Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Nilsi]

23 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   Postmodernism is the future. It's in the word mate, post. Post, as in one step forward. Just like Ken Wilbur's pre rational, rational, and post-rational stages. Post.

What logic is that? So, by extension, is the post-World War II era yet to come because "post" always implies the future? Lolz. Postmodernism is simply what came after modernity.

The central myth of modernity, that of the Enlightenment (the progressive liberation of mankind through scientific discovery), has been disintegrating for a good while now. The first theorists to truly grasp this were Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in their classic "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (a topic for another day), published in 1944 and obviously conceived only after modernity had already started to fall apart (i.e. after postmodernity had already begun to emerge).

Edited March 30 by Nilsi

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Yes, my point is that capitalism can take over any spiral stage and becomes even more pernicious the higher up the spiral it moves.

Absolutely not.

Perniciousness as a function is inversely related with spiral development. Especially the unhealthier versions of each spiral stage.

Most of the things you were talking about in your previous post are great examples of toxic late-stage Orange capitalism. Green liberalism IS the solution to those problems. That's exactly why it's being selected for. Not because it's more "pernicious", but because it's less pernicious. 

The capitalism we will have in the future will look like rainbows and butterflies compared to today's capitalism.

 

Pedantic side point: I would not refer to anything system prior to the Renaissance as "capitalism". Capitalism is really its own thing, as defined by modern inventions such as private property, property rights, markets, wages, etc. You could say there existed primitive forms of exchange in the form of gift economies, barter, feudalism etc but I would not say "capitalism". I think that just unnecessarily confuses the conversation.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

What logic is that? So, by extension, is the post-World War II era yet to come because "post" always implies the future? Lolz. Postmodernism is simply what came after modernity.

The central myth of modernity, that of the Enlightenment (the progressive liberation of mankind through scientific discovery), has been disintegrating for a good while now. The first theorists to truly grasp this were Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in their classic "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (a topic for another day), published in 1944 and obviously conceived only after modernity had already started to fall apart (i.e. after postmodernity had already begun to emerge).

   Here's what post modernism is:

   So according you this postmodernism has taken over the west for 100s of years? And is presumably ruining modernity? And you scared of this arbitrary thing?

   The central myth of Modernity of western Enlightenment, liberation of mankind through scientific discovery, has been declining?  

[Bobby_2021]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Colonial slavery, for example, was conservative.

Slavery was justified in the name of bringing civilization to savages.

The liberals of the day were the powerful slave owners. They were the ones who set out to the sails the seas to find and enslave new tribes. 

Leo is using the standards of today to judge people of the past and attributing all the shit they did to conservatives. But in reality those powerful people who did all the slavery were liberals of the time. That's conveniently ignored. Conservatives of the were the broke slaves who did all the labour. 

Even today, the liberal world is the direct beneficiary of third world exploitation and slavery. The liberal world view can be sustained only in abundance, which can be facilitated only by stealing from the productivity of the slave labour.

Back then, the most forward thinking people had to be slave owners for a reason. That's the only way they could free up their mind to think liberally. 

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Conservative is the clinging to the past, to stick to traditional ways because your mind is closed to new ways. It makes no difference what those ways are.

In what sense did any of the things that hitler did was "clinging to the past". He was a bleeding edge liberal it seems. Because he envisioned a utopia that no one before has thought of before. He orchestrated radical changes in society which conservatives argue against. Conservative position is to maintain the status quo. What hitler did was to radically alter the fabric of society itself. 

Going by the simply definition of

change = liberal.

Clinging to status quo/past = conservative. 

Hiter tried to orchestrate massive changes to society. That that saw the end of him. 

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Many of the people there are genuinely very liberal.

The question is if they can sustain their liberalist world view without third world exploitation? 

And also can you mention the green aspects that apple has outside of their technical innovation, which is essentially the work of an orange cold capitalist.

Their green outlook is all talk and virtue signalling. Even in the US they are playing crony capitalist style monopolistic games. Just because they have a gay ceo is enough for them to become progressive? 

Apple could choose to set up their factories within US soil and be as liberal as they want. But they didn't choose to do it.

Like Andrew Tate, they set up their manufacturing in third world countries with loose human rights laws where you can work those people to death. And many people have killed themselves by working in these factories. 

Edited March 31 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Green liberalism IS the solution to those problems.

Except that there is no solution.

