Conservatives and Hitler | Jordan B Peterson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- People who are right leaning/conservative are more disgust sensitive. When that tilts a little too far, people like Hitler can emerge. From the Joe Rogan Experience #1006:
• Joe Rogan Experience #...
Want to support this channel?
Patreon: / jordanbpeterson
Relevant Links: JB Peterson
Online Psychological Programs:
NEW: BFAS Personality Assessment: www.understandm...
Self Authoring: selfauthoring.com/
Books:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
Jordan Peterson Website: jordanbpeterson...
Podcast: jordanbpeterson....
Reading List: jordanbpeterson....
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Best thing out of Canada was this guy...
Jordan B Peterson with some maple syrup ;p
And Rush
And John Candy
And oil
I dunno, Wayne and Shuster were pretty good...
Joe's just smoking weed listening like the rest of us lol.
Who's Joe?
potato Joe Mama.. its a cut from Joe Rogan podcast.
Jordan Peterson gave me a psychological b#@*! slap and i am grateful. Ive learnded more about myself in the last year than i have in all my 35 years on this earth. Needless to say im slaying dragon's for the first time in my life. Im trully thankful to him / you if you read this by chance. Sorry about the grammar.
marsnatas 666 35 myself and feel the exact same way.
For me as well - I am highly creative and open, but also high in neuroticism and low in orderliness - maybe because of that combination I have not found the discipline to cultivate my interests to their full extent.
I am currently working 12 hour shifts at a plywood factory, and listening to Peterson all the time - and some other lectures as well, 38 hours per week, minimum. I've chosen to immerse myself deeply on these issues, to teach myself discipline - and I know I need to learn that lesson fast, and learn it well.
I am not a total noob on these topics - the question of dialogue across ideological borders is _very_ interesting to me, has been ever since my B.A. thesis.
And that is so much needed right now - along with free speech, it is definitely one of the most important issues we need to solve.
If I can be a small part in building that, that's good enough for me - and that goal will certainly not vanish anywhere as long as I live.
same
You have to be careful ... something else is driving this man ... he himself is still trying to figure it out and put it into words. Love the guy for standing his ground, but now with all his IQ talk ... wondering what his actually is?
your doing it yourself. Peterson is just a key/catalyst. It coulda been some other trigger, but you just needed something to make you want to think introspectively. You coulda came to some of the same conclusions on your own.
Hitler was not a conservative. Not by any stretch of the definition.
He was a socialist revolutionary. He wanted to overthrow the Weimar Republic. He joined and rose through the ranks of a socialist political party (Nazi is a German Acronym for "National *SOCIALIST* German Worker's Party)
People keep saying: He was conservative because he was a nationalist! This is a false dichotomy.
Ghandi was an Indian Nationalist. Mandela was a South African nationalist. All of the revolutionary anti-colonialists of Africa were nationalists. Winston Churchill was a nationalist. Even Joseph Stalin (Russian), Fidel Castro (Cuban), and Mao Ze Dong (Chinese) were all nationalists.
Being a nationalist doesn't make you conservative.
Conservatism is defined by Classic Liberal philosophy as a political philosophy that calls for the minimization of the centralized state, the imposition of restrictions on what the central government can do, based on the philosophical principle that minimized government is necessary to maximize individual liberty.
Hitler didn't care for liberty. He implemented socialized command and control economics in his country. He had a central office of economic planning and development, with the force of law to compel industries to manufacture according to government quotas. He may have left businesses in private hands, but this was de facto government ownership, since the state under his command could seize any private property and redistribute it to anyone who was more loyal to him than the original owners.
Hitler was no nationalist. His goal was an empire like the austrian or the ottoman empire was. Conservativism has never been linked to minimized government but to class privileges. None of the imperialists you named was a nationalist. Classic Liberals were nationalists for good reasons. That is left wing, not right wing. You don't know what you are talking about.
You a special kind of stupid.
How you revisionist far right apologists lie and try to make crap up is pathetic. Antisemitism is a conservative CHRISTIAN hate...and what is more conservative than "making Germany great again."
And this idiotic mumbo jumbo declaring national socialism as a "socialist" ideology has been debunked and per facts debunked over and over and over again...by historians like Evans or Winkler.
Conservatives in Germany were the "monarchy apologists" that wanted to keep the ideology of absolutism. A Kaiser, with strong Christian authoritarianism and a great military. The conservatives had almost the same ideology as the Nazis. Without the conservatives, Hitler would have never gotten to power thru the democratic system the conservatives undermined from the very beginning. The conservatives were the first ones to spread the lie that it was the "social Democrats" and "Liberals" that sold Germany out to the Western powers. The conservatives were so afraid of communism...hated liberal democratic values and Jews so much...that they literally sounded exactly like the Nazis.
The only difference was the conservatives arrogance....for them Adolf wasn't a monarch or a full blooded German.
Sick and tired of these lies you guys spread. The "socialism" in the national socialism cannot be compared in any way.
First of all, the socialists and social Democrats (besides the communist) were the first to be hunted down by the Nazis. Second, socialist was (in the Nazi sense) meant as 'putting the German society first.'
What is more conservative than putting your own people first? Hatred of immigrants and everything different than yourself? These are typical conservative ideas....
Conservatives ALWAYS complain about "in the past everything was so much better, we need to go back to...that better past "
Germany was changed by adopting a flawed but liberal democratic constitution. The conservatives wanted to go back to their sociopath brand of "survival of the most powerful" monarchy....
The Nazi ideology is literally a authoritarian conservative system that used the German Society as useful idiots (or workers) for those "authoritarian" Leaders.
Conservative Americans....let's see. You have the Confederates that didn't want to adopt the new laws making slavery illegal. Then you had father Coughlin and the Christian Front. Mccartyism....Bush and his Christian nationalist government. And today you have Führer Trump and his useful stooges that want to beam America back into the stone age.
