue truth", but I handy considered how bad information can hinder freedom
Also Iirc learning and becoming good at critical thinking and logic as well as rhetoric (logos, pathos and ethos) can help you sort through bad information to find qualitative information, sift through bullshit to find truth etc
@@lifeyoushouldtryit
You have the real issue brought about by the Seinfeld quote from George Costanza:
"It's not a lie if you believe it."
Of course, that was the character being disingenuous, but what about the more common version:
"I don't accept your premise, because your TRUTH doesn't fit my observations/experience/belief systems"?
It's easy to just label that as ignorance, but the problem is we keep having official "TRUTHS" turn out to be "a little bit misleading" ("depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") or "a necessary untruth" (N95 masks aren't necessary for the public)"
Who decides what is "enough TRUTH"?
And don't say "the individual". Nobody could possibly thoroughly research every single political, economic or scientific issue that has the potential to get them cheated, imprisoned or killed if they get the "wrong" answer.
Fascists are not for tradition, they want equality. You probably think Nazis supported German values and traditions but they did not, they just replaced those traditions with something else. They went after Jews with equality in mind. Nazis attacked the black, red and gold flag despite that being the proper flag of Germany, using a swastika instead, a symbol from Asian religions. The Nazi party believed in an insane cult no regular German believed in. Where's the tradition? And Nazis did not believe in free market *AT ALL.*
Communists did a good job convincing people that they are different from fascists. Sadly, this includes Devon.
I think that it's more security than tradition, you can be heavily traditional but definitely liberal they don't contradict each other.
Very well put
Fascism pays lip service to tradition while basically just being another variant of Socialism that stands opposed to Marxism. I agree with others in the comments that describing it as an emphasis on "order" makes more sense.
Also Dev, you're well enough versed on the topic, you should know better than to equate Nazism and Fascism as interchangeable: Nazism is the Hegelian Synthesis of Socialism and Fascism, and is the actual inevitable outcome of the pursuit of Communism.
This just in: Dev discovers that, sometimes, the sun goes away!
So this whole time they've been right calling me a fascist? Huh.... And here I am thinking tradition has some value...
Others have pointed out that 'tradition' is probably the wrong term. 'Security' might be a better choice?
I was about to say. I'm pretty sure guys like the Dalai Lama had once spoken positively of traditional roots. So I guess he's a fascist in accordance to this.
@@somebody5702 well if you want a totall cultural rebirth and going to the past
like Red Ice Tv for example their intro is literally : future is the past
i don't think he said something that extreme
@@oxitocin7718 Granted, I don't know enough on Red Ice TV, so you're probably right about that. But he did get in trouble for saying the refugees from the middle east should return to the middle east to rebuild their homes and let Europe be for the European natives.
To be fair that's what any actual refugee would do if possible, but there is a strong sense of traditionalism and an essence of cultural rebirth there, since it would be a wind back of the clock for both middle eastern and European countries.
I mean not really since you could still uphold and encourage others to uphold tradition whilst letting others have the choice to not follow them.
I wanna be the bullseye of that triangle. It's... Eye... Wait a minute... :P
What about monarchy like saudi arabia or europe 100 years ago? It is traditionalist but not fascist
The Academic Agent did this video about a year ago explaining that horseshoe theory was a triangle.
It's not tradition, its order/stability. Also you got this from Academic Agent I think.
it wasn't him, it was a non-youtuber who DM'd it to me
@@ShortFatOtaku you need to get in touch with turd flinging Monkey, as well as, Dormant Dynasty, Charlamagne, the Distributist and the academic agent.
Fascism is anti traditional, as you define it.
Evolas tradition is very different from the use in day to day language.
For example, Hitler was strongly anti monarchical
So by the triangle, what differentiates conservative concepts of tradition from fascist concepts of tradition? I admit asking tho mid-video, but it is still a valid question.
how close to the liberal side they are
Conservative view on tradition is, hey it's a good thing, please follow?
Fascists view is, follow or die
The other difference is that conservatives aren't proactive in "conserving" tradition
Sargon made a video on a very similar subject three months ago. You described it as why each vertex of the triangle opposes the other two, he described it as why from the point of view of one vertex, both other vertices start looking identical.
So by the standards of equality, tradition, and Liberty. Shouldn't the top most extreme of that be Anarchy?
It's the enlightenment ideologies
You would be right,yes,but anarchy was rarely popular
Honestly 8 axis is still limiting. It's best to start by addressing ideologies as what they are, and move down from there, rather than start with the generalization (ie, left, right).
You're still equating equality to equity.
You're also forgetting that Fascism is a development of socialism. Communism and Fascism are collectivist ideologies, Liberalism isn't.
Triangle theory/the infinite horseshoe! Academic Agent made a vid on that one a while back.
Should tradition be replaced with order, it seems that tradition is just an easier way of getting order the fascists utilize. Otherwise I agree with this a lot, I think we all have been thumbing with this concept for a while ( I definitely have). In my philosophy classes the prisoner's dilemma was proposed, my professor divided the responses into three types: contractarianism, socialism, and capitalism. So this is Hobbes, Rousseau, and Adam Smith; a better way might be replacing Smith with Locke. This would look like Contractarianism, socialism, and Liberalism. Liberalism and socialism would look a lot like you described, but contract would replace fascism. Hobbesean thought is the bed work for authoritarianism and personifies order, the tradition you used is better served by Hobbes's sympathy for Monarchy. I think this would make a cleaner system.
Yeah it's stability and leads more to absoluteisem than fasisem. What peaple forget is that cultures and peaple keep traditions because they make a stable society not the other way around.
Great video dev and idk why but I couldn't stop chuckling at the smile emoji with sunglasses for the anarchos
Please choose a more reasonable time to upload, us non Americans shouldn’t have to suffer like this. In future, please screw over the Asian time zones because they don’t matter.
