The Nature of the Conservative Mind-Set

Nov 4, 2010
29
0
#1
[FONT=&quot]:) If the religious right?s ole almighty Jehovah was a Trekkie and was remaking the world in the image of the Star Trek universe I think that he would most certainly cast the souls of conservatives as Klingons. At least he would if he were casting on the basis of people?s politics and general attitudes, the attitudes of conservatives really do make them naturals for the role of Klingons.The hard-boiled kernel of conservatism is after all a Klingon-like mentality that values strength and dominance.

[FONT=&quot] This does explain much about conservatism and its adherents. For example, it explains why so many macho types tend to hold conservative views and vote for right-wing Republicans. Well, have you ever wondered why it is that macho men (and women) are more likely to be conservatives than liberals? Could there perhaps be a causal correlation staring us in the face? Could it possibly be that conservative, rightist views come from a macho place in the human psyche, and that conservatism is largely just an ideological outgrowth from this primitively he-manly recess of our minds?

[FONT=&quot] The dominance-oriented nature of the conservative mind-set also explains why the gamut of conservatism ranges from fascism on its lunatic fringe to the free-market fundamentalism of mainstream Republicans. The will to social dominance can express itself as the fascist?s desire to establish his authoritarian domination over his society, to impose his agenda and ideology by force of law and government. Or, conversely, our inner caveman can aspire to social dominance through economic success, through being a successful capitalist.

[FONT=&quot] Our inner caveman can use the club and the power of the state, like a good fascist. Or, he can view the laissez-faire capitalist system as the ideal playing field for him to seek the privileged and superior socio-economic status he craves. Well, the so-called ?free market? in its most ideologically pure form would be a law-of-the-jungle sort of environment where a dominance-oriented specimen would feel right at home clawing out his own economic mastery over his fellow man. So, surprise surprise, many conservatives are staunch free-marketeers rather than full-out fascists.

[FONT=&quot] The Klingon-like psychology behind conservative ideology also explains the conservative?s position on issues such as capital punishment. Naturally the tendency of a macho mentality is going to be to respond to violent crime with swiftly violent and lethal punishment. Having mercy and compassion on the enemy in society?s ?war on crime? is merely showing weakness and practicing namby-pamby liberalism as far as the tough-minded adherents of conservatism are concerned. Their whole holier-than-thou Christian pro-life stance gets facilely shunted aside when it comes to the bullyboy way they wage war.

[FONT=&quot] Which explains how it is that it?s usually conservatives (or macho adolescent males) that can be heard pontificating about how we should fight our wars brutally all-out and bomb the enemy into the Stone Age. Conservatives tend to be ?pro-defense? and hawks because that Stone-Age warmonger tucked away in the back of their brains isn?t that keen on seeking more civilized resolutions for the world?s conflicts and problems. All the pragmatic or philosophical rationales that conservatives give when they?re taking us into war boil down to the brutish thinking of Attila the Hun.

[FONT=&quot] As for the militaristic patriotism of conservatives, it?s merely the aggressively tribalistic, us-them outlook of our primitive ancestors hanging on in a modern form. That is, superpatriots usually tend to be conservatives because their in-your-face nationalism is just the will to group supremacy dressed up with the rubbishy rhetoric of keeping the world safe for democracy and defending the rule of law.

[FONT=&quot] What about the conservative?s ?traditional values? and positions on moral issues? Here too we find the insensitivity of the macho mentality causing conservatives to gravitate toward unkind opinions and policies. Toward cruelly denying gays the right to codify their love by getting legally married. Toward repealing the right of women to control their own bodies when they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Toward forcing their fundamentalist religiosity on the rest of society by posting the Ten Commandments in public places, regardless of how this makes non-Christians feel hurtfully disincluded.

