Articles, Blog

The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish

♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ (Yes it’s all for the…)
♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ All your wrongs will be redressed!
♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ (Yes it’s all for the…)
♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ Someone’s got to be oppressed!
♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ (Yes it’s all for…the…best!)
♫”All for the Best” from the musical “Godspell”♫ Say, for the sake of argument, you’ve got this friend. You know, that one friend? You were buddies in high school, but don’t really see each other anymore except online? And you used to argue about politics for fun when you were teenagers, but as you’ve gotten older you’ve drifted further left and he’s gone sharply right? And your arguments…don’t feel so frivolous anymore. And maybe you’ve agreed that it’s better for your friendship to stop getting into it with each other. But you’ve just posted on Facebook about how
“College in America should be free and all student loans forgiven.” And your friend has left a comment he’s not supposed to leave. And you’re not supposed to respond, but you REALLY want to respond, so after a moment’s hesitation you shoot him a DM. Why do you care how we’d afford free tuition? Wars are a lot more expensive than education, but you never seem to care how we pay for those. We just go into debt and you’re fine with it. Anyway, aren’t you the party that says deficits don’t matter? Yeah, but you’re Democrats. You’re not going to run a deficit, you’re going to raise taxes, aren’t you? Taxes are generally how governments pay for things. Spoken like a proper socialist. No socialist would call that socialism. Only you, and only when we pay for things you don’t like. But when we build roads, or subsidize corn, well then you just call it government. Those are things we can’t pay for without governments! But we can pay for college ourselves. We’ve been doing it since forever. Well, I hate to tell you this, but it’s not the 1950’s anymore. Time was, you didn’t need a degree to get a good job. Now you do. And you could pay for college waiting tables, but now you can’t. Nowadays college is a necessity, and people can’t afford it. Why do liberals make excuses for people? If you want to go to college and don’t have the money, then you study and work hard and get a scholarship. You earn it instead of complaining until somebody gives it to you. Do you think people aren’t doing that? Do you think there’s millions of unclaimed scholarships just lying around waiting for someone to apply for them? There is nowhere near enough financial aid to get everyone to college who needs to go. That’s not my problem! They can crowdfund. Or get a loan. Or, whatever, go on Oprah. The government doesn’t owe you an education on my dime. It’s not gonna be your dime! You don’t make that much. No one’s talking about raising your taxes. If some billionaire you’ll never meet gets taxed to put some kid you’ll never meet through school, why should you even care? If someone robs a bank that isn’t my bank, I’m still opposed to robbery. I have a problem with taking money someone earned to give someone a degree they aren’t owed. Why is what happens to poor people “not your problem,” but what happens to rich people is? You think you’re gonna be rich someday? Oh please. You’re the one who thinks they’re gonna be rich. [Incredulous laugh] I assure you I do not. But then he says something that blows your mind a little bit, something that makes you think you’ve been going about this the wrong way, something that makes all the seeming contradictions of Republican thought maybe make some kind of sense. He says, Yes, you do. Democrats think they’re going to take the money from billionaires and spread it around. Give it to a bunch of poor people so they can go to college. And everyone gets a degree and everyone gets a good job and healthcare is free and minimum wage is eighty bucks an hour. And everyone’s saving lots of money, so what then? Everyone’s rich. Everyone works in tech. Everyone moves to New York and California. And nobody’s a billionaire, and nobody’s broke, and everyone’s great at their job because all they needed was the right opportunity, and no one’s better than anyone at anything. It’s a fantasy and we shouldn’t have to pay you to LARP it. You think you can make everyone the same, but you can’t. There’s always a bigger fish. You say, Did you just quote The Fantom Phucking Menace at me? And he says, I guess I did, lol. And that’s as good a time as any to drop it. But, the conversation sticks with you. See, when you talk to your conservative friend, you operate as though you have the same base assumptions: belief in democracy, do onto others, etc etc. If you didn’t believe your friend shared these assumptions, you’d basically be calling him a fascist or a sadist, and you conclude that, if you believe in democracy, you must believe in equality. And if you believe in equality, you must believe in equal access to education, and must conclude that governments should help pay tuition. And so you give your friend the benefit of the doubt that if he doesn’t understand this very simple logical progression, he either hasn’t had it properly explained to him, or has, at some point, been lied to. Because no one could believe in “all citizens are equal” AND “always a bigger fish” at the same time. But by this thinking, you’re treating most conservatives as people who want in their hearts to be liberals, but have so far failed. And, maybe that’s why they think liberals are condescending? What if he doesn’t have the same base assumptions as you? Or, what if he does, but has other assumptions you aren’t aware of, that lead him to different conclusions? He is, often, misinformed, but what if that isn’t the problem? What if he actually believes something else? We’ve been circling around this one for a while. We’ve talked about what liberals believe, we’ve talked about what fascists believe, we’ve talked about what nihilists believe, or rather, what they don’t believe, or, rather, why they aren’t actually nihilists. But, this is a tough one. What do conservatives believe? Oh God, I’m gonna get yelled at so much for this one. The United States, like much of the Western world, is a capitalist democracy. That’s what we’re raised in, that’s what seems normal to us. And, in our normal lives, democracy and capitalism seem to coexist easily. Voting doesn’t feel like a violation of capitalism; buying a bagel doesn’t seem like a violation of democracy. But sometimes, they come into tension with one another. And speaking REALLY broadly, when a choice between them has to be made, a liberal is someone who tends to think democratically, and a conservative is someone who tends to think like a capitalist. The operative word here is “tend.” Liberals are still capitalists and conservatives still stand for democracy, and the preference for one or the other may be very slight. Nevertheless, which way a person leans reveals their priorities. The democratic framework, or at least A democratic framework, is: one citizen, one vote. No matter who you are, you are born