Claire Corlett

Fish Food, Fish Tanks, and More
The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish

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.

100 comments on “The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish

  1. I'm gonna make this pretty simple because i really don't know how to respond to this idiocy which is basically progressive propaganda.

    So let me make this really clear. Throughout history leftist socialism has brought about the rise of right socialism this will progress till the end of time and will always be a thing. History has shown it time and time again, in Germany with the rise of the NAZI after they crushed the opposing communist party (in a blood bath mind you) and in Italy with the rise of Mussolini the father of fascism after the Socialists in power (whom he was a member of) rejected him.

    Communists create Fascists. Going farther left will bring you closer to communism and bringing you closer to communism will cause more and more people to go fascist in order to defend themselves from your communist control.

    Well that is partly wrong I suppose, maybe the correct assertion is that going Left Collectivist will create Right Collectivism. Only because if the Left with Anarcho-Communism it would still create Fascism as a reactionary, this is mainly because Anarcho-Capitalism can't form a cohesive defense against a collectivist group since it is inherently individualist so culturally it would be at odds.

    but I digress.. becoming collectivist instead of individualist will make your opponent go collectivist in return. The end result will be Fascism take over, because at the end of the day Fascism always wins the collectivist fight.

    So what have we learned …. oh that right stop being ideologues and just be centrists you stupid warmongering political activists.


    10% of Comments: No, he clearly delineated between conservatives and the alt-right at 17:15. The video is about how conservatives are susceptible to fascist rhetoric. You just got triggered and refused to finish watching.

  3. It's insane how many triggered snowflake right wingers had their feelings hurt with facts and logic and down voted.

  4. This series should be called "The Idiot Playbook".
    This shit is not exclusive to the alt right or to conservatives.

  5. Hey dude, I love your vids – been recommending "The Alt Right Playbook" to everyone – but if you can take some criticism and youre thinking of doing more vids like this, the loud song in the beginning really makes watching the whole playlist in one sitting harder. I jump every time!

  6. The fatal flaw in this video is that the arguments from conservatives are nowhere near as well reasoned as they are presented here.

  7. The largest problem with democracy is best summed up as "who thinks we should kill 49% and give their stuff to the 51%? Naturally, everyone votes in their own interests and we decide to kill the 49%. Obviously, it doesn't occur to those extremes due to empathy, but it can occur to a lesser extent.

  8. Oh my god… Right around the 21 minute mark, I think you're implicitly asserting 4 Chan is fascist. I really hope that's a joke.

  9. Is socialism not antithetical to liberalism? Don't really understand how you can draw that comparison between then, hardcore democrats and liberals hate socialism just as much as conservatives

  10. You made a lot of good points but you also pulled ye old Marx on people – starting with good points and bamboozleding the conclusion to your ideology's need. A lot is mentioned about fascism and communism isnt even named. You put 4chan, implying /pol/ with fascists, while they "just" hate jews which, lets be honest almost everyone in history did (and dont give me shit for writing this, I am putting everyone in the same basket, similarly to what you did here with conservatives, and pointing out that not only germans in the last century wanted them out, they were kicked out/killed in a lots of places around the world). Nazi hated jews, slavs, gypsies and pretty much anyone west of them, and to compare fascists to /pol/ users is to not understand that it is a fascade that is there to deter normies. They are, and know it themeselves, the most diverse group of people that larp as hatefull nazi mastermind, but in fact are bored kings of the shitpostland.

    Finally, at it's core, for conservatives the fight is between accepting responsibilities(the right) or running away from them(the left)
    Also every single conservative think liberals are dumbshits not because they oppose them, but because they do not realise that almost all politicians are trully ancaps (in I AM THE BIGGEST FISH), and liberal ones just put up a good mascarade for the masses

  11. 2:23, whos dime its going to be? This is such a disgusting lie. "You dont make that much" LOL. Look at any country that has free health-care and education, almost all of them have a total taxrate around 50% for an average people. Rich people have a lot of wealth, but they dont consume that much more than an average people. Their wealth is already circulating in the economy, all your tax would do is taking some of their power away in controlling where the money goes. This would not make anyone richer by itself. Is that a good thing, or a bad? Your politicians making better decisions about these kind of issues, or Warren Buffett
    Im big fan of free education, but it has to controlled, and it has to heavily monitored to be useful for the society. And in useful, i mean useful, and not a "good job" by your definition. We have free college here, but we have the exact same social structures that you see in America, and most of the people working in low paying jobs(4-5 dollar before tax avg in eastern europe), while colleges accepting everyone for the government money. Wasting other people's money without any control can be harmful for society, and you should talk about how you planning to prevent this, because thats the important part, and not your imaginary perfect world.

