Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
16
-
13
-
10
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mauriciolira4359
Well you don't know anything about politic, you prove it with your speech about the far right.
Nazi party was far right.
Nazis were seen by everybody, including themselves as far right
Nazism is identified by political sciences as far right, until today.
First thing that nazis made : destruction of all the heritage from the french revolution, democracy, and all that was elated to the left by nazis and other far rights.
Then when an ignorant coming internet for claiming that far right and Nazism have no relation, this is just a big joke.
Peoples with a brain and the knowledge that goes with it know that nazism get support from big capitalists cartels from germany and america. They know that the big Germans capitalists with companies owning their name, were friends with nazi regime. That the nazi regime removed all rights for the workers at workers and allowed low wage for most of the workers, and even free workers in working camps ( it is slavery). And then it is far right economic politic.
Big capitalist cartels were never nationalized by nazis.
In fact sicne its creation nazi party was about protection of economic private property, and was defending shop owners, craftsmen , merchants, etc....
Then i don't care about your ignorant stances about nazi regime and political analysis.
Nazism is a nationalism, , and all nationalist movements are on the far right side.
Left versus right is defined by ideological antagonism, not about the economy, how to manage the economy is not the main drive of the far right movements, it is all about social order.
Fascist party in Italy had economic liberalism and state controlled politic at different time. But narrow minded peoples can't understand that , because they have a narrow view about economy, and don't understand the relation between capitalism, unregulated market, and power.
2
-
2
-
Endmin1
calling Islamist right wing, is like calling nazis right wing, this is a fact.
But irrational people seeing only identity oppositions can't understand the nature of ideology.
well at a time the catholic church, when it was very conservative, was "convert or die" too.
This is pure right wing policy.
Islamism is religious fundamentalism, this is pure right wing, all about hierarchy, heteronomy, inequality , rigidity of the society, etc....
What define left wing and right wing, is not identity, or origin, but principles, values, logic of ideas, psychological drive and cognitive process, etc....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
arthur lecomte
conservatives defend rigid society, they are agaisnt individual freedoms, with sexism, racism, economic discrimination by money, religion influence on society. Conservatism is an authoritarian ideology, defending tradition, religious dogmas is authoritarian.
Defending the freedom of women , racial minorities from stereotyped social categories,is defending freedom. Defending rights and protection of workers agaisnt the authority and power of the capitalists, is defending freedom. Defeinding freedom from authoritarains religiosity is defending freedom.
The left defend the real freedoms.
Gathering millions is not freedom as sign of personal succes , it is a question of social power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
we can find proofs in historic on precises and adequate facts and political fact where was fascism on the left and right.
some historical points :
war of Spain : a pure ideological war the Spanish left ( republicans, anarchists, socialists, etc... ) against the Spanish far right ( franco, the militaries and reactionaries ). Fascists and nazis sided with ...far right against the left.
And nobody at this time was not surprise, this is why Franco and is other Europeans relatives , from the far right, were labeled fascists at this time.
Well far right 1 - left wing -1
the position in the political assembly :
fascists and nazis sat their ass on the far right side of their respective assembly.
This is the second proof that they were self identified as far right.
far right 2 - left wing -2
target of assassination : if you look who was targeted for assassination you can see clearly on which side they are and who are their greatest enemies.
The first target of fascists and nazis were left wing leaders : socialists, or social democrats, union leaders, left wing intellectuals etc...
Then the first enemy of the fascists is the left, like for all far right movements.
If you look the history of the fascism in Italy at its beginning, it is all about violent conflict with the Left, but propaganda doesn't care about facts.
far right 3 - left wing -3
proof by the political alliances in the assemblies : as parties on the far right side they made alliance with the right wing, the conservatives, the great bourgeoisie, etc... this is not what do Left Wing parties, but only right wing parties.
far right 4 - left wing - 4
on the ideological side :
The left versus right antagonism is an ideological antagonism then an antagonism of values, principles, etc... The bases were given at the time of the French revolution, and developed/extended with socialism + (Marx + Engels) on economic side along the 19th century.
Fascism main values are Order, Hierarchy, Identity, like all far right ideologies, while left wing values are Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the exact antagonists values.
Far right 5 - Left Wing -5
From the French Revolution the antagonism of power is :
right wing = rule of one or a minority over the majority.
left wing = shared power for all (democratic power).
Again fascism fits with the right wing side, against the left side.
far right 6 - left wing -6
From this point we can see on economic power where fits fascism, nazism, etc...
Real socialist ideologies, with Marx, Engels, etc... are based on the left wing power : a collective power of all the members of the enterprise, or democratic economic power. Then Left wing parties defend collective organization of workers for defending their rights against the power of the capitalist, and it is called unions.
Capitalism was built on the power of some capitalist over the great number of workers, and is defended by right wing parties. The more they are on the right side, the more parties are against union, or any form of sharing power with workers.