with certain in-, or possibly unalienable rights, and any system that doesn’t guarantee you those rights is a tyranny. Freedom, agency, and a hand on the scriptures that govern you, everyone is entitled to these things. It’s an egalitarian mindset. People gain power by electoral process, i.e., when it is granted TO them by the masses, with whom the true power resides, and whom the Constitution guarantees the right to take that power away from an electee. Rather than powerful, the elected official is, in a sense, an employee with millions of bosses, all of whom have equal authority. This is the IDEA of democracy, with the history of democracy being riddled with failures to live up to this ideal. But part of the project of liberalism has been about making the government more closely resemble its ideology. The capitalist framework, by contrast, is that of businesses and markets, where big fish eat the little ones. If two people start businesses in the same field and one makes more profit than the other, that person can make more investments, open more locations, undercut their competitors’ prices. The more money you have, the more money you can make. So advantage compounds where even small failures often mean getting muscled out of the field. Now with some creativity, a novel cost-saving practice or a new delivery method the underdog can still thrive, and this is part of what conservatives like about the market: that it demands this creativity in a live-ammo environment. But most will not beat the odds. That’s how odds work. Since there will always be more failures than successes, the general trajectory of unregulated capitalism is money pooling into fewer and fewer hands. Things naturally sort themselves into a hierarchy with sharks at the top, a million minnows at the bottom. Since we live with both of these frameworks in our minds, and most of the things we do in our daily lives can be justified by either one, we don’t often notice the contradictions between them, and it’s easy to imagine whichever one tends to be OUR default is everyone else’s default as well. But issues like poverty, taxation, and education are areas where the contradictions matter, and we are sometimes shocked by how different the world looks to our conservative friends. In conservative thinking, this hierarchy is humanity’s natural state. The American Dream is: here, anyone can make it. No matter who you are or what you start with, YOU can become a billionaire. But a necessary component of this is: anyone CAN, but EVERYONE can’t. We’re not all gonna be billionaires. There’s a finite amount of money in this country. For any one person to have so, so much more than they need there must, mathematically, be thousands of people with less. Your conservative friend is often baffled as to what you’re even trying to say when you point out there’s not enough high-paying jobs or affordable health plans for everyone. There’s not supposed to be. The system requires an underclass. Someone’s gotta clean the toilets. Capitalism, then, is a proving ground: it’s how you demonstrate where in the hierarchy you deserve to be. Do you have more than you need, or less? Anything you’ve got, you beat someone else to it. How resourceful were you? How well did you play? The field is by no means level, but any disadvantage just means you have to WORK harder. We know people who start with nothing can win big. If you’re a shark, you will make your way to the top because that’s where you belong. Anyone complaining how stacked the deck is against them is making excuses for not being better at the game. So disadvantage itself is not a problem so long as it’s, quote unquote, natural. What’s necessary is that advantage and disadvantage be imposed from without: free tuition, a high minimum wage, taxes on the wealthy, or any other kind of government meddling, these things must be opposed. Because with them, people would end up in the wrong places. Power has to be earned. If it isn’t earned, it won’t be properly wielded, and then society ends up a mess. Conservatives generally feel what’s wrong with the world today can be chalked up to people not being where they should be in the social order. They used to be where they belonged but then LIBERALS gummed everything up with their government handouts and forced representation. When, exactly, things were the way they should be is a bit of a moving target. Nowadays they act like it was the 80’s, in the 80’s it was the 50’s, and in the 50’s it was sometime before the New Deal, so following the nostalgia cycle it’s usually about thirty years ago. Conservatives are distrustful of any effort to make society more equal because, deep down they don’t believe equal societies are real. Obviously, “all citizens created equal” needs to be the government’s position, cause you can’t trust the government to know where to put people. So it has to treat everyone the same, but this is a legal fiction, like corporate personhood. It just means, the government leaves the market alone so the hierarchy can reveal itself. You’re not supposed to BELIEVE in an equal distribution of power. What are you, 7? This is just the way the world is. Look at alpha wolves. Silverbacks. Consider the lobster. You are one single individual within a system, and it is your job to rise or fall within it on the sweat of your own back. you don’t CHANGE the system. Society’s problems come from the rules being too weakly enforced. The answer’s always more discipline. Your conservative friend thinks you’re naïve for thinking the system even CAN be changed, and his is the charitable interpretation. Many conservatives assume liberals, at least, the smart liberals, KNOW that the hierarchy is eternal, that there will always be people at the top and people at the bottom. So any claim towards making things equal must be a Trojan horse for something that benefits them. Why would they assume that? Because that’s what they do. The REAL liberal agenda is to put people in the wrong places on purpose, boost liberal allies, hold back liberal opposition. You don’t want to break up the pyramid. You’re just trying to sneak someone else to the top. A lot of conservative contradictions start to make sense through this lens. Of any issue, simply ask: does this distribute power, or consolidate it? If power flows up the hierarchy they’re for it; if it flows down, they’re against it. How can conservatives say 15 an hour is too much for flipping burgers but somehow 11.5 million an hour isn’t too much to run Amazon? Because if you’re flipping burgers, you’re a minnow, and you don’t need 15 an hour to be a minnow. But sharks? They deserve all they can get, because they know what to do with it. They use it to give us Amazon. Don’t you want Amazon? We keep assuming conservatives defend the rich because they think they’ll be rich someday and, sure, they would love to be. But it’s more nuanced than that. They defend the rich because they believe the rest of us need the rich. We’d be lost without them. There should be no shame in being beneath the rich, not if the right people are rich. No shame in being a cog in the machine so long as the machine produces something beautiful. There is a real fear that everyone filling their prescribed role is