Definitely not a solution that Green liberals can bring.

You simply say green woowo bs will solve everything, but doesn't give any exact path that explains how it will solve these problems. Green is not an action oriented ideology at all. Unlike the capitalists. 

If there is any solution at all, that is coming from capitalists who make capital to do the work. The only solution to stop modern day slavery is more capitalism. It is to build capital that does the slave labour for you so that people will not be exploited. 

Green liberals are not doing the work for that for sure. They are the ones standing in the way when it comes to building capital. For ex in Nuclear energy. 

----------

Liberalism is a constant failure when it comes to policy decisions for a reason. You simply cannot orchestrate massive changes to any large and complex system.

You have to be conservative and gentle or else the backlash from the system will be too harsh and the price will be too large. Liberalism almost never works in big systems. At the individual level, it is somewhat okay, given that you are a direct beneficiary of exploitation, or even the individual itself becomes a complex system too sensitive to changes, rendering liberalism a waste. 

Edited March 31 by Bobby_2021

[Danioover9000]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Your conception of conservative is too narrow. You're using some narrow notion of it from political science, whereas being conservative is a deeper structure of the mind independent of political science.

Colonial slavery, for example, was conservative. Even though today's conservatives reject slavery. That's only because today's conservatives are massive liberals.

You guys are just fundamentally not understanding the relativity of these categories. You're not seeing the bigger picture of how all these things are interconnected.

Conservative is not any set of positions. Conservative is the clinging to the past, to stick to traditional ways because your mind is closed to new ways. It makes no difference what those ways are.

A conservative would pierce a bone through his dick just because that's what this daddy and grand-daddy did.

   Dully noted.

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura  Jordan Peterson describes nazis also as conservative and it makes sense

 

I watched your video, there you describe conservativves more driven by fear but Jordan Peterson says it's not fear it's disgust. And that makes even more sense.

Because Nazis were not fearful people 

Edited March 31 by OBEler

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The question is if they can sustain their liberalist world view without third world exploitation? 

To a degree. 3rd world exploitation is unlikely to go away entirely at this point because the development of society as a whole is still far too low. Not enough of the world has gotten to Green, yet alone Tier 2 on the spiral.

3rd world exploitation is a complex systemic problem mostly of toxic late state capitalism. You could have capitalism that is far less toxic if people were more developed.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And also can you mention the green aspects that apple has outside of their technical innovation, which is essentially the work of an orange cold capitalist.

Their green outlook is all talk and virtue signalling. Even in the US they are playing crony capitalist style monopolistic games. Just because they have a gay ceo is enough for them to become progressive? 

Actually, a gay CEO of one of the biggest tech companies in the world is a huge deal. See any gay CEOs in Saudi Arabia? No, because they are not anywhere near Green yet. 

The fact that you don't see this as a huge deal is a testament to the progress we've made as a society for LGBT people. Not long ago people would have lost their minds if Tim Cook came out.

The fundamental problem here is that you've already decided that all Green must be virtue signaling. You can go to Apple's website and see their values. They have a whole section on Diversity, Environmental Concerns, Supplier Responsibility, etc. These are Green memes. But are you likely to accept any of that? No, because you are overly cynical about Green. You think none of this can be genuine. 

Drop your cynicism about Green and everything will make sense.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Except that there is no solution.

Definitely not a solution that Green liberals can bring.

Of course there is. Just like Orange was the solution to the problems of Blue, Blue was the solution to the problems of Red, and Red was the solution to the problems of Purple, Green will be the solution to the problems of Orange.

Society is progressing very nicely. Just give it time.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If there is any solution at all, that is coming from capitalists who make capital to do the work. The only solution to stop modern day slavery is more capitalism. It is to build capital that does the slave labour for you so that people will not be exploited.

Green and capitalism are not exclusive. Many Greens still believe in capitalism. I personally don't see capitalism going anywhere any time soon. But it will change. It will become more Green-like.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Liberalism is a constant failure when it comes to policy decisions for a reason. You simply cannot orchestrate massive changes to any large and complex system.

You have to be conservative and gentle or else the backlash from the system will be too harsh and the price will be too large. Liberalism almost never works in big systems. At the individual level, it is somewhat okay, given that you are a direct beneficiary of exploitation, or even the individual itself becomes a complex system too sensitive to changes, rendering liberalism a waste. 

Again, you over-index on the worst aspects of liberalism. 

Many liberals have reasonable policy positions which do not call for massive change. Intelligent progressive thinking exists. 

In fact, Green is closest to the Tier 2, systems thinking you are describing. You will see lots of systems thinking coming online in Green circles. And that's because Green comes right before Yellow on the Spiral.

Your perspective is not balanced. That's your entire error.

 

Edited March 31 by aurum

[Bobby_2021]

27 minutes ago, aurum said:

You could have capitalism that is far less toxic if people were more developed.

By low development of people, you mean the apple executives including the CEO. Am I right?

There is nothing stopping them opening manufacturing plant in the US or paying better salaries for the plants they open in third world countries. But they exploits people and convince liberals by gay ceo.

This is their playbook. This is like bombing people on a plane while the pilot is LGBTQ so all is fine. It too east to have someone as a gay ceo. It's doesn't take too much work. Anyone can put up a website and write things that pander to liberals. 

37 minutes ago, aurum said:

Of course there is. Just like Orange was the solution to the problems of Blue, Blue was the solution to the problems of Red, and Red was the solution to the problems of Purple, Green will be the solution to the problems of Orange.

Society is progressing very nicely. Just give it time

Just give the solution already.

What is the green solution? Green is not the solution to the problems of the last stage.

Rather, the last stage runs to completion and as a consequence, you move to the next stage. You cannot solve orange problem by pushing for green. 

That's not how that works. 

29 minutes ago, aurum said:

Green and capitalism are not exclusive. Many Greens still believe in capitalism.

This is something I agree. But that doesn't fit into the traditional notion of liberalism.

Do you think that Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is a liberal? They advocate for massive changes in society and work towards it. But they wouldn't be considered as liberal today, atleast not politically.

If you can agree that Elon Musk is a liberal, then I can agree with everything you said. 

There is a huge challenge in assessing who is a liberal and who is a conservative.

I don't believe that you can exploit people to death, appoint some gay or women to be the CEO and claim to be progressive. I am not being cynical of green. I am against exploiting people and whitewashing it all as progressive green stuff. 

43 minutes ago, aurum said:

Many liberals have reasonable policy positions which do not call for massive change

Aka conservatism, going by their actions. Yellow is all about embodying conservatism and applying it to systems. It's about making the tiniest changes that it doesn't even record as a change. Much like evolution. 

This is the only right way to deal with giant complicated system. 

This is also where I fundamentally disagree that right is inherently lower than the left.

Because the left can be just as dangerous when they come up with whacky ideas and burn everything down to ground, thereby undoing years of progress in the process. 

For ex: Unchecked immigration. 

48 minutes ago, aurum said:

And that's because Green comes right before Yellow on the Spiral.

That spiral is just a vague model that someone came up with. EDT is much better in my opinion.

SD allows room for too much misinterpretation and flexibility. Reality doesn't strictly adhere to SD model.

True liberal thinking, must have some impact on society if it has to be relevant. And that doesn't have in liberal circles, but in corporate and economic world.

A true liberal wouldn't even fit well within these places because it would be too limiting for them. 

[Novac08]

Many American neocons began as left-wing socialists, just as Mussolini did. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. There were voters who supported Sanders and then switched to Trump. There are more dimensions here than just left and right. 

Mussolini - "We Fascists have had the courage to discard all traditional political theories, and we are aristocrats and democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists. It is sufficient to have a single fixed point: the nation. The rest is obvious."

Look at Italian Futurism, a fascist aesthetic, and you won't see homage to the past. Fascism attracted revolutionary mindsets in a way that pulled in some from the left. 

I think @OBEler makes valid points.

[Bobby_2021]

@Novac08 Do you think they(Hitler) appealed to conservative folks merely as a technique to garner support for their revolutionary/progressive world view? 

Nothing hitler did is what a conservative should do, since a leader is by definition a visionary. A liberal with a forward thinking plan for himself and his people. 

[Novac08]

@Bobby_2021 Political thought cannot be confined to a single continuum. Socialism/capitalism, progressive/tradition, libertarian/centralization, people craft unique identities as they navigate these and other axes.

Hitler had a powerful message that resonated with a defeated population.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

In what sense did any of the things that hitler did was "clinging to the past".

In the same way MAGA is fundamentally about clinging to the past.

Nazis and Fascists cling to the past.

I already explained that multiple times in this thread. You are looking at superficial things about Nazis. Just because they are radical does not make them liberal.