Under fascism and nazis workers had no right, like under the savage capitalism of the 19th century that was the focus of the fight of socialism , unions were forbidden. Fascism begin with a liberal economy with a limited state, hand in hand with great industrial, nazi had worked hand in hand with great industry , German and American too. Their economic politic is typically right wing politic on the economic side too. The exploitation of peoples in the camps , like slaves is a far right politics while left wing are against all form of slavery .
Far right 7 - left wing - 7
argument by the state , fascism is left wing because of the state?:
the state is an institution created by authoritarian, hierarchised society, defended by far right peoples (reactionaries)
On the other side the more left wing ideologies ( socialist/communist anarchism, Marx, and several socialist thinker ) are for the abolition of the state.
This is not the state that define left or right but the form of the state :
regalian state with strong police and army, with authoritarian policies and war politics , focus on the order of the society ( including capitalist order ) = right wing state.
soft state based on education, social protection, defense of workers, etc... focus on the well being of the members of the society = left wing state.
Fascism fits , for sure, in the first category, it is a right wing state, the type of state that Marx, Bakunin , etc.... wanted destroyed.
Far right 8 - Left wing -8
Nobody in the 30's with rational mind would put fascist and nazis on the left side, but peoples in the 21th years have lost accurate political culture do this absurd amalgams. This video just plays with false amalgams of concepts. Confusion of one thing with its opposite, it is madness by definition, or manipulation if its voluntary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
+Say no to democide
yes there are 2 ideological axes .
In addition to left right, the other one oppose egoist tendencies (libertarians and liberals ) versus focus on social bind.
The first limit or destroy social bind between peoples (each for self, and all agaisnt all), and then reduce the state.
For the second in ancient societies there was no state ( like indians tribes), in the modern version the social bind is managed by a state. Well ,quakers, amishs live under this type of societyand have no state.
The state can bring one or two of the subtypes of social bind :
vertical bind = authoritarism , army, police, national identity, enforced official religion , etc...
horizontal bind = solidarity, social protection, public education, culture of unity above differences, etc...
indivdiualism rejects vertical social bind.
particularism rejects the horizontal social bind.
This is here the difference between left and right :
Left favors horizontal social bind. State is the more easy way in modern society for applying institutionalised social link.
Right favors vertical social bind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pedromeneses5661
Bad answer, health care and social welfare are not different thing, they are part of the same logic, the logic of treating all humans equally as humans, and not as member of a specific category, or just as bank account. This is linked to the notion of horizontal social link.
Lack of social welfare is bad for the society , since you think the society not as an abstract concept, but something made of human being.
Slavery societies did not had welfare.
Nazi did not gave welfare to jews, disabled, etc....
Third world countries with high criminality do not have welfare.
The countries with more democracy, respect of individual freedom, less criminality, etc..., are the country with social welfare.
Keeping population in the misery is a sign of great stupidity, not social welfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickyoldtree
Oh you are so ignorant and delusional.
Because what i say has more deepness than your average narrow minded conservative (pleonasm inside) can understand.
Speaking about tyranny shows how you are wrong and stupid, while i just speak about a world view were peoples are really more free, and do not live under the tyranny of the plutocracy supporting economic liberalism .
You are so stupid that you don't try to understand you react like a Pavlovian dog to the word communist or anything that is related to, then it means that you make zero thinking.
Like all stupid conservatives you react only with stereotype.
You are not enough smart for understanding that stalin or mao claiming being communist was just propaganda. And then like the king of the idiots you trust the propaganda of a dictator you find loathing.
POlitic is more complex than what you believe (because you don't really think).
This is why you are just another conservative joker who do not have serious opinion about politic.
The proof that you are a stupid ignorant is that you don't want to see that the more democratic country are country where left wing parties have an heavy weight on the society, this country are not democratic because they are capitalists but because they have applied the ideas of the left wing movements, like the democratic vote and abolition of slavery from the french revolution allowing everybody to vote without limit of race, sex or wealth, or ideas from the socialist movement about health care, social social welfare, right and freedoms for the workers, equality between men and women, etc....
All of this things are not from capitalism, and was fought by capitalists. Nazism was supported by big capitalist corporations who were rejecting all social policies from the left wing parties of socialist origins including social democrats.
If you are to stupid for not seeing that collective healthcare and social welfare are part of a common world view, this is your problem and sign of your ignorance, not the proof that i am what you say.
In fact you are too ignorant for commenting what i say.
Your long message is not a critic against my messages, but the exposition of your ignorance, your limitations, your stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nandorblue
the best proof :
Stalin has persecuted and executed peoples defending socialism, Marx, anarchism, etc...
Stalin has persecuted ALL the historic revolutionaries from 1917.