the only thing keeping us from complete and total not the fun kind of anarchy. There’s honor in being in your place and doing your best with it, most especially if your place isn’t at the very bottom. The thing about hierarchies is they’re self similar on many scales. If you’re in the middle, then you serve the king. Valar dohaeris. But to everyone beneath you, you ARE the king. You’ve got a good job and a good wage, that gives you some power over people who don’t. And getting pissed at those above implies that those below have a right to be pissed at you. And there’s a real anxiety that liberals want to make room for those people in the middle by putting conservatives at the bottom. And that those people will treat conservatives the way conservatives treated them. Freedom, respect, and empathy are looked on as finite resources in a competitive market, just like jobs and scholarships. Also, most conservatives are white men, and so are most billionaires. So, but for the wealth, they actually have a lot in common, which makes it easy to empathize with billionaires and to feel empowered by seeing people like oneself do so well. And white men at the top influence policy in ways that serve people like them which materially benefits white men in the middle. The well being of the white billionaire becomes a metonym for the well being of all white men. A slight on them is a slight on all of us. White men want to believe that these billionaires earned their station, and not that their gender or race got them preferential treatment, because that would imply their own treatment may have also been biased in their favor, and maybe it’s not the liberals giving people power they don’t deserve. No matter how much a conservative believes in earning one’s place, they have always in the back of their mind an image of what society “should” look like. And any discrepancy between imagination and observation must mean foul play. This feminist is too respected. This black superhero is too popular. Can’t be because they’re worthy. Someone must have put their hand on the scales. Someone got a freebie, or played the race card, or faked a scandal. This means even though they claim the hierarchy is natural, what they will or won’t accept as legitimate is a gut feeling. If they like what they see, they take credit for it. If they don’t, it’s the left’s fault. And what does it say about them that they see a bunch of white male sharks and think, “yeah, that’s authentic.” The innate authenticity of wealth and power is the starting point. Like, ok, bear with me. You know when they open the door to Kingdom Hearts? And on the other side there’s Mickey with his shirt off and you’re like, why would Mickey with his shirt off be on the other side of that door? And the answer is, I don’t know, we’ll figure it out in like, seven games? Rich people believing “it’s good for everyone that I’m rich” is the starting assumption. That’s Mickey with his shirt off. And conservatism is the pile of games where they make up reasons why that might be true after the fact. It’s a retcon. This hierarchy is not democratic. It’s Birth by Sleep – A Fragmentary Passage. Savvy viewers may be remembering another political philosophy that is hierarchical, undemocratic, built on nostalgia, and that likes to cloak its policies in progressive camouflage, and that’s the one from two videos ago: fascism. [long sigh] Golly Now, I am not calling conservatives “fascists.” There are distinctions. Under fascism, the hierarchy is much, much less meritocratic, and the nostalgia is much, much older. However. Conservative thinking is, at the very least, one that fascism maps more cleanly onto. Fascists appeal to this hierarchical mindset by portraying all of history as struggles between ethnic groups over who gets to be where. Someone’s got to be at the bottom, white man. We’ll make sure it isn’t you. You’ll find throughout history that fascist movements, though they often pick up dissidents from all over the political spectrum – the Third Position, for instance, is fascism for anti-capitalists – when they find purchase in a political party it’s pretty much always the conservative party. Look at France, look at Brazil, look at here. Whether you want to interpret that as conservatism being uniquely susceptible to fascists, or diet fascism being another name for conservatism, I leave that up to you. Fascism, and to an extent libertarianism, are roided-up extrapolations of the hierarchical mindset, in the same way socialism and anarchy are extrapolations of the egalitarian one. We can see conservatism as a kind of compromise between fascism and democracy, and liberalism as a kind of compromise between capitalism and socialism. They are two different attempts to solve the tensions between these ways of thinking without giving either one up. You can just as easily claim that liberalism is watered-down ineffectual socialism. A lot of the left would balk at that, but not me, pinko scum that I am. The most important thing to understand is that you cannot communicate with, nor anticipate the behaviors of, a conservative if you don’t understand what they believe. Which is hard, because they’re often in denial. You will never convince them to compromise on any attempt to break up the hierarchy, because even incremental change strikes them as revolutionary, and they feel they’ve made too many concessions already. You will never get them, of their own free will, to agree to government regulation, because the government, as a democratic institution, is inherently unnatural. If you don’t like what a business is doing, you don’t regulate it. You take your money elsewhere. You should favor the capitalist solution, not the democratic one. Also, when you vote with your dollar, people with more dollars get more votes. They will never be on board with aiding the poor in any systemic way and will instead champion charity and crowdfunding because minnows getting to eat should always be framed as a gift rather than a right. You may get individual conservatives to come around on some of these, but, as a body, they will never consent to any of it unless they can work it to their advantage, or if you have leverage over them. They will sign on when denying progressivism costs them something. Because few things terrify them more than slipping down the hierarchy. And what’s insidious is that most of us have this thinking ingrained in our own minds as well, myself included. We’re all raised in the same culture. This is why they’re able to control the conversation: because they can, with some priming, get us thinking in their terms. A nice upshot is our thinking is also ingrained in their minds, though they’re a little bit better at fighting it. But as long as you’re trying to meet this mentality in the middle, you are leaving the door open for fascists. Conservatism is, and always will be, vulnerable to them. A good defense against fascism is to consciously, intentionally, think and act in democratic terms. Because newsflash: we’re not actually lobsters! Neither of these systems is natural. They are choices we can make. I recommend this one, because egalitarian thinking is one thing Nazis are bad at infiltrating. If you want to fight fascism, move left.