Oh and in regards to my comment on the last video, prepare to get the ol Nagasaki treatment
I'm lying in bed in America reading your comment. I laugh at your pain as my head wobbles.
I see that triangle and my mind goes straight to the "McDonald's alignment chart" meme.
I think Sargon had a very similar thought process in his right ordering of the world video.
Edit: It was in this video where Sargon discuss the three topics discussed by Dev
ruclips.net/video/bdLakUa3KX8/видео.html
that triangle is great but i would swap liberalism with anarchy to better show the danger of going to far in one way
Not bad, though I do not think I would characterize the fascists as being rooted in 'tradition' necessarily.
Because they arnt really its more like following comunist ideals while rightly rejecting several core tenants as unworkable in practical realty mostly by filling in the failures if comunisem with an amount of capitalism and ending up with the worst of both systems. Or at least that's my grasp of it.
Hearing the word progress so much reminded me of a Fingertight album, In The Name of Progress; Maybe their ideas were seen as communistic back around '03, but idk, re-listening makes me think more to the Liberty angle at times.
Cool
Very good concept. I like that 3 pronged approach
I really like the triangle.
However, identifying fascism with tradition or traditionalism is simply wrong. Mussolini was certainly not a traditionalist. His movement claimed to be for progress, for modernity, for overcoming the past and tradition and reaching for the stars. No wonder Marinetti, the founder of the Futurist movement, became a fascist. And Marinetti wasn't alone.
The German version of fascism went somewhat differently, but, hard as it is for us to imagine, they too believed in progress. Only, their kind of progress.
Even the modern jihadis believe in progress. From their dusty mosques or caves, they do believe that they will conquer the world, that everyone will submit to Allah or become a dhimmi, etc. And that's progress in their view.
The liberal idea of progress, though not delineated as sharply as in other ideologies, carries its own set of distinct assumptions. It is a belief that in the long run life will only get better, that the paths that lead to dead ends may be tried but will inevitably be rejected, that along with greater technology respect for freedom and human rights will be winning. etc., etc., read Arthur C. Clarke.
The essence of fascism is not tradition, but unity, not traditionalism, but belief in absolute power of the State over the people or any other organization.
From this point, one can see that the triangle is not equilateral but isosceles, with socialism and fascism being very close to each other. The thing is: whenever any Socialist tries to go beyond pure theory, he very quickly finds out that the State needs to become stronger and force people to submit, that this power of the State goes very well with strong nationalism, and that hierarchy fits very well with this also. Socialism might theorize about dying out of State, ethnicity and hierarchy, but any attempt to put it into reality, eventually calls for strengthening these things. Combined with other socialist features, it becomes almost indistinguishable from fascism.
interesting, you also arrived at the political trichotomy that Turd Flinging Monkey have been talking about since a while ago.
PD: I comment this before but I can't find it anymore, wtf
Isn't this just Sargon's Enlightenment Triad video with a graphic? Wondering if you've seen it.
Perhaps, just far more succinctly and coherently stated?
(I'm generally a fan of Sargon, but sometimes he's overly winded and ends up blurring the point of his arguments in the midst of excessive wordiness.)
Sargon got starflu atm and likes hes own farts alot, but he will turn around soon naturally.:p
It's a different way of talking about the same concept
This tends to happen when discussing human psychology (at least iirc it does), people come to the same conclusions and label them different things depending upon how far their thought process goes
It's all the same ideas fundamentally, just different names.
The more information you have and the more you think these things through the deeper your understanding gets and the more conclusions you're able to make
@@rexthompson5909 Did tube cut answer? Anyway i get it man, stefan molyneux also likes hes own farts but when talking in depth philosophy you cant tabloid it really.
@@terkelalgevind529 who is tube cut
i see the triangle as a de-facto Mexican standoff of ideology
lol @ "breadtube reply girls"
cool kids know the real way is the mystical vs the material
day 34 still no CHAZ video.
*SILENCE, LIBERAL* _Eye lasers_
I don't think that triangle chart is appropriate, it's skewed towards liberalism in a way. The true top corner would be Libertarianism. Liberals would be more central, maybe even more towards the top-right pane- or at least American/Classical Liberalism is. Though this chart also unduly has a slant or poisoning of the well against Tradition. Traditions become Traditions because they're the things that worked, they're the lessons of those that came before, the questions they're the answer towards becoming lost, and so without a question you lose sight of the answer, and abandon it, only for those problems to come again if you cannot find a new answer, if you can even address the question.
Dev is a liberal. He's going to gravitate toward a system that sees his ideas as the pinnacle good thing, that's just human nature. (He also flirts with the idea of libertarians being fascist, which just demonstrates he doesn't really _get_ libertarians).
Got to be honest I prefer the political trichotomy
I love you, please notice me
I love you too.
@@RussianBot-xu7wl :3
This explains both the ideas of the horseshoe and the hook
Thank you for continually speaking truth and carrying the torch or freedom. Keep up the good work.
This is just a horseshoe with extra steps
Since the promulgation of the current Political Constitution, numerous political parties and movements have emerged and disappeared in Colombia. The main cause of this phenomenon is:
A. Discredit that has historically characterized the leaders of traditional parties.
B. The abundance of private economic resources to finance new political forces.
C. Parties' strategy of promoting leaders who don't attract the attention of voters.
D. The absence of political programs that represent the interests of large population groups.
My triangle would have work, family, and fatherland - Philippe Petain
or as we say in France now : "liberte? suprime, egalite? conte de fee, fraternite? sexiste!"
liberty? cancelled, equality? fairy tale, fraternity? .."
macron is champagne socialism's zenith.