Marx was about dictatorship BY the worker FOR the workers, stalin is about dictatorship by himself OVER the worker.
Marx and left wing ideologies are about collective power, not the power of a dictator.
This is the base for the division Left versus Right since the French Revolution power for all against power of one or some.
Left Wing, and socialism ( including Marx ) were about democratic power. Then stalinism is not left wing.
There is no relation between the philosophy of Marx and the stalinism, the philosophy of Marx is based on autonomy, the emancipation of the worker, stalinism is based on the heteronomy of the power, of the society.
Marx is about the destruction of the economic exploitation, stalin was the come back of the economic exploitation.
If you ask the questions then it means that you don't know stalinism or Marx, or both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the sciences the main difference bewtween left and right is open mind ( left ) vs closed mind (right).
It is not a problem of risk, the risk takers are on another line of antagonism independant from left vs right, this is egoism/selfcentred vs social link. On the first side the risk taker, there are libertarians and liberals in the european term, and they classify their antagonist as left.
Then left are not liberals , even if they share some views, but on the other hand real liberals share some views with conservatives ( they don't like solidarity for exemple).
There are many confusion, in the end the video look like a big strawman.
But all of that is wrong.
Just look at the countries that had left governement, with politics that have transformed the country : like nordics nations with lower economic inequalities, higher Human Developpement Index ( HDI ), more individiuals freedoms than in conservatives nations, less violence , etc...
Conservatives politics means : great inequalities, leading to more violence, lower HDI, less social protection, more misery, less indivdual freedom.
What you say about the economic is false, if there is no politic of solidarity for sharing wealth, the lower class can be taken away from the economic growth. In the 19th century, conservatives capitalists were very richs while their workers were kept in the state of misery. It was socailist movement and the more humanist liberal that made more human politics for giving rights and freedoms to the workers.
If conservatives does not fear a socailist , communist or anything assimilated to this, revolution, revolt, they don't do anything for the middle and lower class.
Yes conservative fear novelty, that is why they keep the system like it is, it defends the inequalities,the power of the elits, etc....
They odn't want a good society, they want a society they already know. In fact their happiness is at the cost of the social minorities well being and freedoms.
It favor religious beliefs over scientific knowledge, because it feeds their rigid mind. Scientific knowledge brings a part of uncertainity that conservatives can't stand.
1
-
+ s c
There is a confusion between logic of ideas, and ideas of peoples.
The positions about the variety of issues from liberals and conservatives label are not arbitrary, because each camp is related to a logic of ideas.
And each logic of ideas, antagonists logic of ideas, leads to have a specific position about a specific issue, becasue they are related to psychological drives.
In addition there are four logic of ideas, the other two can share positions from both side, or have a specific point of view about an issue.
But real persons can be driven by different motivations , on different issues, becasue the psychology of people can be complex. This is why people can be not 100% in line with the theoric position of their camp.
For example some politic positions are related to rigidity of mind, but net everybody is 100% rigid mind, in fact it must be rare to be 100% rigid mind and not pretty, then some people can be driven by their rigidity on some issues, but be more opened, using more their intelligence on some other issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@junkim5853
Stop to be irrational and ignorant.
Your introduction is a pure joke when you know the history of the Nazi party, when you know and UNDERSTAND the ideology.
"Nazis are not a right wing faction they sought to take heavy control on social provisions."
Pure ignorance of Nazism, and left versus right antagonism.
Then it can't be an argument.
Left versus right is about concentration of power, about equality of power ( real left wing, and democracy) versus hierarchic power (right wing). And nazism is all about hierarchic power! Nazism is against equality.
Claiming and being is not the same thing. I guess that many criminal claim to be honest or innocent.
Nazim is not socialism , but nationalism, and antagonist to socialism . The nazi hate socialism and communism. Nazi persecuted and killed socialists.
Nazis were on the right wing side of the German assembly!!!!!
All what you say is just plain wrong there is nothing progressive in nazism, it is anti progressive, anti modernist, it belongs in the reactionary family.
Left give right and freedom to workers, nazism removed all right and power inside the enterprise.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fascism is against communism, socialism, worker's unions, democracy, universal suffrage, equality, against freedom of women, against racial equality, against a world of peace.
Fascism is for order, hierarchy, identity, rule of one , sexism, war, working hand in hand with capitalists .
Beign for sexism , identity, etc.. do not make them anti conservatives, they are anti progressives in fact.
Pinochet and mussolini had economic politic based on economic liberalism, abolition of worker's unions, abolition of worker's rights. They have arrested, assassinated left wing peoples.
They are definitively far right.
Anti communism is not left wing.
reactionaries are against communism, liberalism , and they are far right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Well i don't know what you have in mind, but the US healthcare, is not really the model for healthcare in the world.The in the world public healthcare in most advanced countries are not dependents from private healthcare, of of private donors, doctors have a wage, etc....