  • Not sure about that end though
    Imo the left is more fascist than the right, take a look at China, Soviet Russia, the terrorist group antifa

  • "big fish eat the little ones is the logic of the market"
    No, it is the logic of a road towards market failure due to shitty conditions (some artificial) that foster deeply imperfect competition.
    Also never forget how much people love to impose their moral code unto others (often using violence and institutions backed by it while disregarding our most accurate models of reality and the laws of thought).

    "more failures than successes"
    False dichotomy.

    Also "earned" and "privilege" are meaningless when you did not choose the chain of causes and effects that you happen to be. Well, except as tags for unnecesarily moralized incentive structures.

    Oh and it would be nice to see how you square these ideas with Haidt´s work.

    Still subscribed. Gotta keep your shit diversified.

  • I like this video and I think its pretty accurate.

    I don't know about the black panther stuff

    Rank Rating Title No. of Reviews

    1. 96% Black Panther (2018) 485

    2. 99% Lady Bird (2017) 376

    3. 100% Citizen Kane (1941) 83

    4. 98% The Wizard of Oz (1939) 115

    5. 96% BlacKkKlansman (2018) 410

    6. 98% Get Out (2017) 360

    7. 97% Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) 408

    8. 99% The Third Man (1949) 79

    9. 98% Moonlight (2016) 363

    10. 98% Casablanca (1942) 82

    11. 93% Wonder Woman (2017) 437

    12. 100% Modern Times (1936) 56

    13. 98% Inside Out (2015) 357

    14. 99% Eighth Grade (2018) 293

    15. 98% It Happened One Night (1934) 57

    16. 100% The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari) (1920) 50

    17. 98% E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) 128

    18. 97% Coco (2017) 329

    19. 92% Dunkirk (2017) 436

    20. 100% All About Eve (1950) 66

    21. 95% A Quiet Place (2018) 360

    22. 97% Spotlight (2015) 357

    23. 99% Selma (2014) 300

    24. 91% Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) 452

    25. 97% La Grande illusion (Grand Illusion) (1938) 66

    26. 93% Thor: Ragnarok (2017) 400

    27. 92% The Shape of Water (2017) 421

    28. 100% The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) 44

    29. 94% Arrival (2016) 408

    30. 98% The Big Sick (2017) 288

    31. 98% The Godfather (1972) 91

    32. 93% Logan (2017) 395

    33. 98% King Kong (1933) 59

    34. 100% Paddington 2 (2018) 235

    35. 98% Metropolis (1927) 123

    36. 98% Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) 49

    37. 94% Incredibles 2 (2018) 359

    38. 100% Laura (1944) 61

    39. 95% Call Me by Your Name (2018) 336

    40. 100% Singin' in the Rain (1952) 52

    41. 96% Gravity (2013) 345

    42. 93% Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (2015) 418

    43. 97% Boyhood (2014) 312

    44. 100% The Maltese Falcon (1941) 54

    45. 100% Leave No Trace (2018) 218

    46. 97% Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror (Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens) (Nosferatu the Vampire) (1922) 63

    47. 100% The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) 46

    48. 98% A Hard Day's Night (1964) 107

    49. 96% Manchester by the Sea (2016) 332

    50. 96% Argo (2012)

    Literally listed as the greatest movie of all time….wow. ABOVE CITIZEN FUCKING KANE LOL. [yes i know it has a 100% but its literally their "top 100 movies of all time list"] but then I realized maybe it wasn't a political virtue signaling type thing – im sorry I hate that phrase but sometimes it is valid – anyway what I realized was just how many movies that were made recently are in the top 50. So maybe its not just sigh virtue signaling but also it seems like higher scores are given out in general. I mean come on, Thor: Ragnarok as the 26th movie of all time? Maybe its always been this way and things just shift over time. I'm not sure.

  • I actually do favour the capitalist(or rather free market) solution to problems.
    But I'm smart enough to realize that there are many things where "only the best win" is a horrible way to do it and the outcomes are disasterous.
    Also, ownership of a company is just slavery with extra steps.

  • As an European that have seen alot of American come and go on the workfloor… We all think you suck. I have no clue why you pay out of you're ass for a degree that's completly sub par to any degree outside the U.S.

  • OMG innuendostudios, as usual, is right. I found a pretty explicit statement of "the wrong people have been allowed to rise to the top of the meritocracy," seems to be the overall thesis of one Jack Murphy. See twitter dot com slash jackmurphylive slash status slash 1100786003063771136

  • The logical addition would be “liberalism is inherently susceptible to communism, if you want to avoid it, move right”.
    Edit: I made a mistake. It should be "the left is inherently susceptible to communism"

  • what the hell @ those strawman arguments…

    "Yeah, but you're Democrats"
    "Spoken like a proper socialist."
    "We CAN'T pay for those things without governments!"

