If you've ever wanted to really know, he does a good job explaining it.
Btw, I showed this to a friend who is a self described nihilist. He explained that this specific progressive view is for the most part the philosophy of Nihilism and the average left doesn't even know it.
They think?
No, true liberals seek out causality and correct it with little regard to "traditional" outlooks.
Neo-cons have a perverted outlook that is, in effect, a terrible form of what communism leads to. *corporate welfare and economic cronyism, rigid authoritarianism, leadership Darwinism*
True conservatives just have outmoded outlooks that do not jive with scientific progress. eg: Once baby boomers are gone, social progress can continue to evolve.
if you see heritage.org the KKK is not far behind the curtain. (Imagine a neo-nazi's PR... "I used to be a jew until I found out jews are evil and hate america, like everyone else who is not christian"... when the reality is "I am a hateful and intolerant fascist trying to force my "way" onto everyone. Also I'm not smart enough to realize that if I "win" and turn American into a police state, I'll still have some new outlook to spew bile about, continuing the same irrational behavior)
Pretty much what you see in Saudi Arabia is what you'll see if neo-cons run the place, except replace religion type.
That's flat out nuts, L-O. Simply crazy talk.
Lord-Orion, "corporate welfare and economic cronyism, rigid authoritarianism, leadership Darwinism" is created from planned economics not free market economics. You're confusing fascism with either communism or capitalism. Communism is also planned economics. If you want to know more I suggest reading (award winning economist) Milton Freeman's book The Road to Serfdom. Go make a trip over to the library when you have time. I highly recommend it.
Interesting. What exactly is this social progressing into? Progress has been buzzed up into an almost useless word because too many liberals don't consciously know what the end itself is. They are progressing forward, blind, they just don't know what it is exactly.
The video above explained the end goal, namely a nihilistic vision of nothing by tearing down all standards. Pure science requires ethics too. Because without them, you end with cases like the climategate scandal where data is cleverly altered to fit the special interest. They call that the end justifies the means. That is just one of the consequences.
Let me explain the confusion over the political spectrum.
Liberals and Neoconservatives share many close ideologues. For example, Liberals take extraordinarily strong stances on hate speech. Neoconservatives take strong stances on vocal forms of sedition. The two sides end up at the same destination namely the end of our right to free speech but they take different roads to get there. Together they do more damage than if they were alone. Neoconservatives believe in close union between the concentrated private sector and all state policy through Keynesian planned economics, that is called fascism. Liberals on the other hand believe in socialism all the way to communism, another form of planned economics. Libertarians and Conservatives believe in free market capitalism, generally speaking.
I enjoyed this video, thank you for posting it.
The incessant use of terms he has no clue about is a dead give away. Someone told him that a word was a pejorative, so he uses it without understanding what he is talking about.
Gibberish comes to mind as an alternative description.
I suspect he's trying to discourage others from watching it. Honestly I didn't expect a response like that. Not one of his statements about the video is true.
Glad to be of service. Pass it around.
It is not surprising to see you same chuckleheads sucking back the poison kool-aid.It is also funny that you allude I am using the word "neo-con" as a pejorative after the insane rantings of this guy on how a Liberal thinks. Or perhaps you are all offended because you self-identify as neo-conservative? (which would hardly be surprising)To be clear, the context of "what a neo-con is" changes dynamically as economic outlooks change, but at the root of it.1) Views fit into 2 categories, good or evil2) Low tolerance for the use of diplomacy3) Tolerance for the use of forceUsing the inaccurate left/right political axis, it is easy to put neo-cons in various positions to defend various view points.If you add an up/down Authoritarian / Libertarian axis (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) it becomes much easier to pinpoint where neo-cons reside.They will always score very high on totalitarian traits using this method, but left/right economic scores will vary depending on what tradition dictates as acceptable thinking on economics. When I say neo-conservatives "have a perverted outlook that is, in effect, a terrible form of what communism leads to" you now have some context. Both will score very high on the authoritarian axis, and will slide along the left and right axis irrationally depending on what economic dilemna they are trying to rationalize. The economic score they end up with on politicalcompass will not be because of consistency, but instead will be the average tally of all the extreme variations of their current economic outlooks. It's no coincidence that US neo-conservatism was born out of disdain for the soviet union, the only real difference between the two is traditional values on current economic thinking. Just look back a few decades to what extremely authoritarian, US, neo-conservatists would tolerate in economics. They certainly don't tolerate these things anymore. The neo-cons now call these things "Socialism" with a capital S.If we're going to be exchanging book notes you might look at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ to look at the traits of a modern "right wing authoritarian" personality. It's a free e-book, no need to go to the library,
Also, I would have no reason to try and make anyone avoid watching this video. Sane people would turn it off within 5 minutes.
LORD-ORION: It never ceases to amaze me when one side of an argument feels enlightened enough to explain in detail the thought process of the opposition. And since they set the prerequisites they already have all the enlightened responses all mapped out too. Speeches are meaningless because of this unless they are spontaneous and unfiltered, this was not the case here. Personally I have no use whatsoever for any extreme dogmatic group regardless of affiliation because they are beyond reason. Historically both parties have had their majorities and have proven over and over again that they are unfit to lead even the boy scouts. I suffered the whole video just so I could say I had, but 5 minutes should be enough to click 'next'.
It never ceases to amaze me how much of their supposed knowledge is really just talking points with no substance either.
Let me get this straight. You are addressing to LORD_ORION, how amazed you are how one side of argument feels enlightened enough to explain in detail the thought process of the opposition, RIGHT AFTER he promotes the ebook, that his side of the argument feels enlightened enough to explain in detail the thought process of the opposition. Is that correct?
L-O she's insulting both of us.
Okay you know what GFT, I'm just going to pretend now that you didn't click on his link. Yes that has to be it.
See below:
Rogue, if you have a question for me, how about addressing it to me then. If you want to be argumentative go find someone else to argue with. I believe L O is capable of speaking for himself if he wants to play this game, and I likewise (ditto).
PS – I think there is a world of difference between the thinking process (your post) and what the miscreants do and say in the real world.
I don't see it as an insult to me because my conscious is clean. I've done my diligence, which is;The study was done by an American (who happens to be tenured in Manitoba, Canada) used at the request of real conservative party leaders to identify how the party is being subverted by real fascists. It contains real science, and is not pro for any side. (though it is brutally honest)
What it shows is a trait in the conservative supporter base that is being exploited by a specific antisocial personality disorder type that has nearly destroyed the country in one generation.
This trait is portrayed as both a strength and a weakness. (though I suppose if you are conservative you'd probably only focus on the weakness part and get angry and stop reading)
I have no problems with conservatives except for their casual disregard of science (which is more of an eye roll thing)
I have VERY strong problems with neo-cons. (or anyone else who scores high on authoritarian issues and social dominance issues). So when I see crap like was shown in the video, I speak up.
And you think libs like Bloomberg & Obama are not authoritarian, or don't pursue 'social dominance'?
As individual citizens, we'd be far better off were it not for so-called 'progressives' and 'compassionate conservatives'. A pox on all of them. MO, YMMV.
It is also a bit of an oversimplification, as in huge, to contend conservatism requires/equals 'casual disregard for science' - talk about 'eye roll'.
I have problems with anyone who thinks we've had anyone decent running this country within the past 30 years.
I have no problems with people who believe that, but I have big problems with the belief. So I half agree with you.
It's good to find some common ground.
I would modify your statement for myself to say "between thinking process AND what they say" versus what they do. But of course since most always say what they think, it may be redundant.
And I have no use for either party.
I got about two minutes in and couldn't watch anymore. Just another propaganda piece about how the right loves America and the left hates it. Many on the right blamed America for 9/11 including Pat Robertson. It got so crazy for awhile that in the 2004 campaign the guy who avoided Vietnam was the true patriot while the guy who won the awards in Vietnam somehow was the most powerful LT JG in the history of the Navy, able to strongarm the Pentagon and his chain of command into giving him an award he didn't deserve. Guys like Saxby Chambliss was somehow a true hero despite his deferrments for Vietnam while someone like Max Cleland who won multiple awards and was wounded in Vietnam was again unpatriotic. The pattern is being repeated still with religion. I have yet to see how Jesus would be a Republican. He was pro tax, anti rich, taught us to love our neighbors and not judge them (there were no exceptions for if your neighbor was homosexual). I think the current batch of progressive Christians comes much closer to the views Jesus would espouse.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