Funding of public healthcare can be done by state, municipalities, taxes, delayed wage, etc....
If public healthcare give the best healthcares in the world, this is because they are not what you describe.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Public service, should be at the service of the public, and this is the duty of the state, or other collective institution , to allow peoples to get universal healthcare.
This is how it works in most of the countries.
Then i don't see where you want to go, but not how it works in democratic countries.
Why? because it is at the service of the public, it allows universal healthcare, and then cover everybody, and not just the peoples who can pay private assurance and hospital. Then the global health level of the population is better.
Health is not a question of choice, it is something needed for having a free life, and not being limited by disease, disability .. or death. This is why in democratic society they offer universal healthcare to all the individual.
Health of individuals is more important than external drive like economic profit, in democratic societies, where the individual, the human is the drive of the society .
Floor prices are made to allow peoples to get healthcare even if they are not riches
Let those who need healthcare, to get healthcare.
This is the base of free ( or low cost ) and universal healthcare in democracies.
What matters is the point of view of everybody. And everybody need healthcare at a moment, then the end of your message is meaningless.
When you see which countries do not have universal healthcare, we can see that you attack against universal healthcare is not for the defense of the freedom. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, some African countries , including the chaotic Somalia, this is not a list of free and healthy countries who do not allow universal healthcare.
Then you don't understand what you are defending. It looks that you don't care about the freedom of the individual to get healthcare, because public healthcare allow universal healthcare, the healthcare for peoples who need it.
Freedom to everybody to get healthcare, or exclusion of peoples from healthcare and health services, by price, religion, nationality, sex, etc...
This is the real ideological antagonism.
Democracies choose the first by allowing universal healthcare supported by public institutions.
Peoples who do not care about the individual , and lock him in stereotypes, prejudices , etc...choose the second.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
"that is not the purpose or job of the state"
What is the purpose of a state is a question of ideology and politic applying this ideology : giving drive to the society, to the state.
Drive by security and fear only , or in one concept reject of loss , is a right wing ideology, not a general drive for all ideological orientations .
What you say was right in the antiquity and in the middle age, nice eras known for their great freedom of individual.
A state driven by security and fear, does not defend individuals but Order.
This is why in this societies, where state was just about security, there was slavery, no freedom of speech, etc...
Oh and you don't know read what i say, because i speak about other collectives institutions, not just the state....
Public universal healthcare is about seeing everyone as individual,, and that all individual can need healthcare.
Non universal healthcare do not see peoples as individual , but just purses on feet, or reduced to some categories like religion, nation, sex,, race, etc ....
I speak about the countries who have and who don't have universal healthcare, then about facts not theory, and you do like if the most advanced democracies did not have universal healthcare.
What you say is is not what says reality.
Public universal healthcare give better coverage than non public non universal healthcare.
Then i don't see what you try to defend.
We don't care if riches peoples don't have more money than they already have.
Health of individual is more important than big purses in the hand of the riches. Your position makes you anti individualist, you don't c are about the individual, you care just about the ego of the riches who want more money.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Caring for the egoism of some peoples or caring about the health of the individuals because they are individuals.
You make your choice by refusing the universal healthcare, then you don't care about the individuals and their health. You want limit the very important freedom for all individuals to get health, to peoples who don't have money for paying private healthcare, private assurances.
If you care about the individual and their health, then you should be happy that everybody can get access to healthcare, but this is not the case. All your messages is a restriction to access to healthcare for a lot of peoples, by rejecting universal healthcare.
You want deny to children who don't have the chance to have riches parents, to get healthcare, and then you deny them to be able to become autonomous by staying healthy.
You reject the best healthcare in the world, and then this is the proof that you don't care about the heath of peoples.
If you were really individualist, if you really care about the individual, you should be happy that all the individuals can get access to the best healthcare.
This is not what you say.
"Since when?"
Since the beginning of the ideological antagonism between Left wing and Right wing. Since the Left versus Right ideological antagonism is based on psychological antagonism between two psychological drive, and that the right wing was the one who is driven by fear.
Since the right is about defense of the power of the elites : king, nobles, religious, militaries, misogynist men, great leader (fuhrer, duce, etc... in some other languages), slave masters and other owners of private economic property, etc... Since the right likes tough police, justice and death penalty. Since the right hate systems where everybody share the power. Since the right reject equality and universalism ( values related to joy/sadness).
Since that political psychology find that the psychology of right wing ideologies is elated to fear. Since neurology find that right wing conservative use more their brain amygdala, that manage fear, etc...
Who want weapons because of fear of criminality of civil war? the right wing
Who is focused on the security? the right
who want tough police and justice and death penalty? the right
on which side are the religious fear monger ? the right
on which side are peoples who fear racial mixity? the right
Which side care about the fear of big capitalists to loose their power? the right
....
i guess we can make a longer list.