    these do not resemble any arguments I hear from anyone speaking about anything, ever. and I've spoken to people with some seriously radical opinions about everything from food to how humanity should advance as a species

    also… those arguments on the other side?
    College is a necessity? are you fucking KIDDING ME with this shit? don't get me wrong, I went myself, but I didn't go because "it was a necessity." I went because I wanted to be employable for a time up until I could learn something I could do for myself and start my own work. but let's just assume that college is a necessity without any arguments. how are we going to provide everyone with necessities without addressing the fact that there's limited resources in general? this is what I'm saying: if everyone can get a college degree, soon having a college degree won't be some magical thing that gets you a job. employers will be using other things to determine who gets hired because everyone has a college degree. ok you have a college degree and a B average, but this guy has a college degree and an A average so fuck you buh-bye! what, you think it's not still gonna be competitive? even in the realm of computer science where we've got people BEGGING YOU to learn the skillset and get into this field, we've also got highly skilled people in this field who have up-to-date skills and are damn good workers, yet they can't find work in this field. we're dealing with that problem RIGHT NOW. how much worse do you think that problem is going to be when everyone can have a computer science degree? free education isn't fixing the fact that you can't make any fucking money because free education isn't the problem, the problem is that there's so many people we can't do shit for everyone, you gotta start making some shit happen on your own

    the one thing I will give the blue text side is that people on the right seriously do act like all you need to do is try harder and you can have the thing you want. that's not how life works. it's more like if you're being barred out for some reason, you need to realize what that is and consider what you can do about it. sometimes, you can work hard, train, volunteer, get credentials, etc. and that fixes it. other times, it's like… you're a white female and they wanted a hispanic male. or you don't have a bazillion years of experience like they wanted.. so just lie and say you do.

    >taxing billionaires
    bout to hit the X on this video real quick.. billionaires are the people in the world who are in the strongest position to protect their money. people imagine taxes as soaking a rag in water and squeezing the water out so the towel doesn't hog all the water. that's how it's like when dealing with people who can't protect their money. with people who can, it's like playing fucking hide and go seek, you gotta find the money in order to get it and even if you find it you gotta be the right group of people who can do something about it. and don't you think we're going to be losing something by taxing these billionaires? like.. I dunno… jobs? or like.. the billionaires themselves because some of them go "fuck it" and just leave to go somewhere that isn't trying to take massive amounts of their money?

    >democracy → equality → access to education → governments pay tuition
    I dunno what others will tell you, but I support the chance, not the actuality.

    think of it like this: you're at point A, your goal is to reach point B. in order to reach point B, many people in life can just develop themselves until they're capable of reaching point B. they do whatever they have to in order to get there. that often means becoming stronger, more skilled, wiser, getting a better network of supporters, strategizing their way towards it, etc. some people though, they can just walk from A to B with absolutely no problems. there are many others in life whose point B is a nebulous point somewhere in the air, where they'd have to jump off of a cliff in order to make it. here's the thing. if you're willing to run full speed and jump off of the cliff in order to reach point B, society should be set up in such a way that people look at you and go "holy shit, that guy's gonna jump" and they stop you beforehand and give you a parachute. or they set up a safety net for you. or they build a bridge for you. if you're not willing to jump off the cliff, but you still want to make it to your point B so you can just walk there and then walk away from it just because you want to choose whether or not you can take a leisurely stroll to wherever you want to go, then fuck you. your point A, your pathway, and your point B are different from mine. equality doesn't mean we both walk to our point Bs, equality means we both have a chance to make it if we understand what we're facing and do our best to try to get there. you may have two chances to jump, I may have 10 chances to climb, she may have only one chance to swim to the bottom of the ocean. no one in life is responsible for what you particular thing is. you have to be willing to walk that path and take action to get to point B no matter what's going on. if your journey is that hard then that just sucks, no one's going to make your travel easy.

    it's harsh, but we live in a world of finite resources

    europe over here is laughing at how hard a time you are having at uniting those two concepts.

  • There are Neo-Nazi groups from as recent as 2009 (for what it's worth) that consider "capitalism" a banned ideology along with communism and islamism. The fact that the political idea of Nazism is almost all social in rhetoric is probably what holds it back (that and Nationalist/Imperialist ambitions). True capitalism, not crony capitalism or corporate welfare is…okay. Capitalism as an ideal probably would be better served by anti-trust action (especially in media).

  • Wealth is not a zero sum game. Someone having so much does NOT mathematically mean that other people have to have less. There may be a finite number of "dollars" in the world, but there is NOT a finite amount of wealth.

    How many societies throughout history have had their poorest people be obese? The POOREST members of our society actually have SO MUCH to eat that it's detrimental to their health. Think about that for a minute.

    Further, the middle class in the USA live like the kings of antiquity. Consider the kind of food you can order to your door. Any animal, any fruit, any bread. All at a moment's notice. You're literally a king from a historical perspective. (That's not even mentioning porn; you've probably seen more different naked women than your closest 100 ancestors combined)

    I agree, that conservatives believe that a Pareto distribution is the natural state of the world. The argument, though, has nothing to do with being satisfied with people being poor and wanting to maintain a state where people are poor.

    The argument is that by fighting the natural order, and artificially flattening the distribution, EVERYONE ends up with less. The rich get poorer (of course), but also, long term, the poor get poorer too. When you allow the Pareto distribution to run its natural course with some restrictions like democracy, everyone gets richer. Which is exactly what we've seen in the USA, where we have the wealthiest lower class in all of human history.

  • Stop phylosifying about USA.
    1. Look at rich EU countries for example, everybody has a degree, country paid, equality.
    2. Free health care is a necessity, just like water or roads, look a bit north – Canada.
    3. Hierarchy also could change, it does not has to be static, look at China, 2 million get out of poverty each day.
    4. Yes everybody can be millionaires, look at UAE, lower class doesn't have to be your own population.
    What I'm trying to say is that US is left behind, slowly rotting, the inequality is growing, education on the downfall, American dream is not believed anymore.