  12. The "friend" is absolutly right, people arent equal, some people have higher IQ, some people are more attractive, some people are tall and some people are short. So instead of dening that fact and calling for a system that rewards the non-beneficial while persecuting the beneficial why not just work harder?

  13. Degrees in science and tech for citizens should be free, where arts and other useless degrees should cost money. Or freshman pay and it gets cheaper as you go on because that will help weed out those who aren't serious while encouraging those who are. There were always kids in high school and 101 college classes who weren't serious and who interfered with the education of the rest of the class. Also out of state tuition should be cheaper, not more expensive. I never understood the latter. I would think that a good school should want to make it easier for the best and brightest to go to school, not harder, no matter what state they are from.

  14. i clicked on this video looking for more breadtube channels and my mind gave it half of my attention the other half was on a tangent about the word natural and its emotional and cognitive undertones which has been a theme of my life for the past 3 days i tend to justify my patterns of behavior as my natural modes of being, that denies change, but what seems to be the most natural when i look at everything else besides that moment of justification is change…my mind was here when most of my attention swapped to this video again at 8:51

  15. Final line of the video is incorrect. if you want to fight Nazis then move down the political compass towards less government regulation. Pretty hard for governmental Nazis to do anything when there is a small government. One dimensional ones like the one you present puts Gandhi and Stalin in the exact same place. Thats a little fishy.

  16. I think you forgot the part where conservatives believe in freedom from government whereas liberals are completely fine with censorship. This only covers economic beliefs, and feels incomplete

  17. I really likes the first half of the video where you explained how both parties tend to think, its something that people almost never talk about, and in my opinion the source of most arguments. But you can add one thing to it, conservatives tend to hate beeing called a facist because of their beloef just as much as liberarls hate to be called communists because of theirs. Most conservatives hate facism as it is in a way percived (just like you explained it with leftist politics) a way to force people up and down the hierarchie based on ethnicity.

  18. Don't assume that people are an epitome of each other on the right. Keep in mind the disconnection between the intellectual right in the 1960's. And the censorship of conservatives online just as they revived who they are.

  19. About thirty years ago is for many voters their childhood.. Which in a way makes sense.. In your childhood the world usually was alright, because you did not see the troubles.. As a child you did not see the injustices, or struggles of others.. Just a thought I had while watching this

  20. The fact that so many conservatives are offended over this video is further proof that it is spot on

  21. Hey Innuendo, I'd like to see you do a video extending about consolidation and distribution of power in a system. Also possibly one about the difference between doing something and the appearance of doing something because it's something that I think would be well understood if there was more research about it.

  22. i feel that liberals and conservatives want everyone to get to the top in different ways, its not that conservatives want to bring people down. unless ur in the alt right and to them i say fuck you

  23. What you're describing here is not a defense of capitalism, but something worse, a defense for mercantilism. There's supposed to be the illusion that capitalism allows for people to move through classes and people "naturally" wind up mostly in the bottom, but mercantilism DEMANDS an underclass to support the upper class. Capitalism also operates on the requirement of infinite growth, so if a person claims wealth to be finite, they are sympathizing with MERCANTILISM, not capitalists.

  24. If you want to fight fascism, move left. you should start as well as end the conversation with that. Brilliant!!!!!

  25. I tend to disagree with alot of specific points in these videos, but then at least two or three times per video he will make a point that is startlingly accurate to my experiences interacting and debating with Conservatives and some points that even make me question my own base assumptions, and I appreciate that.

  26. I can strongly recommend the book "the righteous mind" by Jonathan Haidt. I think it made some really interesting points about why it's difficult for someone on the left to properly understand the ideas of people on the right by looking at the moral frameworks these people have adopted.