Since sciences point the link between right wing ideologies, like conservatism and fear, denying in the wind is useless.
I am attacking egoist, egocentric, riches peoples who deny healthcare to other peoples , even children.
1
-
@jimmyandtimmy8514
Saying that you are fear monger is just science, knowledge and understanding, not stupid.
Stupidity is denying science, knowledge, understanding, this is what you make.
Conservatives values ( tradition, security, power, ) are values driven by fear and anger.
Nationalists are driven by fear.
Bigots are driven by fear.
Racists are driven by fear.
Sexists are driven by fear.
Conservation of the power of the riches, religious, dominant male, superior race, etc... is driven by fear.
The real right wing are driven by fear, because fear and anger are the core drive of the right wing conservative ideas.
Fear goes with separation, walls, discrimination, etc...
Then i don't care about the deny of knowledge by a narrow minded ignorant.
Ignorance and lie are not an answer.
Progressives abolish slavery, progressives give rights to women, because this is progressives politics.
Conservatives conserve slavery, conservatives conserve sexist society, because this is conservative politics.
Nazi get the power with the help of the right wing conservatives.
Trump and all billionaires of his governemnt are the Elites.
Rejecting peoples from healthcare is not justice, nor security, it is just egocentric.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paddystrongjaw9995
fascit is far right, it is all about order and hierarchy , nationalism , and destruction of the left, assassination of socialists.
The fascist party was on the far right side of the italian party, they were self identified as far right!!!!!!!!!!.
IN the Spanish War, fascists were with the far right side, with the nazi against all the left wing and stalinians.
Fascism in Europe is symbol of far right,.
Etc...
Fascism is far right , this is the basic political history, other claims are based on ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But on ideological point of view fascism is antagonist to left wing ideologies.
The left right antagonism is given by the strong ideological antagonism of the French revolution between the Republicans, democrats, egalitarians , and the Monarchist, anti-democrats , for social hierarchies, defenders of the old society , the power of the king, etc...
All the big ideological clashes left versus right, involve two antagonisms :
- Autonomy (individuals, humans , are the drive of the society ) versus heteronomy ( the drive of the society is external and superior to the individual ). fascism fits at 100% in the right side for this thematic, heteronomy.
- Inclusion of all peoples as human being, as individual, ( in humanity, in society, in control of property, in control of power, in healthcare, etc.... ) versus exclusion of some or the great majority of peoples ( from humanity, from power, from property, from healthcare, from education, from freedom, etc.... ) , by focusing on hierarchy fascism fits 100% on the right side too. This is why fascism is a far right ideology , and is incompatible with left wing.
left fascism is an oxymoron.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allentompkins4063
woaw so many lines for defending ignorance in political knowledge, and so many wrong claims.
you are very delusional.
I let you with your ignorance.
Left right antagonism read by Americans is just so stupid and wrong.
Invoking American politician show that you are out of subject, and that you don't speak about left versus right , but a false spectrum based on ignorance .
You don't understand the strong antagonism between socialism and fascism, then all what you say is worthless.
History and political sciences debunk all what you say.
Given that it is a fact that fascist party, like nazi party, is a far right party, and it is easy to find, but you lack of the skills for finding real information.
Given that it is an history fact that socialism and fascism were ennemy.
I just have to read the history of the Spanish war to know that all what you say is wrong. Spanish war was an ideological war between the Spanish left against the Spanish far right allied with the nazis and fascists.
And when we read your lies we should think that fascist should be on the side of the socialists, while they were their enemies.
Then history debunks all your long message.
You believe in lies and ignorance, the Spanish war is the best proof.
1
-
@allentompkins4063
limit of intellgince, well you speak about yourself.
People who claim that an ideology is the same that its antagonist ideology is stupid , lack of intelligence.
Nazism is what hate socialism , and socialism is what hate nazism.
nazis are for hierarchy, socialists are for equality, it is antagonist point of view. Any peoples with a minimum of intelligence understand that this two ideolgies just with this fact are antagonist and don't belongs to the same ideological family.
But noooo you are too stupid for understanding this basic thing.
Confusion of antagonist things is sign of craziness and lack of intelligence.
You are too stupid for understanding that what define an ideology is its values, its relations of power, its social relations, etc..., then that two ideology with antagonist values are not friends but enemies.
You are too stupid for understanding that left wing, socialism, progressive are defined in Western country, and then all what you say about the subject with your narrow American view
Stop to answers you are too stupid.
So stupid that you speak about yourself only.
So stupid that you can't explain why giving that the War of Spain was the ideological war between the radical left and the far right, fascists and nazis were allied with the far right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have wrote "all" not me.
a)
Neurology study show, on statistic point of view , that conservative use more their amygdalia thant their ACC, this is the opposite "liberal".
Many psychologist studies make a link between conservatism and negative emotions like fear, anger, disgust.
On the model of 10 values of schwartz there are values of conservation : tradition ,conformism, defense , focusing on order , preservation of the past, resistance to change. This value define well the conservative philosophy . I would add another value for covering the genral conservative ideology : power. This 3 values have an common interest , with the value of power : prevention of loss.
b)
The amygdalia manage negatives emotions like fear and anger.
prevention of loss is linked to fear and anger.
Then from independant way we have always the same conclusion conservatism is linked to fear, and other negatives emotions.
And in reality we see many conservatives politicians playing with the fears of the peoples like criminality, immigration, terrorism, etc....
The 9/11 made people more conservatives in opinions after the terrorist attack.
Close mindness is routed to fear, fear of unknow, fear of change, fear of difference.
Fear of uncertainity is a trait associated to conservatives by many studies, while liberals are associated to openness to uncertainty. And fear of uncertainty is rigid mind.
Conservatism contains rigidity in its name : conservation, no change, reject of novelty, etc....
Education by fear and stringent rules, the typical conservative education , make people close mind.
1
-
christian garcia
I speak of the conservative psychology, the characteristic of the conservative psychology, what make conservatives taking the positions they have. Why conservatives are sexists or hold for religion, for exemepl is linked to the psychologic drives.
You are not open minded when you defend a sexist or a racist position.
A - Well all what i say can be found in scientifics sources, there are a lot of documents, articles about the subjects.
B - No because ideologies are linnked to some psychology. Neurologic stupies point the fact that each ideologic orientation is linked to some cognitive process.
sexism , racism, homophobia, prejudice agaisnt poor, etc... are driven by fear, anger , disgust.
If a white is not racist face to a black, for exemple, he can't be driven by fear of unknow or difference, but by other cognitive process that alow him to manage somthing unknow, different.
By not being racist it opens the way to positive emotion that do not involve fear like love, friendship, fraternity, tolerance. It is other congitive process involved.
Your deny does not works, only ignorance.
There are 4 majors ideologic orientations, and what concerns the conservative trend does not concern the others , even more true for the antagonist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christian Garcia
Yes it makes sense, you did not bring any knowledge, just ignorance of some basic knowledge and may fallacies.
Argument of omniscience, ROFLOL . No it is just a reality. In fact all your example will be false, because i speak only on idealogical point of view, what is studied by scientist, i don't care about the label of the people.
The history show that left have defended equality of freedom for women with men, and black with whites.
And this in all countries, while sexism and racism was defended among the right wing against the progressivism of the Left.
If you speak to me of people that share the same mental process than the conservatives, well they are not left wing on ideological point of view. And fall in the same range with classical conservatives.
The people you are speaking are just people with left label stuck on the front, like we can stick a ferrari logo on a lada, even if the lada is red it is not a luxury sport car because there is the ferrari logo. This statement is just a right wing statement , it follows the psychology of the right wing ideologies.
Tjhere are some miror claim from the conservative side, that are regular claim, like women are not legitimate for making this or that, etc....
Come with peoples who defend ideas of Left, defending the equal autonomy of the individuals from all identities categories.
lol abolition of slavery, hey man it was in the 19th century. Fallacious argument!!!!! You are hidding the fact that republicans and democrat have switched of camps on the left right scale later!!!!
Always playing with label, but totaly void from ideological point of view. And only that matters.
Slavery is a far right ideology, it is the absolute hierarchy, and then fit only in right wing ideology.
The left is build on equality, against all hierarchies.
This is why in France where the Left Right scale was born, it was the Left, equalitarian , that has abolished the slavery twice, while the Right, hierarchic , defended the slavery until is last abolition.
At the beginning the republicans were more progressives and then were against slavery.
And the democrats where more classic liberal, it was only in the 20th century that they shifted toward more left wing , it begins with Roosevelt .
The democrat - republican is not a good model for the left right scale.
For the concept linked to left and right just above i am referring to :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201302/the-cognitive-and-historic-roots-modern-polarization
The left pole is egalitarians, the left's ideas are ideas linked to the egalitarian group, and the right ideas pole is the ideas of the hierarchic group .
We can find the same relation of ideas with the values of Schwartz, with the interests of values :
egalitarians = search of gain
hierarchic = prevention of loss
communitarians = focus on other
"individualist" = ... focus on the person
All the rest are void words without meaning, with manipulation, propaganda playing with words, labels, etc... making loose meaning to the words.
For serious political psychologist, the conservatism fit the hierarchic group.
We can easily recreate all the positions of conservatives against the left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
black smith
look like you fear the truth.
The non sense is saying that conservatives defend freedom while they are authoritarians.
Conserative don't defend (social) equality because their polic has for main focus the preservation of the social inequalities. What conserve the conservatives ? the hierachy of social inequalities, the social oeder with its inequalities. They make even thing going worst by raising economic inequality, reducing help to people in need, etc...
Conservatives favor higher rate death among youg children among the poors with their inequality's politic agaisnt the poor. Cuba get a better result than the USA while their are poorer.
You are confusion gay with transexual, thisis not the same thing, gay are about sexual attractivity, transexual are about internal feeling about sexual identity.
take a man
if he is heterosexual he says : "i am a man and i love women"
if he is gay he says : "i am a man and i love men"
if he his transexual he could say : "i am identified as man with a body of a man but i feel deeply i am a woman and i want my body fit with my mind" It is another dimension, a medical dimension.
This is nice many thing you say about you general view, but this is not the standard conservative mind, where labels are more important than the person. Women, blacks, poors, migrants, etc... are not viewed as person but before all as member of a social category, and the social order require that memeber of the categories stay at the place given to this category by the social order.
This is why left is born : for making people being free from this categories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are four ideologic poles, antagonists two by two; the left and right classic ideologic opposition follows one of the two antagonisms, one of the other poles fits with anlo saxon liberalism, libertarianism, ancap, etc.... the last pole is called by specialist communautary. Stalinism, maoism , etc... are ditactorships communautary with some hierarchic level(not the true communautary), quakers, amishs etc... are better models for real communautary. The fundamental split between the "liberal" pole and communautary is the question of social bind. Communautary is all about social bond, while liberal pole is for reduce all social bind, and favor egoist mind (like stimer).
There is a liberal left and a liberal right, but in the USA the word liberal fall for more progressive side of the liberals, while in europe the word liberal is more in line with classic liberal, anglo-saxon liberalism, the egist drift of our societies etc...
Liberal left share the focus on social personnal freedoms with the left, some interest for solidarity, healthcare, etc, but less than the left, and are for less regulation of private economic power but against savage capitalism.
The real democratic trend comes from the left pole, in France it was the left wing of the revolution that made the system more democratic than the monarchy where only the richs men could vote and being elected,with universal suffrage , and allowing vote for blacks (free and ex slaves).
Then the more democratic philosophy set democratic power in all sides of the society, in politic with a democratic assembly elected by everyone, and economic democratic power in the enterprise. The philosophers and thinker that were holding this type of ideology got a specific name : socialists.
The more radical being the socialists anarchists. And then their are the core of the left. Progressists are more moderates and don't expect a strong revolution, but instead reforms of the society, but the global purpose, the ideal , is the same than socialists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just propaganda
yes richer peoples are more selfish and don't care about the others.
The USA are one of the more richier nation in the world, there are enought wealth for sharing among everyone without harming rich people.
For conservatives being compationate, is stop helping poor parents for the healthcare of their children . As result the USA have the worst ratio of first year children death rate in the western world.
The "compation" of conservative kill or make suffering babies.
Liberals want to help this parents and save the life of their babies, by giving help, because they are compationates.
It debunks the claims of the video, the conservative don't want to know if healthcare of babies do good, they don't want healthare for poor's babies because they are not compationate. While in every civilised countries where psychopatic conservative don't destroy social protection, healthcare of poor's babies and their mother do good.
Nordic people prove that public social protection give better results : high taxs, solidarity programs , general social protection, lowest economic inequality in the world, and ..... they have the best result on the Human Developpement Index, going with good results in health statistics , and have more freedom than in the USA.
In short prager say that what worlks elsewhoere in the word doesn't work in the USA ...
why?
americans are more stupid?
No in fact the antisocial politic of conservatives doesn't work and do very bad.
1
-
I. U. H. well you are a liar.
Cognitive sciences are against your claim.
Conservative peoples use more their amygdala and the primitive cognitive process, making them thinking more irrational (this is why most conservatives are very religious), believeing in false belief, and to manipulation. This is why right wing people follow the leis of trump.
On the other hand liberal people, use more their Anterior Cingular Cortex, and the advanced cognitive process related to it, allowing advanced cognitive working, allowing thinking out of binaries box. They are more rationals and are more able to understand complex things, then they do not fear truth.
What make liberal anger, is injustice, what make conservatives anger is when injustices they want to conserve (inequalities) are in danger.
1
-
@Tater Salad
This is not taking a side that define who is a good or bad person, but the ideas defended. And many peoples are more or less mixed along the different questions in politic.
And ideas from left are more compassionate and honest than right wing ideas based on ego and primitives negatives emotions ( like fear, anger, disgust).
Ego and primitive negative emotions ( both are related ) are what drive evils, dishonest peoples.
Best example are psychopaths who lack of empathy and are over represented among big criminals.