  • 5:32 look at this lesa you can see the exact moment he realizes he’s gonna get fried for basing a false narrative over an entire group of people from every race religion and creed


    No no it’s not it’s a capitalist REPUBLIC very different thing. Why not a capitalist democracy? Well it has something to do with mob rule trampling the rights of the minority opinion.

    7:25 IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED one is a system to govern one is an economic system, also you left out a crucial part of that framework

    You gain more money through better choices

    Ex: if my bagels taste worse than yours you’ll make more money

    These “smaller fish” are those who make a product no one wants

    If I want to make as much money as you it is in my best interest to maybe start making donuts which I’m good at not bagels which I’m not good at

    10:20 yeah everyone might be in the wrong place according to your narrative OR MAYBE CONSERVATIVES CARE BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES A COMPLETELY SEPARATE VALUE

    “Government should have as little power as possible, and to give it power opens the door for them to take more”

    If the government controls the economy who’s to say they can’t use their cash regulations to help one type of people over another

  • You know you've won an argument with a conservative when they respond to the idea of helping people with "Not my problem"

  • "natural systems" have us in warring tribes or as hunter-gatherers. Not going to the moon. This guy wants to rollback 10,000 years of civilization

  • 1) A lot of the "white men" that you post pictures of are actually Jewish
    2) The vast majority of the rich vote democrat

  • Both parties are wrong!

    People aren't equal…but by a bit! really far from how much the Republicans think.

    Its a pareto distribution. The problem is the alpha parameter is way too high in money distribution and not reflecting the much lesser differences between people (its alpha parameter)

  • Egalitarianism is actually very natural, look at the way hunter-gatherer ‘economies’ function. The only places where hierarchical thinking comes into play are in conflicts between tribes, but even then there are plenty of exceptions. Humans have been working together and taking care of each other since before we could even be considered human, don’t let the status quo convince you otherwise.

  • "The system requires an underclass. Somebody's gotta…" shoot somebody else to pay for food.
    Consider a comment I made on


    Let me explain. First, you deter the homeless from using public places as their home. Now they have nowhere to sleep in proximity to middle class folk and small businesses they can do work for employment. And they don't just disappear at this moment. This makes them poorer. This makes them more food insecure, as well. Now they must congregate in areas where the city has not sent them away. Now there is a higher ratio of homeless to middle class folk, which makes the average wealth, and thus the opportunity level, go down. Not to mention many leave the neighborhood, as, with the exodus of homeless folk, and the decrease in the average wealth, crime naturally goes up as the only way the homeless can afford food. This cycle rolls and rolls as more and more public places are made "only middle-class and rich allowed" (By the way, no insult to the middle class, they are not the problem, in fact they are the lifeblood of our nation). Eventually almost the entire population of the neighborhood (now slum, as no homes are occupied), is homeless. In other words, foreclosure is "Go directly to ghetto. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200". If you are foreclosed on, you will inevitably be in the obituary a few years later as the next victim of poverty-inspired violence."

    I'm speaking to you, person who thinks that the poor MERELY clean toilets.


    Ghetto violence is "POVERTY INSPIRED VIOLENCE"
    In other words, you say it's a gift, not a right, for a minnow get to eat.
    In reality, it's neither. It's a SIN! They are cannibalizing. They shoot each other. They cook the body and grocery shop with the wallet, assuming they make it before they THEMSELVES are shot. If you want to get rid of slums and inject vitality in them, STOP VOTING FOR THIS (!

    Too long didn't read version : GHETTOS ARE YOUR FAULT!

    When that business fails, that house is foreclosed on, where can they go? The bench at the park where they can actually start climbing back? Or the GHETTO, where you survive by shooting people. THE ANSWER DEPENDS ON YOU NOT VOTING FOR THIS S** (!

  • The United States is not a democracy, it is a republic and with very good reason. I wish the left would stop using the word equality. What they really mean is equity which is socialism / communism and theft. You are what you make yourself and it's no one else's problem (at least in the USA). nobody deserves what they do not earn and if it causes you to be unhappy, unsuccessful, or even to die, that is on you! this is nature's way and all systems organize themselves this way, not just financial ones. Clean your room and stand up straight! Trump 2020!

  • Conservatives are out to tempt, persuade, and sell you on putting them in charge and doing what they want.

    Liberals want to force you to do what they want or what they say is the right thing by threat of jail or at the point of a sword. Disagree and you will be ruined or boycotted or banned or deplatformed.

  • The first time I watched this video, it was neat

    Now, rewatching it, that old-friend-who-turned-right framing hits way too close to heart. It happens so fast, too.

  • conservatives are fascists that are asleep. either they change their minds, or they answer to my nail lined bat. SOCIALIST TAKEOVER

  • College isn't a necessity, but if you're convinced it is, at least make sure you'll get a degree that will pay for itself

  • I don't believe that equality and hierarchy is the defining dichotomy as you presented it. I know that anarchist tagline is "no unjustified hierarchies," but no one wants unjustified hierarchies. People on the left don't want them, people on the right don't want them. The difference is, which hierarchies do you consider justified.
    The right considers hierarchy resulting from capitalism as justified, the left does not. Hence, the left tries to alleviate capitalism's effects, while the right tries to indulge the capitalism's hierarchy more.

  • the dems always claim they're gonna 'tax the billionaires' yet I always see the top 10 guys on the fortune 500 wealth increasing. They spend the money first, ask questions later. They run the same scam on each new generation.

  • Okay Fuck, first of all, this Video is awfully good. I cherish every frame and byte of it. Thank you for this.