Conservatives are always the first ones to agree and often blatantly use the same arguments of Nazis these days.
So please, stop trying to lie about the fact that the far right national socialist fascists aren't just a extreme right wing ultranationalist conservative ideology.
You sentence claiming Hitler wanted to overthrow the Weimar Republic is ridiculous....he wanted to destroy the social Democrats and the liberal democratic constitution.
So sick and tired of these fascist apologetics claiming Nazis were socialists. Hitler himself kept the Socialist in the NSDAP because it was a pro workers term thrown around at the time.
National= Ultranationalist
Sozialist= The German society
Arbeiter= The German Workers
Partei= Party
you don't know anything
Nazi sign Anti communist allaince with japan, Italy etc.
That sound left wing
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727sorry it was not you
I reply to you
JP is highly articulate, i love how he lays out clearly what others mess up or just can't understand, brilliant
it's called word salad
@@MrHamtits Too advanced for you then.
4:18 endorsed "punch a nazi"
Funny, I agree. Diversity threatens my way of life and I want to do something about it too
David Seneder
Consider appropriating their culture, I heard they have no suicide vest models out for autumn.
Punch an anti white marxist
Here's a story about disgust:
WW2, German soldiers in Lithuania, in my home town. Two officers walk into my grandparents house (intentions unclear, probably to get some food etc.) Disagreement ensues and one of the officers points his rifle at my heavily pregnant grandma. At that moment her waters break. Officers make a strongly disgusted faces and storm out of the house, never to come back. This way my grandparents are saved by lucky timing and tendency of German officers to be high in conscientiousness (and so in disgust sensitivity).
ps.: Russians (and Slavs in general) are high in Openness, so here's a recipe for conflict right there.
This might function as the canonical refutation of the constant war between the Left and the Right as to who is to blame for the Nazis. They had political policies that were big government, but extremely conservative temperaments.
this explains everything...he's very smart
@Jack The Film Fanatic ordinary people are becoming less and less poor. What the hell are you talking about? Like pence said, liberals want to make poor people more comfortable. Conservatives want to make poor people not poor. What side do you take?
SEEMS LIKE LIBERALS ARE MUCH MORE DISgUSTED WITH ANYTHING MIDDLE OF THE ROAD EVEN!!!!!!!!
It is my understanding that "Hitler's Table Talks" has potentially questionable credibility; not in totality, but that it has been significantly doctored and edited.
This is one of the things that have me distrusting Jordan sometimes; cherry picking... And not always letting the listener know when a fact is solid or unstable (although he does so often). Mixing the two makes the message murky, to me. I Guess none's perfect. In this case he might even expect us to understand that a table talk of a dictator is not trustworthy source, due to the nature of dictators.
Like everything else ww2 related.
that was too dense for a 5 min video. thanks for leaving the link for the full interview...heading that way soon.
Jesus Christ is God. He is Lord of all.
This was a great talk, Brett and Jordan should definitely collaborate again.
isn't being on the right, economically, a risk to get pathogens from a different group by free market and international trade
In a comment section full of manic idiots- this comment has redeemed my time reading through too many of them. I laughed out loud when I read this.
ok that sounds right
Peterson's pathogene theory is bullshit in the first place. The most authoritarian and conservative societies are in the middle east and arabs have always been immune to the great plagues. The least immune people on earth are hindus and they are the least disgust sensitive people too. As always: If it is said by Jordan Peterson, it is bullshit and doesn't stand a test. He is like a miner's canary. Where he breeds science doesn't thrive. Where science thrives, he is dead.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Both regions have cultures with high levels of disgust. The lowest status citizens in the Hindu Hierarchy are literally called "The Untouchables" because they're regarded as so disgusting they are.... untouchable. You're not saying anything to prove nor disprove what he said.
I think the thing about Communism and Fascism is that the far right/left wingers to fancy themselves to those ideologies are really interested in the doctrines of the ideology necessarily, but rather that those ideologies are just a left/right flavor of an attempt at total control and a product of intense neuroticism.
Both sides are beginning to realize that the government is just a loaded gun in the hands of a very weak and cowardly man called "liberalism", and they better get there, take the gun and shoot the other guy, before he does the same to them.
It's insane, but there's a sort of "falling to gravity" natural ease about it; that being the frightening part.
- Can I remove a period please, Jordan?
- Well.., so..., you know, periods are the fundamenta...
-- _Mustn't seem too orderly_-- ...Sure thing, kid! *tilts head, whips hand in the air as if to throw a freesbee* Go ahead!
*REMOVES period before "From" in the description*
Shouldn't Dr. Peterson be careful about using copyrighted images in the thumbnails of his videos? Especially when they don't relate to the video's content
Jordan Peterson really raising the bar with them thumbnails
I think the disgust sensitivity is related to more radical behavior rather than being just conservative so the Alt-right and Alt-left are both sensitive to disgust. The moderate right and left not so much.
The alt-left as you call it are more sensitive to moral disgust instead of physical disgust. I mean look at Antifa, to them perceived fascists are unclean but they don’t shower. The “liberals” that harbor disgust for the unvaccinated are politically more center-right.
Who is the man with the Sennheiser headset who thinks it's fine to punch people who have a different point of view?
Well he didn't really say that. He said that he's not entirely opposed to the use of violence to preserve a way of life.
"punching them or whatever ...I'm not squeamish about there being a right to violence when somebody is threatening a way of life". Well, we might have to disagree on that.
Angela Garnet I'd be asking this guy to explain very thoroughly what he meant by that, it's in the realm of Antifa but it doesn't mean it is Antifa thought, he may mean if someone is taking action that actively harms the way you can live vs. words or thoughts eg. A guy is smashing up your house vs. a guy saying you should be deported or killed
Yes, that could well be it. :o)
He phrased it rather carelessly. He better meant the NAP.