Mafias society's rules , for example , are based on right wing ideas : power of a leader, hierarchy, tradition, etc.... It is the core of a society based on violence, like all classic warrior dominated societies. The political translation would be a monarchy or a conservative dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekkisner6939
which point?
ben shapiro the narrow minded guy who observes that in domains based on openness to novelty and open mind, university and Hollywood, there is a majority of peoples with open minded ideas with openness to novelty. And that openness to novelty leads to liberal values instead of conservatives values.
He just invented the lukewarm water.
It is just the logic of ideas, the relation between mental process and political ideas, then shapiro dislikes logic. It is the same thing in the domain of new technologies, where peoples need to be creatives, then tend to be more liberal.
I am sure there are more conservative peoples in the army or in religions and cults. But he will not complain about this fact, i guess.
Ben shapiro the intolerant guy who does not accept that people could critic the bad politic of dumb bush.....
When i see some position of shapiro i see that you are wrong, because his positions are wrong :
like lowering taxes on the very wealthy ( they don't need that, they are already very wealthy ) , privatizing social security ( nothing good to expect for the average citizen, but only for the wealthy capitalist owning the private company ), criminalizing abortion.
The last point shows that he is not for individual freedoms, but an authoritarian who want to impose his view on the body and life of women.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fascism is a far right ideology that was driven by destruction of socialism....
It is history.
Only ignorant of the late decades can believe that fascism can be left wing.
fascism like other wright wing ideologies are about political, social, economic hierarchies, for reduction of rights of workers in the enterprise bring by left wings , they are against equality.
Under right wing capitalism the drive of the enterprise is something external and viewed as superior to the individual workers : private profit.
With right wing religious conservative the drive of the society is something external and superior to the individual : the religion, god, tradition.
for the right wing racists like the KKK, the drive of the society must be something external and superior to the individual : the race.
All fascism is about a society driven by something external and superior to the individual. This is the definition of authoritarianism.
On the other hand real left wing ideologies, like the European left wing, including socialist parties, are about a society driven by the human, the individual, even if he is poor, he does not have private property, it care about the education of the individual, about the health of the individual, about his well being.
Then fascism does not belong to the left wing ideologies, but is just plain far right ideology.
1
-
@Humanity Galatica
did not said that italian fascism was about racism, but racism was added at the end of the 30's.
fascists area against worker's rights, this is the feature of all fascism. This is one major complaint from labor unions.
Healthcare was not allowed to disabled peoples ( they were killed ), to jews, etc... , by nazis.
Education of fascism is based on the exclusion of the Other from the Community, no fascist education without exclusion of a category of peoples, fascist education forms soldiers. Left wing education is for everyone and promote peaceful values and knowledge for all.
Education is a tool, what define the ideology is what you make with the toll.
Same thing like with the state.
The mentally confusing socialism and fascism is the same that would call murderers any surgeons because they have a scalpel like jack the reaper. It takes the tools for the purpose.
What define an ideology is the purpose.
Socialism and fascism have antagonist purposes. One gives autonomy to the workers , the other deprive the workers of any autonomy. One seek to create a society with limited conflicts, end of hierarchies, etc... , fascism enhance conflict and hierarchy. Etc....
private owners of capital keep property and privileges, the enterprise prevails over workers then it is capitalism.
autonomous syndicalism is forbidden.
This is why in the 30's Churchill had praised Mussolini, while for all the left, and the socialists in particular, fascism is the enemy in addition to the end of democracy.
It is not national syndicalism, it is corporatism, like in the feudal society : members of an economic sector are tied to the interest of the corporation with authoritarian structure.
Corporatism is condemned by socialism.
Fascism is against socialism ( see above ), this is why they kill socialists, this is why they hate socialism, and this is why socialist hate fascism.
Frankly your denying of the knowledge of the left right antagonism is horrible, it is just the expression of ignorance of ideologies.
1
-
@Humanity Galatica
There is a racist background in the nationalism of the fascism, because race is the stronger bind , and source of exclusion of non member of the nation, for nationalist point of view. But the general organization was less focused on racism than with nazism. Among fascists movements racism is a common trend.
Fascists are against workers rights. Workers rights is a left wing thing, and they hate left wing.
They have removed any possibility of autonomy to workers, they could not make unions or strike.
Fascism economy protect economic inequality and privileges of the owners of the capital. For protecting capitalist profit fascists lower the wage.
Fascists were allied with economic elites, and their members were more owners than workers. Fascism ( in Italy and elsewhere , like in Germany ) was seen as a shield against a socialist or communist evolution by the economic elites.
There was some privatizations under fascism.
Fascist propaganda about education, is stupid and worthless. Try better if you don't want look stupid.
Saying blatant false claim about fascism and autonomy of worker make you a joker.
If i want know thing about fascism i read documents , and this documents say always the opposite of what you say.
Your false claims can't explain the hate of socialism and communism by Marxism, if fascism is what you claim.
You don't understand fascism and socialism, this is the sad reality. Nothing of what you said is accurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1