    But I would like to tell you more about how much of an educational value of this video. It is consrtucted with like layers of research and care. I come from a background where one can argue is Non-American, anti west(generally), anti colonial sympathies of Asia. Where this weird ENglish I am using would be considered asshole behaviour if i use it in actual argument.

    But me even from being with that background, I have the loosest understanding of the American contexts through movies and some cop shows(that is quickly changing though Indian netflix.) but anyway, I didn't understand what the phantom menace reference was, and a lot of other bigger fish. But as I watched all of it, i felt hundreds of years of condensed research absorb into me. THis is how good this video is, it refeverse engineered a culture for me! fuck, awesome.

  • Why did he compare nazi fascism to the conservative fascism in America when nazi’s sprouted from a liberal party in Germany

  • I really liked the video, but I don’t really agree with the point, but I mean I’m not a true conservative, I’m libertarian so I’m not sure lol

  • I stopped watching at 6:16 when the speaker repeatedly says 'stands' without a 'd' and then writes 'stans for democracy' . . . I can't endure

  • If conservatism is a breeding ground for fascism, how does the alt-right fit into the picture?

    For a while I've been trying to figure out what the alt-right actually believes, so I spent a fair amount of time talking to many of them, arguing with them etc, and I was honestly surprised to find several who believed in many traditionally leftist policies, such as tax-payer funded education (including higher education), tax-payer funded healthcare, tax-payer funded welfare etc, many had strong green values, they believed in restricting the power of big businesses, imposing heavy taxes on big corporations etc, and one of the main things that separated them from liberals was that they're also hardcore nationalists.

    I was also surprised to find that most of them were white separatists rather than white supremacists . In my experience, they overwhelmingly agree that Ashkenazi Jews and East-Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc) have the highest average IQs, and while they seem to think white cultures are superior, I didn't find many who believed white people were innately superior. I did find a few of those as well, but they tended to be mostly older, less educated individuals who were not taken seriously by the rest of the alt-right.

    "Race realism" and antisemitism seem to be integral, inalienable parts and defining characteristics of the alt-right. Another defining factor is a conscious separation from what they call "cuckservatives," i.e. tradcons, whom the alt-right despises due to fundamental ideological differences.

    One less important but nonetheless surprising thing I discovered was that by and large, the alt-right despises Trump too, and views him as a traitor and a "Zionist shill," while the "cuckservatives" are all about Trump.

    For the same reason, the alt-right hates people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Gavin Mckinnes, Tommy Robinson etc: they don't support white separatism, race realism, or the "JQ," so they're labeled as traitors and shills. They also tend to be individualists while the alt-right are very much collectivists.

    Basically conservatives share some values with the alt-right (especially nationalism), but their core principles are so different, I can no longer view the alt-right as a part of the conservative side since their differences are irredeemable. Conservatives have more in common with libertarians than with the alt-right.

    If I had to create a formula to describe the alt-right, it would be something along the lines of: socialism + nationalism + white separatism + race realism + antisemitism.

    It's no surprise many in the alt-right call themselves national socialists in the most literal sense of the word: socialists who are also hardcore nationalists.

    Anyway, those are some observations I've made while trying to figure out what the alt-right actually believe. Still can't really make heads or tails of it all because it goes against my previous belief of the alt-right being just tradcons on steroids, when that description more closely resembles libertarians or possibly ancaps.

    Has anyone else encountered people like what I'm describing above? Where do you think they fall on the left-right spectrum? Because wherever the alt-right are, some form of fascism isn't far behind, and unlike conservatives, the alt-right don't deny it but embrace it.

  • @Innuendo Studios The title is misleading, please read up more on who you are trying to frame! Problem with democracy is that it can be heavily abused by foreign voting block. Most non-whites will only vote a candidate if it benefit their own race (same with what happens in Sweden when Muslim vote for an self-interest agenda to convert Sweden over to Islam). More people have died under equality (communism) than from fascism in itself, so you can blame left for their extreme ways as they seem to bring communism back with all their censorship and control culture.

  • Man, boy do I like my worldview. Oh wait here’s another one, that sounds cool. Man, boy do I like my worldview. Oh wait here’s another one, that sounds cool. Man, boy do I like my worldview. Oh wait here’s another one, that sounds cool. Man, boy do I like my worldview. Oh wait here’s another one, that sounds cool.

  • If someone reading this wants to fight fascism, then oppose policies that you believe to be fascist. Don't let anybody tell you what you need to do or what political ideologies you need to follow to do something. Do what makes sense, and think rationally. If someone wants you to believe in whatever they believe in, then be very skeptical. Try to look at unbiased information as much as possible and try to use perspective to see if someone has an incentive to lie to you. Never stop thinking critically and never grow so attached to an ideology that you can't let go of it. Honestly, this video is an awfully inaccurate generalization of conservatives. This video might be pretty accurate if you're like 60 years old or something but the vast majority of politically active conservatives would disagree with practically everything said in this video, even the parts that aren't shamelessly demonizing conservatism.

  • The assumption that anyone who gets money must inherently take it from someone is a flawed assumption wealth Is not a static metric wealth can be created and wealth can be destroyed.

  • As much as these videos are truly, incredibly impressive and valuable…I gotta go watch some cartoons while I shake off all this ennui

  • I was going to dislike the video, but the birth by sleep ffragmentary passage reference changed my mind. lol
    I love kingdom hearts but, I can recognize its faults.