"That's not good"
It sounds pretty good.
Jordan Peterson has flight of ideas. He links unconnected things from questionable literature with tenuous links and makes grant theories. People who cannot interpret scientific data are all in awe for him. His quoting of PloS paper to link ‘pathogens’ ‘disgust’ ‘right wing’ and ‘orderliness’ is just that
What did the paper actually say that was different?
The determinative period before "From", in the description, is why Jordan reformulates his sentences 50 times, to stay out of chaos.
The link Peterson makes between one trait and a political belief seems a little outlandish. I'm on the authoritarian centre. And I'm about normal when it comes to orderliness. You can't link one trait to another and tell people this is why they believe what they do. It's completely outlandish. There are a multitude of factors. Not just one!
To me, the irony here is one reason the Spanish succeeded was not just because of smallpox, or their prowess as warriors; or steel, but because native americans generally underestimated the threat the SPanish posed; and were often willing to work with (or for) them.
So, it kinda seems odd to claim this xenophobia is a given
He didnt say that it was more a unactivated root that has roots in the basic fear of unknown new things/people
PART AND PARCEL
Politically and economically fascists are left wing (read Dinesh DeSouza's new book and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism") , but temperamentally/psychologically (I guess?) they are right-wing. Thoughts?
The policies Nazis pursued were seen as pro-business, especially in Germany back then. So no. Cuckservatives are retarded
What do you consider "leftwing" about Hitler, Franco, Nixon, or Reagan?
Rangers Lead The Way German conservatism before and after the Great War had nothing to do with the American Right, just as the first generation of "right-wingers" in the French Assembly had almost nothing in common with American politics in general. The Left/Right paradigm has changed radically in the last century, and varies from nation to nation. German conservatives in that time were imperialists and monarchists who viewed capitalism with suspicion.
Hold up, your sources for your claim about fascism are a nonwhite non fascist and a literal jew? Yes, surely they explain very thoroughly what fascism actually is without any bias whatsoever. I'd rather settle for Hitler's explanation, you know, the one who actually implemented it, who himself called it "third position" for a reason. Also, "left" and "right" is a false dichotomy, for one thing, and for another neither of those terms mean today what they did several decades ago.
everyone gets this wrong ... the further right, the MORE liberalism (hence, less government) is desired. the neo-conservatives with the help of the media have misconstrued this for everyone.
neo-conservatives are not conservatives and the media is 90% non-conservative. so there is NO voice for conservatives as centralized systems dominate the landscape ... and all centralized systems favor their group bias (usually elitism), hence centralized systems are more prone to fascism, authoritarianism or "big, bigger government" and being centralized they have a greater megaphone to voice who is what, even as it is wrong.
most people in the middle or center are conservatives because they want to be left alone. that has been the American way. unfortunately, bigeducation, bigmedia, bighollywood, big ... have propagandized stupid narratives that "conservatives" are people that are hate-, race-, bigot-, white-, prison-, rich-, ... when MOST people want to be left alone.
in this clip, Peterson is wrong. in this he is too inculcated in his academics that he is trying to build a fancy, sophisticated model. in doing so, he just misses the obvious. the obvious is that most people want to be left alone. only elites want power-infused into the environment (hence, increased-authoritarianism) to control people.
elites are monolithic ... identity politics types, welfare advocates, warfare advocates, DC, siliconvalley, NYC, wallstreet, billionaires, banks, media, pharma, hollywood, wealthy-enclaves, CA, beverlyhills, ... these all vote 70-, 80, 90% democrat ... or FASCIST.
*Hitler would have been the biggest Democrat on the planet* ... if he were born American and alive today and eligible for office, with the same sensibilities. (there is a reason people called Hillary ... Hitlary!)
The only problem I have about Jordan Peterson is that his view about right wing is using European metrics. The reason is very obvious, he comes from Canada which is culturally and politically more like European than US.
If you look at American right wing, they are complete different. For example, Ben Shapiro who is considered as far right doesn't hold any view Jordan Peterson said as right wing.
To be clarify, difference between European left and right are stay on surface, both side want big goverment like welfare and national health care; just the left want open broader and globalization, right is blood and soil nationalist. The American left vs right are on the fundamental level, left is the same as left in other place, but right is individualist who believes individual liberty, limited goverment and free market. The European right wing in US is so called "Alt-Right" which is very small minority.
This misconception is deliberately formed by the left so they can paint everyone who against them with same brush and call them Nazis.
Exactly.
@ 2:44 he states that the Germans are very orderly------ I believe he should have used past tense !
Notice how he said "were" 2 seconds later
Hitler was left wing..... His party was the socialist party....... He was big government and progressive. Those were his words.... Disappointed in the misinformation.
This is strong. I like it. Fuel.
Regarding Hitler's Table Talks: does anybody have any input on which translation to get? There seems to be a few, and all have some controversy attached regarding proper translations and interpretations.
So general disgust aimed at chaos can turn into specific hatred at a certain group?
National socialist came from Yellow Socialism which was a branch of Marxism(rejected branch.) Which came the term, "are you yellow?"
The Claim that National Socialism is right wing came from the factual statement that they're slightly right of Marxism.
Ox AO
This is both true and a simplification at the same time
It came from the froced ethno-state, the idea of genetic purity and the militaristic approach of advancing territory for the own people. Saying National socialism was left wing is so immensly missleading. You can check that by yourself: Are the alt right, white supremecists and neo-nazis left or right? The socialist part is simply, that the state cares for its own people, but just its own... no blacks, no jews, no polish...
Happy Nihilist
It's true but not the whole picture
Through The Smoke:
I have written in great detail on it before. It's mostly ignored.
Yellow socialism was the origin of democratic socialism.
The two that is accepted by academia whom claim to be the originators where the German Social Democratic Party where Marxist up until the 1950's. Fabian socialism was a means to Marxism.
The claim that Yellow Socialism is "different" (debatable) is that they're not based on the "Jewish Question" any longer. Which the Jewish Question really is a question about allowing any religion into their Utopian society.
Some of the details I talked about before such as Bruno Bauer who worked as an employee of Marx and Engels. Many of his ideas went into Yellow Socialism.
Another sad part is a lot of the papers such as the writer of the "Jewish Question" where "lost" by academia. I believe it's a deliberate cover up. With somethings they can't cover up.
Zen: said, "advancing territory" isn't inherently right or left wing.
Neither is Nationalism or globalism.
Maybe you need to explain what you mean?
One thing that is inherently right wing vs left wing. That is individualism vs collectivism. The only system that is based on Individualism is capitalism (right wing.) National socialist where clearly collectivist (left wing)
"Pathogen" is a metaphor.
Noam Chomsky should debate Jordan Peterson and teach him a few things
This man is a gift to those who posses critical thinking skills or would like to acquire them.
I think Wienstien should be careful in his "dehumanising" people by labelling anyone Nazi's to begin with
Hey anyone know the name of the composition in the outro?
The Chinese could be considered very orderly and yet they have been under communist rule forever. They also show a level of certain disgust for certain groups like Muslims who are be persecuted right now. That said, I think some of Jordan's points about conservatives also match states we have seen as socialist, communist etc.
Just because something has similar traits doesn’t mean it falls under the same category. There’s many different pieces of the puzzle and it’s very easy to throw names on things that simply don’t match the definition
@@shawnoconnor8075 Nahhh it is the same, but just like hitler didn't look that bad during his rise and only was seen as purely evil 10 years after it was all said and done, china is the same, but china's kicking ass, the same way germany was a shell of itself with mad debt and people feeling like they lost their identity and their self-respect, hence order purpose and intolerance of what isn't them, whether we like the idea from a moral standpoint, that war torn great depression germany was rebuilt in 10 years under nazi rule
Edit:Rebuilt in less than 10 even
An important element to this is the understanding the almost the entirety of human evolution occurred in the context of small groups. So a lot of those behaviors are contextualized to the survival of the group in the face of other groups that may present threats, pathogens being but one, actually. (There are also threats of attack and plunder that are equally as disastrous - you don't know if the other is there to trade or to plunder, so the "safe bet" is to assume plunder then that precludes that possible death of the group as a result).
The point being here is that while useful to survival in those contexts, in the wider scope of societies in which we now inhabit which can encompass a diversity of individuals and groups, those behaviors are now somewhat anachronistic (and potentially counter productive) in that context. The further point being that these behaviors evolved over millennia so they aren't going to change overnight in that the current shape of societies has existed for not even a blink of the eye in the scope of human evolutionary time scales.
So we can't just pretend they are just "social constructs" that can just be wished away by imposing some alternate "social construct". If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
TGSNT.tv do yourself a favor
In the new manga by Masashi Kishimoto first Page It says:
"The most important things are covered with lies so that people can't find them" it's the case with Hitler's story.
Your base argument makes sense, conservatives, i.e. Republicans, most Libertarians, some independents etc. have a tendency to be more organized, and fact based in thinking. While on the left end of the spectrum people tend to be more creative. However, that doesn't make the people falling to right of the spectrum all terrible people, and calling most right wingers basically Nazis is an untrue generalization to say the least. Hitler is not easily placed politically, Nazism is the worst of Nationalism as a severe extent of patriotism, but he also was an animal rights activist, and his "National Socialist Party" gave handouts to aryan poor. Very few people on the right are racist, your argument about human nature, and our "disgust" reaction to the other falls on all levels of the political spectrum, left, right, or center. But the right's establishment, Fox News and the Republican Party condemns Nazism outright, not only due to the religious and ethical over-the-lens-steppings, but also the big government threat. No authoritarian government has been fully to the right, because the right values small government and personal freedom, and those don't lend themselves well with authoritarianism.
Yeah, but Hitler was a leftist who was a vegetarian, a failed artist, indulged in ecology and the occult. If you really want to understand how liberal/leftist German and Italian fascism was, read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. The only reason German fascism became known as coming from the right is that Stalin labeled it as such when Hitler attacked him. The label stuck because there were a lot of communists in the States that bought into Stalin's understanding and definition of fascism. Fascism for the most part was socialist (hence the name NAZI means National Socialist) but it was not international socialism of the Russia variety, but national socialism.
Every fascism regime oppose jail and want to destroy communism
Not sure if I am
Disgust sensitive
The pathogen argument in general is a strange one to me. We only have a relatively recent understanding of what a pathogen is or how it works. Saying that pathogens are somehow biologically driving people towards order because of some genetic history seems a bit of a stretch, or even insincere. What would be the basis for this kind of genetic realization? In other words, how frequently would mixing of ecosystems in this way happen in a person's lifetime before 1000 years ago? And out of those times, how many resulted in some kind of plague?
If you think Hitler was a socialist you're out of your mind. He enacted a multitude of right winged policies, for example made abortion punishable by death for German women to promote the bloodline. Abortion and sterilization of "lesser" elements in the state (Jews, gypsies/roma, etc) does not count as "abortion" Thats genocide. If you want to talk about his economic policies, he buddied up business owners, not to promote capitalism, not to promote better relations between the state and business, in order to utilize it to it's fullest extent with regards to war production. The reason Germany did well economically post depression was exactly because they went to war. Conquering and amassing large armies of men to work in factories to build armaments helps a lot. Just look at the US economy during the war. Linking together the state a business was good for the Nazi's and especially Hitler's plans. Also, a lot of the policies that helped Nazi Germany just ended up carrying over from the Weimar Republic. In fact Strasser distanced himself and I believe left the party solely because he thought Hitler had gotten too close with businesses, Strasser was an actual socialist. He wanted to eliminate Jews through means of expulsion from German economics. Hitler went with genocide. This ultimately ended up getting Strasser killed during the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler was no more a conservative than he was a socialist.
Hitler said this in the book "Hitler speaks" by Hermann Raushning (a german conservative btw)
"The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth… There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism… Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers."
Thats not socialism, thats not conservatism, thats totalitarianism. Something completely altered and total over the individual. Individuality is a major tenet of socialism and conservatism (which I think is foolish, just look up determinism)
"They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
If you think conservatism or socialism represents that, you're a fool. It's like saying Stalinism was true communism. One was a system of government by secret police, terror and mass death due to starvation and political oppression. The other is an idealistic hope for a certain type of society and economy, that wishes to return the means of production back to the workers so that their work is far more enjoyable, far more important to the worker and thus making people more than just machines to work the factories for wages. Which, btw, communism took root in the wrong nation. It was ultimately supposed to happen in the United States or the UK due to communism's heavy reliance of industrialization. Which, idk if any knows the history of Russia or China, wasn't exactly the case in those two specific nations. While the US and UK were coming up with mass production of products Russia and China were still heavily agrarian. Thats a small summation of it. Hitlerism and Stalinism are not even on the spectrum compared to how we imagine the political structure. Centrists, which now is seemingly more like moderate political followers, have been hijacked by extremists. Trumpians and Sanderians (populists/potential nationalists vs anarchists/"bolsheviks") are putting out ideas that one may consider dangerous to society. Akin to totalitarianism. This PC culture, tribalism, words you can and can't say, calling everything that disagrees with your political views fake news, conspiracies coming from both sides (keep in mind, Hitlerism and Stalinism both had conspiratorial thoughts in the shape of jews and capitalists), the extremists from both sides are the ones we need to watch out for.
This is happening right now
Joe should clean his table!
right from the start - Peterson's thinking has gone astray. To link the idea that orderliness is conservative/right winger, therefore Hitler is a conservative/right winger. He falls for the academics who are mostly left wingers that have successfully shoved Nazism over to the right wing. They also did the same to fascism. Nazism, communism, fascism, and even islam should be included in that list along with some other 'ism's - are all left wing.
If Hitler was orderly - it was a personality trait, probably OCD. The 'isms' I mention have differences, but are very similar in some basic things - intolerant, dependent on the government, most are anti-semites (except for Mussolini's fascism), want national healthcare, anti-free speech, anti-2nd amendment (that means that the leaders could lose control too easily if their followers were armed!), all violent or have the tendency towards violence, deceptive, etc. And like I said, there are differences but not that much to be that noticeable.After WWII, the academics were appalled by Nazism and fascism so worked on tossing it over to the right side of the political spectrum and we see it is very successful even though it is wrong.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say about Fascism and Nazism. My one difference is that I wouldn't put Islamism on the left myself, but that really just comes down to how we personally organize things rather than me thinking you're wrong or anything given that in practice they have been shown to yield similar results given their opposition to individualism and proclivity towards state control that when powerful enough tries to even control how their people think. Granted, that's because I place individualistic Classical Liberalism (what today is most often referred to as Libertarianism) as being the center rather than as the right. When taking in the whole arc of history and political philosophy as we know it from the beginning of civilization, I do think some kind of distinction needs to be made between the different kinds of authoritarians. Namely that I define the right as pre-Liberal/Capitalist power structures (Monarchy, Theocracy, Caste Systems, etc) and left as attempts at post-Liberal/Capitalist societies (Communism, Fascism, Socialism, etc) with radical Islam as a political movement more closely aligning to the former than the latter. And of course keep in mind that I'm using Liberal there via it's original definition and refer to modern "Liberals" as Progressives myself.
I think you are generally right when looking at it through the lens of American political philosophy that was founded on the principle of individualism even if properly implementing it for everybody was a work in progress that took some time, but I think what does lead to problems in political discourse is how different countries have different political backgrounds behind them and so what is right/conservative or left/progressive will vary from place to place and thus leading to people talking in different languages if it is all just boiled down to those terms. For instance a new idea in one country could be an old idea in another. So by just trying to simplify it and think of a more universal kind of political spectrum/paradigm to look at the definitions I gave seem to make the most sense to me personally. Granted I try to simply avoid using the terms "right" and "left" at this point anyway and be specific about whatever political ideologies I'm talking about.
Just my 2 cents.
When it comes to the American experience you are on the mark. But I was just getting at how I think a lot of frustration and confusion emerges based upon not only how people personally define left and right, but if it is to be defined as "progressive" and "conservative" or simply "to change" or "not to change" then that's going to vary from country to country and even generation to generation in each country. Which can all lead to people virtually speaking in different languages and can lead to people thinking that change or no change are in of themselves good or bad ideas without really considering the content of the propositions themselves. If by right one means something that represents the ideas of the past, than yes the American right would be those who stood up for individual liberty of the highest order. But the right in another country or region of the world can be vastly different.
Our personal organization of these systems in our heads seems to be the point of contention rather than disagreeing about the value of each of the political movements in question. You are taking into account the objectively observable results they produce regardless of the assumptions they might be built on, which is a fine way to do it. I tend to just look at it from another perspective that makes me categorize them differently.
First off I try to use a universal spectrum that takes into account all the world's political history rather than just one nation's. Also to group them based upon certain shared underlying assumptions they hold about the world. And to keep in mind their places within the arcs of both political history and philosophy. Because frankly I believe that if it were done that way there would be far less confusion in political conversations.
For instance, the terms left and right lines of political thought are rooted in the French National Assembly before the revolution. And there, as prescribed by the seating arrangements, the "right" or the reactionaries that didn't want change were recognized as members of the aristocracy and the clergy. Whilst the "left" included the classical John Locke, Thomas Paine, etc sort of small government liberals. And in the old world those two institutions pegged to the right were the chief power structures in the various societies. Even the land and people that would become the United States were once ruled by a distant monarch before making their own way. The individualists being the revolutionaries or the "left" in this case, rather than the collectivists as pretty much all the future ones would be. That's not to say that it was implemented perfectly over night naturally. Slavery, Jim Crow, women's suffrage, gay marriage etc were examples of issues that still needed to be dealt with if those principles were to all be truly applied. And I'd say by and large without having to look for tautologically argued phantom issues we're getting there. The one true political block that remains that fits this criteria for the right in America would be what remains of the "moral guardians" who seek to impose their religious views on the personal lives of other people.
On the flip-side I would define the left as being statists of a more populist sort of variety. Rather than being made-up of a class of people who are openly oligarchs that demand respect via some hereditary or divine right, they are ran by those who purport to be representing the will of the people and to be looking out for their best interests. They state is held up as the highest authority with the downplaying if not outright banning of other influential systems, particularly religious ones, in order to help keep people as a whole moving one way for one common cause, with everybody's value being determined by how they are contributing to it. And naturally all the worst ones would come down to one party. They all decry capitalism as exploitive and not good enough. Therefore they implement large social welfare programs and public work projects. And they are seemingly all built on some victim narrative. Whether it be at the hands of the upper class, bourgeoisie nations, Jewish banking conspiracies, or the intrinsic racism of white westerners as it is for the majority of the left now. All of these groups are presented as intrinsically being greedy oppressors that can't be helped and therefore action by the party or state is needed to remedy the problem and making everything fair. Well, for those who they think deserve it anyway. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were recognized as being progressives/socialists before World War 2. Their was mutual admiration between them and a portion of American progressives. Even FDR sent some of his guys over to Fascist Italy in order to take note of what they could adopt from there.
As another commenter pointed out to the left the right has become this giant hodge-podge or a chimera of various political set-ups that are very often mutually exclusive from each other. Including anarcho-capitalists, free-market minarchists, Fascists, Nazis, monarchs, theocrats, etc. But the only thing that they will accept as being a hard left ideology is Marxist international socialism. No variety, no gradation. Not to mention that it ignores the intellectual history of such movements such as the line that can be drawn between Mussolini to Lenin, to Georges Sorel and back to Karl Marx in terms of philosophy. Not to say it's all to be approached as exactly the same thing, but to say that they are a of a shared lineage. And therefore in my mind, they should be placed on the same side of the aisle. Yes, Fascism did not wipe out the members of the managerial and upper classes or have the state seize all means of productions. But they were still the ones calling the shots rather than the other way around and therefore as said before were able to direct the economy how they saw fit and the workers were still strongly benefitted by a system that included things like a progressive tax, a minimum wage, child labor laws, implementation of an 8 hour work day, and so on. I question why this is considered the opposite of communism rather than just a similar line of thought that takes such ideas to a lesser degree. But even then, if we were to grant the premise and divorce those ideologies completely I'd have to ask why Marx and international socialism are allowed to have a corner on being what constitutes the left? For instance John Maynard Keynes wasn't really a Marxist, but he does seem to be the favorite economist of the Democrats who are most definitely in that camp. I just don't see why they are the ones who get to set the definitions, and it's clearly done so to be in their favor.
Sorry about how long this turned out to be. Here's part 2...
What it comes down to is that nowadays the whole left vs right debate seems to be defined for many based upon modern social issues with more emphasis on cultural things like race, sexuality, and gender rather than debates over the government's size, how it should be set-up, or how it interacts with the economy. The general assumption seems to be that people are inherently going to if not should believe in the inherent legislation of their own social values via the law. For instance gay marriage and religious freedom contrary to popular belief are not mutually exclusive ideas. You can have homosexual be able to get married to each other but allow those who don't want to be involved in such ceremonies the ability not to be. Regardless of which side you disagree with, a true individualist would say that by law both parties should be able to do as they see fit if they're not hurting anybody. Not to mention that I find that also a problem when the key figureheads for their ideology were hardly the most enlightened people to walk this Earth. Namely Karl Marx being a racist or the far less talked about co-writer of "The Communist Manifesto" Friederich Engels who outright asserted that there would need to be a purging of the "racial trash" when the revolution came. Or let us not forget Eugenics supporter Margaret Sanger. Not to mention how the communist countries even up to today are not up to snuff on the social front such as homosexuals are treated in China, or back in Castro's Cuba for that matter. Because of such views should they all be viewed as right-wing now? Or should it be accepted that such things can prop up within a variety of systems?
Really, between us this all seems to be a matter of semantic difference. If I were to reference the professor David Boneac, it is apparent that all the philosophies in question are top/down systems of government rather than bottom/up ones. And indeed, they do have a lot of crossover in terms of effect as you pointed out. What got me thinking about a lot of this really was looking into the whole "horseshoe" theory concept and whether or not it really held water. From your perspective it wouldn't naturally. But looking at that scale it did make me have to wonder where something like a monarchy or a theocracy would go. I would probably agree with the basic premise of the theory, but that the proper benchmarks were not being used. The perfect example for me really is North Korea. The current regime having been founded as a socialist one but in effect became a feudal society when they decided to make it's chair of leadership a hereditary position. And even the whole declaration of his being a god of some kind recalls a number of old world rulers like the pharaoh of Egypt or emperor of Japan. Being able to get away with that because of all the power that the people of that country lost if not handed over to that regime.