  27. A Catholic theological argument against meritocracy:
    Part 1 Original Sin: All people are born sick. People are the embodiment of imperfection. While people are not evil, they do contain evil. It is a part of them that cannot be separated or purified from them so long as they live on this Earth. Given a choice there will always remain the option to make the selfish choice, do the wicked deed, take advantage of others. So long as the temptation is there some will inevitably fall to it. In fact, all people inevitably fall to it. Not necessarily all the time and this falling is not a permanent state of being, but everyone sometimes does evil. It's unavoidable. And in this regard all people are equally evil because we all contain equal capacity for evil, and we all make evil choices in our lives. These evils cannot be judged on a scale because not all evils are visible or revealed. A shoplifter who is arrested is not more evil than the man laundering money out of a charity for years without getting caught. Evil cannot be judged on a scale of best to worst because all of it is an equal affront to God which is Good.
    Part 2 Blessings: In a theological sense anything good you receive is a blessing. If something good happens to you it's a blessing, if something bad is mitigated or relieved it is also a blessing. Hardship is a natural state of being on the Earth that we are constantly saved from by blessings. All blessings come from the universal source of all things, that which is called God. God saves us from hardship and strife with blessings.
    Part 3 Merit: Merit is the state of deserving. Of having earned something by our own effort. The reward for good and the punishment for bad.
    Therefore since all people are equally evil all people are equally undeserving of blessings. And yet blessings are given anyways. This necessarily means blessings are not given based on merit. Nobody deserves anything they have. It is given by grace alone. God's mercy is so great he gives blessings despite the fact that NONE of us deserve them. That's what Jesus dying on the cross represents. The idea that despite everything we do, despite our evil wounded sounds, we are forgiven for our failures and loved by our parental God who gives and gives and gives despite our sin. So if nobody deserves anything they have, merit itself is a fiction. The billionaire does not earn their money. They are blessed. And so there is no argument to be made that they should not share that wealth with others. Because they didn't deserver it in the first place. It's a moral obligation to do good and share that wealth with the less fortunate. Because they don't deserve that wealth just as much as the billionaire doesn't.

  28. Just came across ya, and I have to say, this was very interesting and made me look at things a bit differently. Thank you! You got my sub!!

    Your deep sighs when you started certain topics made me laugh. I understand the amount of anger, hate, or just plain negativity you knew that was going to come across the comment feed. Balls to ya!!

  29. Have you ever asked ur friend about rich kids? The conservative thinking is we want the most creative, brilliant, effective person on top right? That’s how we move forward fastest as a society rewarding the smart/successful? That would work great, and definitely be happening if we were all starting from an even playing field. But you can’t blame a parent for wanting to give their kid the most opportunities, connections, etc possible and you’re never gonna stop that drive. So inevitably you get some pretty uncreative, unbrilliant, ineffective people at the top (or near top.) Meanwhile, some MUCH MORE brilliant person, a person who would move us forward faster is languishing at the bottom or middle because they don’t have the proper connections or education to move up. I known some pretty rich kids and kids who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps in college, and I can say all the rich kids are doing just fine with minimal effort… probably holding a position they didn’t EARN. If we want a more effective system, shouldn’t we do all we can to make sure we find the fastest runner by creating a uniform start line. And any effort towards thus is AIDING capitalism.
    Would love to know what your conservative friend thought. Thanks!

  30. Fuck the lobster. And what if we don't want Amazon? Discipline isn't universally good, it can help people do bad also.

  31. your friend is not alt-right, he's a Republican, alt-right means being to the right on values but to the left on workers' rights.

  32. I lost some of this so it's probably going to be less polite than the first but I ultimately was trying to say is there is a big difference between what the party say they believe and what they actually represent. I will admit some biased but I feel this divided is larger with the left than the right.

  33. It's weird how ideologies that are similar to one another tend to HATE one another. For example, WWII Russia and WWII Germany. The west side with Russia because they wanted to stop Germany immediately. Then after that war, the west locked horns with Russia. This isn't by mistake or happenstance.

  34. Conservatives don’t realize how painfully simple they see liberals. When liberals say they want more equality and opportunity, conservatives jump to the extreme and assume liberals want everyone to be rich. Of course liberals don’t believe that, they understand that and underclass is always going to exist, but they want to minimize the underclass, not eliminate it. Conservatives just don’t feel the need to minimize the underclass.

    The world is a complicated place. Just because someone wants to go out for dinner, doesn’t mean they want every man woman and child to go out and get dinner with them

  35. In the EU even nazis support free education. The problem Is not republicans vs democrats, it's liberal vs Real people

  36. 4:15 maybe it's time to start doing so. they talk about how they don't care feelings or niceness. so don't be nice and don't care about hurting their feelings. call them what they are.

  37. Egalitarianism is IMPOSSIBLE within this system, or in fact, any system within civilization. Only tribal societies are capable of egalitarianism because their social structure is simple enough to not require hard leadership, ownership, and thus classes.