Not everything bad is attributable to conservatives. Liberalism at the wrong time, in the wrong way, leads to many problems. Such as for example if we defunded the police or allowed unrestricted access to hard drugs.

I read a story recently which said that Oregon state has created a disaster by legalizing hard drugs. The number of addicts skyrocketed and now their have to reverse course. This is liberalism gone wrong.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

chatgpt4 describes it perfectly:The Nazi regime, led by Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945, had a complex relationship with the past. Their ideology was a mix of revolutionary and reactionary elements, drawing heavily on a romanticized version of German history that they believed justified their ambitions and beliefs.

1. **Revival of Past Glory**: Nazis aimed to revive and glorify what they saw as a pure and powerful German past. They sought to restore Germany to a mythologized greatness that they associated with the medieval Holy Roman Empire and the Teutonic Knights. This involved a selective interpretation of history that emphasized military might, racial purity, and national unity.

2. **Traditional Values and Modernity**: While the Nazis promoted certain traditional values and aesthetics, such as a return to rural living and classical art forms, they were also deeply modern in their embrace of technology and propaganda. They utilized the latest technology in communications, warfare, and surveillance to consolidate their power and pursue their agenda of expansion and racial cleansing.

3. **Anti-Modernism**: At the same time, the Nazis were deeply anti-modern in their rejection of many aspects of Enlightenment thought, including democracy, liberalism, and communism. They saw these as degenerative influences on society and sought to replace them with a totalitarian state that exerted complete control over all aspects of life, guided by the principles of National Socialism.

4. **Cultural Purging**: Their cling to a certain vision of the past also led to the rejection and destruction of what they considered "degenerate" art, literature, and music, which included modernist movements and works by Jewish artists and intellectuals. This was part of a broader effort to purify German culture and return it to what they believed was its authentic roots.

5. **Mythology and Symbolism**: The Nazis heavily relied on Germanic and Norse mythology, symbols, and rituals in their propaganda and state ceremonies, attempting to root their regime in a mythologized and idealized Germanic past. This included the use of symbols like the swastika, which they appropriated as a symbol of Aryan identity and German nationalist pride.

In summary, the Nazis' relationship with the past was characterized by a selective appropriation of history and culture that served their ideological goals and narrative of racial superiority. While they idealized certain aspects of the past and sought to revive them, they simultaneously embraced modern techniques and technologies to achieve their aims, showing a complex interplay between traditionalism and modernism.

 

@Leo Guradif you saw the Jordan Peterson video I linked? Disgust was the driven force for the Nazis not fear.

Quote

 

 

Edited March 31 by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Disgust was the driven force for the Nazis not fear.

Disgust is one aspect of it, sure. But all conservatives are also driven by fear. It's both.

Just look at JP himself. He is visibly driven by fear and also disgust.

There's also hate. Ultra conservatives tend to be hateful people.

Transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, hate speech, racism, violence... these are all hallmarks of the far right.

In the end it all boils down to selfish, biased, conformist, unconscious behavior. A lack of empathy and universal love.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   Here's what post modernism is:

   So according you this postmodernism has taken over the west for 100s of years? And is presumably ruining modernity? And you scared of this arbitrary thing?

   The central myth of Modernity of western Enlightenment, liberation of mankind through scientific discovery, has been declining?  

Wow, what a load of crap.

Postmodernism is not merely an „aesthetic and philosophical movement;“ it is the state of the world we’ve been living in, I claim, for over 100 years. This would be like saying „classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting with the Renaissance,“ when actually it is a reference, a gesture to classical antiquity, which did ACTUALLY happen. People try to pretend like postmodernism isn’t an actual thing, which is insane to me.

Some of the core tenets of postmodernism are:

• Blurring of the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary; this already started with characters like Edward Bernays (early 20th century), the father of public relations.
• The death of the meta-narrative; this is Nietzsche's infamous proclamation about the death of God (in the late 19th century).
• Fragmentation and decentering of meaning; you can start seeing this happen in art with Pablo Picasso and cubism (early 20th century).
• Irony, parody, and pastiche; James Joyce’s 'Ulysses' (1922) creates an ironic conglomerate of various writing styles and historical periods that makes it obvious that we have arrived at the end of linear history already.

Besides that, I have already characterized postmodern capitalism in a previous post. We could also analyze this psychologically through things like mental illnesses and such, but that’s not my forte, and I don’t think it’s necessary to drive the point home.

Your move is the equivalent of quoting some random Christian YouTuber in a debate about God. If that’s your epistemic standard, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Wow, what a load of crap.

Postmodernism is not merely an „aesthetic and philosophical movement;“ it is the state of the world we’ve been living in, I claim, for over 100 years. This would be like saying „classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting with the Renaissance,“ when actually it is a reference, a gesture to classical antiquity, which did ACTUALLY happen. People try to pretend like postmodernism isn’t an actual thing, which is insane to me.

Some of the core tenets of postmodernism are:

• Blurring of the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary; this already started with characters like Edward Bernays (early 20th century), the father of public relations.
• The death of the meta-narrative; this is Nietzsche's infamous proclamation about the death of God (in the late 19th century).
• Fragmentation and decentering of meaning; you can start seeing this happen in art with Pablo Picasso and cubism (early 20th century).
• Irony, parody, and pastiche; James Joyce’s 'Ulysses' (1922) creates an ironic conglomerate of various writing styles and historical periods that makes it obvious that we have arrived at the end of linear history already.

Besides that, I have already characterized postmodern capitalism in a previous post. We could also analyze this psychologically through things like mental illnesses and such, but that’s not my forte, and I don’t think it’s necessary to drive the point home.

Your move is the equivalent of quoting some random Christian YouTuber in a debate about God. If that’s your epistemic standard, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.

Notice that the example I provided are just symptoms of an underlying sociocultural reality; they are not in themselves what is meant by postmodernism.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In the same way MAGA is fundamentally about clinging to the past.

Nazis and Fascists cling to the past.

I already explained that multiple times in this thread. You are looking at superficial things about Nazis. Just because they are radical does not make them liberal

I was talking about his *actions*.

The things he did do not speak anything to say he clung to the past. That's many things but that isn't characteristic of conservatism. You cannot deny that. 

It isn't a typical liberal either. It's just a version of radical liberalism. He was exercising his freedom to the max, the freedom to kill and eliminate all the un-aaryan race from the gene pool. 

Freedom at the cost of exploitation of others is not a foreign concept to liberalism. It doesn't fit the definition of liberalism, but that's what happens in reality. It's the liberals of the time that championed colonialism and progressive slave ownership. 

On a similar note:

Do you think Trump clings to the past glory of America like he says?

No. He will say whatever makes a the average normie conservative republicans wet. Just like Andrew Tate pays lip service to conservative ideology. They don't believe what they say and hence they are not true conservatives. Their audience are conservatives. 

Trump isn't a typical conservative. He leads the most degenerative life that's not reflective of conservatism, and simply coopted the conservative ideology as a means of power grab. In fact he was a former liberal democrat. 

If Stalin is a ruthless dictator who used progressive ideology to garner power for himself, it's not hard to think that Hitler, Trump, Tate are all people who lead lives that were not conservative, but tyrants who coopted and payed lip service to conservative ideology.

How do I know that these right wing tyrants are not conservative? Because of their actions. 

Edited March 31 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

@Leo Gura Simply put, hitler was a hurt man who wanted to get revenge and used whatever ideology he found on his way to achieve what he ought to get.

It's doesn't make him an example of conservatism or liberalism, going by his actions.

Liberalism isn't merely a characteristic that happens to only the upper portion of the spiral. Liberalism maxed out becomes anarchy and war and lawlessness, which is abundant lower down the spiral. 

[OBEler]

25 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@Leo Gura Simply put, hitler was a hurt man who wanted to get revenge and used whatever ideology he found on his way to achieve what he ought to get.

It's doesn't make him an example of conservatism or liberalism, going by his actions.

Liberalism isn't merely a characteristic that happens to only the upper portion of the spiral. Liberalism maxed out becomes anarchy and war and lawlessness, which is abundant lower down the spiral. 

@Bobby_2021 I disagree with you.Hitler was not so simple, his motivations were much deeper than that. There is a autobiography of his friend in his youth. There Hitler already had plans to how improve Germany. In. His youth he had no antisemitic thoughts but he already saw himsellf as the leader of germany one day. That was before the word war 1 was starting.

I recognize many people want to make Hitler look evil/primitive and put their projections on him. If you look closer that doesn't work. You can even say he had some yellow parts in him. He had systemic thinking for sure