I just prefer to look at the political spectrum in this more broad and universal way. And at the end of the day I just find it simplest to define the right and left as pre-liberal/capitalist (submission to higher powers) and post-liberal/capitalist systems (enforcement of a collective will, in theory at least) respectively based upon their foundational differences even if they wind up overlapping down the road anyway. For me the center should be seen as that which doesn't include the succinct use of force whilst heading in a left or right direction indicates some sort of bias. But again, that's just me. And given that I highly doubt we're ever going to see the emergence of some brand new political philosophy not based upon one that came before whether it promote oligarchy, individualism, or populism I think it makes sense to see it as the middle. I don't see what other system could emerge that would push everything further to the right like classical liberalism or progressivism each did. And thus, to me anyway, that scale I present seems to be the most concrete spectrum by which to look at not America mind you, but the political movements throughout history and across the worlds.
Sorry about how long this response was, I guess I just got carried away! lol
I am buying this book to... From Benito Mussolini to Hugo Chavez: Intellectuals and a Century of Political Hero Worship.There is a good writeup in amazon about it. I have to laugh at the term 'intellectuals' since they are not that 'intelligent' when it comes to ideologies.
www.amazon.com/Benito-Mussolini-Hugo-Chavez-Intellectuals/dp/1107415071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506446291&sr=8-1&keywords=from+benito+mussolini+to+hugo+chavez
I never disagreed with you about Fascism and Nazism though. However I am interested in both books you brought up.
to say that Hitler represents a conservative ideology is totally false
He's givin way more knowledge than the author's mind can comprehend in the given span of time 😂
What IS that SONG
I thought the Nazis were leftists. Weren't they national socialists?
Dresden_stl as mush as North Korea is a people's republic..
Dresden_stl They were, petersons jus been duped by academia.
No ones perfect.
Right wing socialists. The difference is the far left say they believe in equality and the far right believe in higharachy. Left want socialism for all. Right wing socialism isn't for everyone. Only for some and depending on a few things.
Check out Norman Ohler's book "Blitzed:Drugs in the Third Reich" for another layer to add to this.
The Plos One article: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062275
What's the Music at the end ?
My advice, use one device to play those few seconds into the Google music locator thing, and you'll likely get it.
Shook hands? TRIGGERED. Lol
Fantasia (Disney) gets a whole new meaning now.
I would disagree with Peterson on the whole "liberals are more open" thing. I would say that that personality trait needs to have two subcategories: Ideologically and abstractly open. Liberals are Generally in my experience not open to new ideas hence the whole Damore/Google fiasco. Conversely I would say Liberals are in fact creatively (or abstractly) open. Conservatives are more Ideologically open, their concerns are with the more concrete and measurable problems.
Holy shit, Im the anti-hitler. I have NO disgust filter. I knew my filthy ways could be dressed up nicely.
The correlation between infectious disease and authoritarism at an r=0.6 is very interesting, i wonder how that play into the emergence of the Coronavirus in China. You kind of expect when you have these kind of out breaks that the more conservative leaning disgusted people are those more likely to survive.
What's with all the aggro against Jews in these comments? I've still yet to understand people in this regard. Someone want to tell me?
What we are seeing with the coronavirus
While it's true that isolated populations protect themselves from the bio-pathogens of other groups, there is also the flip side of the coin to consider. A group that is too isolated or exclusive will be more subject to genetic pathologies that a more diverse pool wouldn't have. Jews, for example, are a case study in inherited susceptibility to certain diseases because of their historical exclusivity.
So we have this disgust factor built in... but we also have this drive for genes different to ours - we also love the exotic... strange balance to strike - we're complex creatures...
Who is thos Hitler guy i keep hearing about? He probably works for the History channel because i hear his name everytime i zap past the History Channel.
🤔 strange... I’m conservative and I’m disgusted by Trump.
How easy it is to skew with fancy words and a crisp clean suite.
I guess that is the paper JBP is talking about: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062275
I would actually like to point out that most of the REALLY regressive types of there find their opponents disgusting and don't want to talk to them.
??? That was kind of random. Who were the guests? That kind of looked like Bret Weinstein?
So what your saying is... Cleanliness is next to godliness.
disgust > fear. the left wing knows this.
Peterson is saying the root of bigotry is the bodys natural attempt to protect itself from disease.
What a crock. Bigotry is about power. Period.
But fear of disease is how those that want power get the general population to help advance their power.
Enter coronavirus 👨🏼✈️
I love hurler
I don't understand... Liberals are high in openness, but low in contientiousness (orderlyness). If they're low in orderlyness aren't they less likely to make an orderly society?
I feel this discussion could be taken one step further to include the road to utopia model. The world would be better if we eradicate this 'disease'. I'm not trying to negate what has already been said just build upon it.
The one word I hear more than any other from SJWS, Antifa, radical feminists and every late-night comedian when discussing President Trump - *_disgusting!_*
Interesting..
I would suggest that we need to consider that we are traveling on an ever changing continuum...
Yes...societies collided...and this created both opportunities and threats..
However, todays social reality looks much different in that as much as some societies continue as a largely homogenous mass, most have now had intensive assimilation and mixing.
The melting pot bleeds into the cultural mosaic and vice versa..
Most countries in europe as well as the americas have now lived this reality for 60 - 70 years....
I have a hard time accepting that pure disgust continues to drive behaviour today as a true organic behavioural manifestation.
I believe that underneath the surface, the hate is finding a new driver.....and I believe that this driver is generated by fear of losing access to resources.
With 10 billion inhabitants being crammed into a tighter fitting cage in the next 30 years.....aggression becomes inevitable...
The desire for order is now only an illusion as we know that the kind of order that gives us the ability to adhere to our
ethic individuality carved out geographically...can no longer be realistically attained...
It seems that we are perhaps in a process of climbing back down Maslow’s scale...more focused again...on shelter, food and security...
Self actualization has effectively slipped our grasp and along with it...even some cultural ideals...that used to drive our unique ethnic / collective behaviour....
Today...it is...more than ever..about....land...air...water..and food....
We in the west may not be there yet...but our collective unconscious is being filled with real examples of how bad things can get....and probably will....
We hate today because all of us are fighting for what little control we still have...knowing that even this may soon be a thinner gruel....
Peterson really took some serious leaps and bounds to jump to a place that didn't exist.
Why does he look like he has braces in? Peterson looks so cute hahahaha
Self interest goons already supporting their own ideological perspectives look always to garner like ideological goon forces. All they need is a spokesperson for their goon force!
Fast forward to 2021 and see similarities to the unvaccinated…
Fucking Peterson man, he's so fucking articulate. I remember the lecture he gave that speech in that was about twenty minutes long. TO condense that into a few minutes and still get the whole message across is phenomenal. When he speaks about articulation, this is what he's talking about for sure. Christ! SO fucking boss, man.
interesting, not exactly mind boggling, but havent thought of it quite that way. . . . second dude is just repeating what Peterson said and is pretending its his own thought... in front of him. wtf.
Man, this is interesting and sad at the same time.
It feels like most conflict in the world is rooted in our evolutionary behaviour.
Do we have to "discard" our nature to achieve true peace?
I wonder if a strong A.I. can govern humanity better than any politician.
Jordan mixes conservative and right wing in error. Hitler may have had a conservative temperament for order but that is centrist at best. The extreme right wing is Liberty-Anarchy or "no order" (on the far right of the political spectrum) Sad to see him adding to leftist confusion. "so no" as JP would say.
HydrogenWizard the more right-wing you go with ideologies the higher the level of order and authoritarianism.
@@Sam-lp1qs That's what the left would like you to believe, on the furthest right is no control, no authority, Anarchy
HydrogenWizard what your saying goes against basic political science.
@@Sam-lp1qs As the left teaches it. We have an over run of progressive professors teaching political science today. Until the 1960's The far right political spectrum was taught as anarchy, now they teach it as authoritarianism in purposeful error
@@Sam-lp1qs ruclips.net/video/ODJfwa9XKZQ/видео.html
00:50 that's the world we live in rn
Nazism is the furthest thing from conservatism. They were way closer to the left than the right. Finally, there is an issue where I disagree with Jordan....
You have said you don’t like right wing collectivism either, and that you don’t self identify as a conservative; but you seem to be more severe with the left than the right. It there a reason for this?
Because right wingers look at facts and science...and Lefty's believe in 500000 genders and blacks are treated unfairly
@@kingkilla9484 xD Right Wingers are the science deniers :
Climate Change Denial
Creationism
Anti Vax...
@@kingkilla9484 Nice try though. 😘
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 Anti-Vax started as a left wing movement. The left doesn't believe in genetic differences between population groups and think that sex exists on a spectrum.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676
Fake science is political science. Lets scare people into funding us more money. The only voice you hear is from scientists backed by the state, government, or a political party. Every other scientist doesnt have funds to counter an argument.
Anti-vax is not an actual political movement. Its a survivalist movement.
The problem with the corona vaccine is not simple. The people who developed the mrna vaccines. They used classified technology for its development. They are contractors for the government. They did a good job. But the government and the pharmaceutical companies are the middle man with production of said vaccine. There are extra things added, that did not come from the vaccine development. Neither political party trusts the government. The technology will not be declassified, and this has made people paranoid. Do not assume something is political, because people are not interested in a deteriorating body. Because the government said it was safe. There are 180 flaws from the production side of the vaccine. The data is scientific fact. But you are not going to hear a thing from op mockingbird msm.
View any world IQ map. ... The more brutal the environment, the higher the IQs. Evolution is driven by hardship (natural selection) and war (artificial selection). Biology 101.
Then why isn't the middle east the center of the world culturally or economically?
@@JS-ul7kz Because the Middle East is a relative paradise when compared to the thousand year feudal system in Europe.
@@JS-ul7kz Almost all the smart Middle East people have become refugees and moved out.
Funny how conservative states and countries have less crime, less unemployment, people are more inclusive and they tend to be religious.
Jordan is wrong on this one.
Andre Brito what
No, he’s right. The natural defense mechanism he speaks of is good.
Sad to see Peterson make the all-too-common error of conflating the American and European 'Rights' Also, as another commenter pointed out, the current Left is demonstrating the very traits which he's ascribing to the Right. I think he needs to keep working on this hypothesis, because observation is not bearing it out. Good to know the guy's human.
How do you consider Hitler "right"?
X= right/left axis
Y= authoritarian/libertarian axis
How is Hitler not authoritarian left?
He was more big business friendly than a communist country.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131
Communism countries support the biggest type of big business, State ran business and State ran economy.
Hitler was a self proclaimed socialist, that puts him on the left side of the X axis.
Hitler wanted (and received) centralized State (later on personal) control over business and society in general, which places him on the authoritarian side of the Y axis.
Hitler would more correctly be described as a authoritarian socialist.
@@themissourikid969 America is inverted totalitarianism with a business run state.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131
Even if that were true, what would it have to do with Hitler being authoritarian left?
@@themissourikid969 I’d say he’s more authoritarian centrist. Except that killing people because you don’t want to pay for their health care and writing “work sets you free” outside the camps sounds kind of Republican on steroids.
conservatives being afraid of the Other is something Liberals always say. I always knew this made them more comfortable than the actual truth. I think I always thought it was contempt and hatred but the *disgust* does make some sense I think.
I had to laugh when it took them 2.5 hours to get back to the topic.
He seemed to have forgotten the part that the Nazi's were a far left socialist regime.
I wonder if Jordan has still not recovered from his shock. What an emotional wreck. Typical progressive
Lincoln Hawk lmao what he’s regressive