  • Why is this video titled the "Alt-Right playbook" when it does nothing but talk about generic Reaganite cuckservatives and lolbertarians? The Alt-Right is nothing like the old right of decades past, that's where the 'Alt' part comes from, and many in the Alt-Right are economically very left-wing, it was my adherence to left-wing economics as well as to pacifism and non-intervention in foreign wars(which also until recently was a traditionally left-wing policy) and mainstream liberals' adherence to diversity, intersectionality and identity politics while maintaining neo-liberal economic policies and neo-conservative foreign policies that drove me to the Alt-Right.

  • The alt-right is actually probably the most anti-war group in american politics right now simply because they do not support israel and seek to remove Israeli dual citizens from American politics.

  • Egalitarianism fails in that it assumes that material wealth will make you happy. Material wealth does not make you happy, the social power you wield as a result does. Sexual selection and tribal respect being the primary factor in why you want to accumulate that social capital and material wealth in the first place. Giving this away or creating more opportunities serves no purpose because due to human psychology, it is a zero sum game. When everyone has something, it's no longer a symbol of personal success, but rather an expected necessity.

  • “These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they're gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets.”

    God I love bioshock. That’s pretty much all it took for me to realize unrestrained capitalism is dumb as hell.

  • All citizens are legally equal, and giving the freedoms of a market economy for all but one person you will always have a bigger fish.
    Do you actually think all citizens are equal was in reference to anything but legal rights and protections?
    That's the false assumption you have made. Another great case of Leftist belief in equal outcomes rather than equal freedoms.

  • The leap from reality (our Republic) to "Democracy" is spectacular. The leap from "Democracy" to "Equality," moreso. The problem is that the Left and the Right have VASTLY differing definitions for these words. Your "logical progression" to the end: FREE STUFF (mob bait) depends on your defining "Democracy" as mob-ocracy, that is, the rule of the majority, who have the right to use the state to confiscate others' labor (or silence their opinion, or anything else) simply because there are more of them than the people they are robbing (or gagging, or executing, or putting in gulags – one thing does lead to another). That's why we have a Republic, and not a "Democracy." Similarly, your definition of "Equality" is of course, "equality of OUTCOME." That means more qualified people can be turned away if they are not certified by the state bureaucracy as belonging to a particular protected class of race, or religion, or sex. These groups get preference – and employers are PUNISHED for not giving them enough preference to raise outcomes to the bureaucratic standard. By contrast, the conservative believes in "equality of OPPORTUNITY," that is, no one who is most qualified should be turned away due to their race, gender or religion. But things have gotten so bad that you people now call that "racism," and lump people who believe in equality of opportunity (rather than outcome) in with the same people you are beating with bike locks and spraying in the face with pepper spray (at the behest of your congressional leaders and candidates), as "Nazis," i.e. people who have no rights and are therefore "fair game" for you. Even people who simply want to attend a lecture, or a peaceful political rally, or who want to vote or publicly express their opinion get it in the face from your camp, get beaten, hit with bats and cans of frozen soda – and all crow about it, so don't pretend you don't own that.

    You stir up emotion, obfuscate, attack relentlessly, lie, are never accountable for your lies, and like militant Islam, you shrug your shoulders at the violence and say "better respect us more – racist!" You're like a drunken bantam-weight amature boxer, pushing at a massive, body-building biker, because he thinks he knows how to fight. Your pissing on his shoes at this point, and it won't end well for you. I only hope it's the leaders, the seducers, the people (like you) who really know what you're doing that get strung up or thrown out of the helicopters. Because that's where your violence is taking you.

    Conservatives have been very patient. You have no idea. Everything you say now, every lie you tell, every trick you pull, is just making it worse for you in the long run.

  • Your vids are nice. As a leftist libertarian I don't think conflating libertarianism with the right, or anarchy with the left is a good comparison.

  • wait…but republicans don't think all people are equal and there's always a bigger fish. They think everyone should have an equal oportunity to become great as any other person. that government should not decide if you're allowed to become rich off of what you do or not. that makes the government infinitely more powerful than the people, does it not?

  • First, you do not know what alt-right is. Through five minutes, all I heard was fuddy duddy, traditional conservative talking points, not points from the alt-right.

    Beyond that, people are NOT equal. Not everyone should go to college. A big reason why college expenses are provided for in Europe is because it is difficult o get into college. They have not watered down college to a surrogate high school diploma.


  • I wish you had addressed the difference between equal opportunity, and equal ability. Liberals strive for the former, while recognizing the latter is an impossibility. Some people will squander their potential, they'll make bad choices in life, or they just plain won't be as good at the things that make them as successful. To borrow from conservatives, they're not the fastest sharks. Or the biggest fish. Or something.

    Your focus was fascism and its link to conservatism, but I know from MY high school friends that they'll counter and say that the left is vulnerable to socialism or communism- which in their minds, robs people of their due reward for having that greater ability. And yeah, with communism, that's largely true. I think "From each according to ability to each according to need" is a fundamentally flawed philosophy since you fail to reward better ability. Failing to reward greater ability means greater ability is no longer encouraged -> mediocrity is enforced.

    Of course, as a liberal, I disagree with that assessment. No ones saying you aren't allowed to get rich, are at least, no one I'd consider reasonable is. We're saying everyone ought to have that chance and the scales ought not be typed in the favor of anyone- and today, those scales sure do look like they're tipped in the favor of those who are white, male, straight, and/or have wealthy parents. That last one especially imho considering capital growth and growing wealth inequality. So what do we do? We don't NEED to redistribute all the wealth, we just need the government to step up and tip the scales back a bit- increase taxes on the wealthy and on capital gains & create more programs that enfranchise the under privileged in our system (like giving everyone access to higher education). Eliminate the bonuses to the wealthy, and get rid of the penalties with the poor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *