A very smart man discusses Conservative Fan Fiction topics

@BigAssLeech
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njBeX_2OFHE]

@jackson55
Guess it was too hard to stay on toppic.

@MethDozer I've listened to it. It's "yes and no" for me.

He starts up with entire part of Ayn Rand. Which takes up almost 25 minutes. What I don't get is that he then suddenly mixes something in, that I think overshadows Ayn Rands' important. Which takes a lot less time. At minute 36, that guy that takes over and talks about the 3 columns inside the current conservative movement that ban together in one party that carries out "conservatism" is actually way more important if you want to understand the republican party.

Altough I'm not the biggest fan of his book, Right Wing Poppulism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet argues the same thing more or less. And Berlet fleshes out all these movements and their background in short paragraphs. My issue with that book, is that some of his claims aren't referenced and you just can't find annything about it if you start looking it up. But the broad idea that he paints, is something that political scientists in the US also argue. And his book does contain a foundation on which you can start building a fact based narrative that can explain current day affairs. But if you want to read it, watch out for some of the anekdotes that seem to give flavour to his book.

These 3 big streams of thought which the video here describes as:

* Neo-Con
* Soc-Con
* Libertarian [i](classical liberal)[/i]

they excisted for a long time. If you go look up Neo-Cons, you can go back to people like Leo Strauss that have been influencing a segment of American thought since the early 1940s. And he was heavily influenced by Carl Schmitt. And Schmitt and Strauss later became relevant in China. This "we" (friend) vs "them" (enemey) idea is deeply rooted in this kind of thinking, since it's perceived as the concept of the political.

Soc-Cons have been put on their high horse with any theme that challenges this judeo-christian value idea that they believe should rule society. From feminism too transsexuals. Anything that their dogmatic worldview sees as a moral wrong because "God", had lead to anger in these circles. I think it's honestly the most demented branch and this group is one of the dominant voices in the republican party since the rise of the teaparty movement. It's theocratic and delusional.

Libertarians have also always been there, because these are just the classical liberals that lost the argument after the Wall Street Crash. In a moment of need, American politics was just able to change the dominant idea on how the economy should work. And because of that this verry capitalistic narrative went away for a bit in favor of building a broad middle class by redistibution.


Ayn Randt is a more extreme form of Classical Liberalism. On the social level, she is very liberal, hence what is said in the video about sexual relationships. It's just the individual making choices so fuck with whom you want, it's none of annyone elses business. On the neo-con perspective, she doesn't really believe in tribes. As said in the video, tribes are nothing but groups of individuals. When a group of individuals (like the soviet union) all believe something that threatens her individuality, then she probably sides with them. But she'll never be a "we" vs "them" thinker. For her, it's more "I" vs "lots of individual thems".

What she did provide, is a utopian vision that all 3 streams could back behind when it comes to organising the economy. The most bizar connection is the Soc-Cons, because actual social conservatism before the 2nd world war, wasn't really that high up on capitalism. In Europe, a lot of these kinds of movements still aren't that big on capitalism. But I think your video makes a good point about having a socialist enemy and thus wanting to be an enemy of purity that just revolts against annything that the enemy represents. Soc-Cons can only admire Randt if they throw out half of her ideas. Just like they only like Thomas Payne, because they cherrypick stuff that they like. If they would read Payne or Randt in their entirety, they would just throw them out as being a bunch of leftist atheists.

And I also think Randt shaped a segment of American thought. But if you really want to understand the republican party today, it's way more intresting to look at the internal struggle of these 3 columns. Because at the moment, the soc-cons are pretty much trying to push the libertarians (probably the least conservative branch) outside the nest. And I think that three other big things are underplayed here. The first one is religion, which is extremely important in a huge faction that votes republican today. And another is Americans' history. Mainly how America dealt with the aftermath of the American revolutions, because a lot of that anger and frustration and revanchism that excisted then is still rippling in American politics today. And the last one is American Exceptionalism... which is delusional and creates people that are just crippled and can't deal with reality. Apperently he made a long movie on that one too... maybe I'll listen to it later.

@Kwek00 The neo-cons are mostly all in the democrat party and have been for awhile. George W. Bush was the last GOP neo-con and the Dems lost to Trump putting a neo-con against him.
What you are saying about social.comservates is essentially what he got at in the video.

Ayn Randian libertarians are not the same as classical liberals and that's were the video hits first for me in that he makes acknowledgement of that fact that Objectivism and classical liberalism aren't the same. Even Rand herself stressed that.

@Kwek00 Actually not much of what you're saying goes against the video. You're pretty much saying the same thing he did.