  38. watching this video was interesting, and i truly think you believe in what your saying, some things are true mainly regarding the hierarchy, but conservatives do not like it because most rich people are white, that wouldn't explain black conservatives, the main basis for conservatives beliefs are "you are responsible for yourself" while liberals believe "everyone should be equal period" most conservatives believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome while the opposite is true for liberals.
    saying conservatism is "susceptible to fascism" just isn't true, part of conservatism is small government, and the reason for this IS fear of authoritarianism, liberalism seems to have much more faith in the government and believing in equality of outcome can easily justify the government forcing its will for "the greater good, which ALWAYS leads to authoritarian government.

  39. K I might binge watch your video in the next few days. I was arguing with conservatives in a youtube comment section the other day (stupid, stupid idea) and I was baffled by the desire of some people to be mistreated and reigned upon by the dominant class, as if it was some kind of privilege and inevitable. It has been bugging me for the last couple days and your video makes soooo much sense, thank you! Loving this channel so far!

  40. Former liberal here. Whining about your obvious shameless bias aside, I do agree with and appreciate your general point about how conservatives think. That said, I think there are some important questions that stem from your statement that need to be addressed. I looked forward to your "origins of conservatism" video and didn't see them there either:

    At 12:22 you propose that that conservatives opposition to equity is a fearful reaction to what they perceive as hypocritical power grabs from the left. While I find that very believable, I also notice that you silently imply this is an always unjustified reaction. Is it not possible that, at least sometimes, malicious entities indeed do this? Can massive, inequitable corporations not pay lip service to progressive causes for PR? Could a political party not demonize it's opposition for for fostering unnecessary foreign wars, only to continue the same policies once it's in power? If the answer is yes, what is to be done about this duplicity? What do liberals do to stop opportunists from using this very tactic and ultimately tarnishing people's faith in them? Or is it worth it to lets such behavior slide, because in the process of filling their own pockets they happen to effect some change for good, if unintentionally?

    At 21:09 you assert that neither the democratic nor hierarchical models of society are natural, but what's your evidence for this? I hoped to find it in your "foundations of conservatism" video, but all I saw there was the (compelling) argument that conservatism as an ideology was created to protect the longevity of royal, then noble, then aristocratic power. This certainly explain conservative motivations, but it doesn't validate one way or another the veracity of their claims. What if, despite their selfish intentions, they happen to be correct? How do we know they're not?

  41. I feel like conservatives and libertarians talk about meritocracy and merits etc but the way I see it equal access to healthcare and education rather then being born into a privileged upper class creates far better conditions in which one can test and show their true value and merits as individuals. Equality of opportunity =/= equality of outcome. Not having equality is what creates parasites like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashion and other brainless low-brow celebrities who have zero merits and individual qualities as people aside from just happening to be born into a privileged class. What is freedom for one person may be tyranny for others. Freedom isn't black and white or 2 dimensional like what a lot of Americans think. To quote Plato "The most aggravated form of tyranny is born from the most extreme liberties."

  42. Umm, no. I'm opposed to measures which will not help, but only harm. If you are making the case that hierarchies do not naturally occur in societies, and that they are not at least to some degree inevitable, then yes, you are naive or lying. If on the other hand, you are making the case that conservatives do not wish to make the hierarchy better, then perhaps stop making a straw-man of their position. Most, from my experience, just don't see how the changes requested will actually HELP, given that most changes, as you yourself pointed out with the actions in a capitalist society, will be failures. To say that conservatives all want to preserve their place in the hierarchy, well not any more than anyone else I'm afraid.

    In fact, I would say that the conservative policies are often the ones which facilitate social mobility most of the time. Sometimes, left-wing policies crop up which actually do the right thing, but it isn't a given. So maybe I do come from a position of egalitarianism – just not one which relies too much on government fiat.

    Most conservatives are white men, most cappies are too – no shit sherlock, welcome to demographics 101. A country which is currently majority white will, you guessed it, have it's parties be made up of majority white people. It's the same for the democrats. It isn't rocket science.

    White men can only tolerate white men being in positions of power – perhaps this is true, and true of some more than others. But how is this any different from any other race's motivation?

    Equality before the law is a fiction – how? Look, I'll admit that most Western nations have a long and imperfect history on this, but show me where in the law there are relevant references to race or gender in requirements to take actions!

    If you want to assert there is widespread systemic discrimination against racial minorities, non-males, etc, please provide proof of this truism. I call you on your bullshit, although I remain open to evidence to the contrary. And no, differences in outcome do not equate to differences in treatment NECESSARILY. The treatment needs to be proved, not the difference.

    In short – Conservatives are not alt-right. Conservatives are not your straw-man. I am not a conservative, but I draw a lot of my political beliefs from conservativism and classical liberalism. And finally, do not equate republican policies with all conservatives, the two big parties try to appeal to a wide base of not just conservatives.

  43. So this whole video can be boiled down to conservatives believe in hierarchies as powerful structures prevalent in every aspect of nature and humanity, and that they are most effectively employed through markets. Obviously humanity doesn't need hierarchy though were not lobsters duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  44. This is more distorted reality than the TV show legion.
    Conservatives are for equality of opportunity and are against equality of outcome.
    A persons competence and position of power/responsibility scale.
    If a persons position of power is inverse of their competence, bad things happen #GreenNewDeal.

  45. Political debates annoy me so much 99% of the time because it's always people clashing, but never trying to understand each other in order to analyze the actual underlying issues. This video exceeds at that and it makes me veeeery happy!

  46. Great video.
    And, you know what, at 3:07 – 3:44, what your conservative friend is describing as a pipe dream? That's the Nordic countries. They are pretty much exactly like that.
    I know – I live there.
    And at 8:20'ish you are echoing a blog I read the other day:

  47. conservatives and the altright dont get along innuendo they disagree on alot of ideas

    (response to innuendos video)

  48. but advantages and disadvantages are imposed from without in any capitalist framework. That's why we have failsons. Because some people are just born into wealth and some people are just born into poverty so feirce that they physically cannot work harder than they are, because they have to eat. Either they believe in a blood line oligarchy or they believe that everyone can make it, they cant have it both ways. This is so incomprehensible, you have to be so fucking stupid to be a capitalist AND a democracy fan. that's not how ANYTHING WORKS

  49. 6:25 "one person one vote"
    Funny you say that. Rank voting makes for much better democracy.
    Also as it is now, some places your vote matters alot more than other places.

  50. I feel like when lefts dont allow the conservative speaker in their college or stop them from speaking that is Fascism. Don't you think?

  51. Look man i am from democratic socialist country and i know how hard it is to open a business. My advice is keep America capitalist. Dont hear these lefts or liberal. They always cry.

  52. Innuendo Studios:
    "Now, I'm not calling conservatives fascists…"

    Also Innuendo Studios:
    (Ends video by calling conservatives fascists)

    Not amused in the slightest, communists got a knack to expect a high return with very low effort, if none.

    This video being solid proof.

  53. Hmmm.. Y'all cant for your life, connect on a human level, with anyone, can you?. Its sad. When we dont fit your mold, you bludgeon us with it. Lol arent you exhausted by the anxiety, not knowing when the feelings will strike you. The mask is just getting heavier and you're feeling lonelier. You read your books, now come read us, you assholes lol

  54. Lot of commenters don’t see the connection between the right (or as the channel calls it, “conservatives) and fascism. That’s pretty telling and kinda sad.

  55. 2:50 the proper response is "no the accumalation of wealth is secondary in my world view to the maximization of human happiness and the fulfillment of human potential in every individual on the planet, and no one person could ever work enough to justifiably earn a billion american dollars worth of any currency, they are greedy parasites upon the system who pay their workers substandard wages only because they know the government will pick up the slack with welfare, they are effectively sucking money out of the state and they are doing it "on your dime" you ignorant buffoon"

  56. I notice in that opening conversation the Conservative friend controlled the conversation.
    "those are things we can't afford without governments" shifted the talk away from the idea that taxes should pay for education and conceded the point that all current taxes pay for essential things, but anything net new is frivolous. Despite the fact that private roads exist, and people buy all sorts of crops that aren't corn. he is technically making a pro taxation argument, and his misdirection had your hypothetical liberal concede an essential point that could have cornered the conservative into admitting bias against anyone who may rise above him on the social ladder by changing the definition of equal to suit his needs only insofar as equal in end results and not starting conditions (i.e. the card says moops)

    ….wtf have you done to my brain

  57. As we all know, it is impossible for a 'liberal', or a 'Democrat', or a 'progressive', or whatever other title you wish to subscribe to that mindset, to be a fascist. Completely impossible.

  58. i get this is about the alt-right specifically , but the term "republican thought" strawmans all republicans as racist homophobes who hate the poor, which leads to people advocating for the death of all conservatives, if you think im exaggerating, go on twitter for 3 seconds and youll see my point

  59. The irony is that most of these white men claim to follow a man who commanded his followers to not only relinquish material wealth but also specifically to put themselves at the bottom of the pyramid.

  60. Deficits mean you've failed, how can the right support that? Deficits work during wars only, or as an emergency measure when all else fails, not as a matter of course.

    But ((they)) taught you to bondage yourself and think it's a good thing.

Leave a Reply

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