[FONT=&quot] The conservative is unconsciously motivated to adopt his judgmental and domineering positions on social issues by the feeling of moral superiority those positions grant him, and by the sense of social power imposing them on society allows him to enjoy. Once again, it?s the dominance-oriented mentality?s desire for superiority and control that determines the ?values?, beliefs, and politics of conservatives.

[FONT=&quot] The dominance-oriented mentality is also a fearful mentality, one that thinks in terms of threats and defending against them. People with a pronounced dominance-oriented mentality, such as dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, are always fearfully concerned about the threat of someone else trying to dominate them. The hostility of conservatives toward liberals is largely a manifestation of such fear.

[FONT=&quot] Conservatives genuinely fear that they?re in a ?culture war? for their freedom to read their Bible and practice wholesome morals, and that ?liberals? are the traitors within whom they imperatively need to defeat. Liberals, to the conservative mind, are the aggressors and are trying to force their ungodliness and immorality on the good old-fashioned, conservative-thinking folk of society. This accounts for the vehemence and violence of so much conservative rhetoric, and for the defensive indignation with which conservatives keep inciting and fueling the culture war.

[FONT=&quot] The upshot of this is that winning on issues such as abortion means much more to conservatives than saving the lives of fetuses, the abortion issue is a front on the culture war for the larger cultural and social domination of America civilization. If conservatives can abolish a woman?s right to choose that goes a long way toward consolidating their victory and establishing their hegemony. Having their way on abortion is kind of like the conservative?s equivalent of an alpha dog mounting and urinating on a lower ranking member of the pack to demonstrate his top status. This is why conservatives are so passionately invested in the abortion issue, the social dominance they covet is at stake. And the same holds true for same-sex marriage and a host of other supposedly moral issues.

[FONT=&quot] Sure, some conservatives are mild and relatively inoffensive about expressing their dominance-oriented view of the world, and on a personal level, if you steer their conversation away from political and cultural topics, they can be pleasant company. However, their fundamental mental modus operandi is hardly progressive, compassionate, or even all that life-affirming. And the political and economic clout that conservatives continue to exercise in our society is a serious obstacle to our ability to create a more humane, kind, and just way of life.

http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com
:)
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#2
[FONT=&quot] This does explain much about conservatism and its adherents. For example, it explains why so many macho types tend to hold conservative views and vote for right-wing Republicans. Well, have you ever wondered why it is that macho men (and women) are more likely to be conservatives than liberals?
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot] No. I haven't. Nor have I wondered why liberalism attracts the ionverse of macho men (and women).

[FONT=&quot]
The dominance-oriented nature of the conservative mind-set also explains why the gamut of conservatism ranges from fascism on its lunatic fringe to the free-market fundamentalism of mainstream Republicans.
Fascism is a creature of the left. Benito Mussolini was a socialist. He was anti-communist and fiercely nationalist - those properties distinguished him and the Germans from the internationalist socialists and communists. So were the National Socialists. Again, a creature of the left.

The will to social dominance can express itself as the fascist?s desire to establish his authoritarian domination over his society, to impose his agenda and ideology by force of law and government.
And the Democrats who passed a healthcare bill in the face of great public disapproval (and let's face it, plenty of begrudging and bribed approval within their own party) wouldn't impose their agenda on anyone.

This is what governments do. They pursue their political agenda. It is a truism and has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation.

Kinda got bored with the rest of that garbage so you get the truncated response.
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#3
I quite enjoyed that. It amused me. I wouldn't especially agree with it, speaking as a far-leftist. I wouldn't consider myself overtly feminine, yet I'm progressive, socially liberal, secular, anti-war and socialist.

Fascism and Nazism are far-right ideologies, it is ridiculous to suggest they were "socialists", when a brief comparison to left wing values blows the idea out of the water.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#4
How do you deal with the fact that in Germanmy the party called itself socialist?

How do deal with the fact that Mussolini was a socialist?

They are leftist ideologies. Leftists just like to use the term fascist to describe things they don't like... which is fair enough. Words change in meaning over time. However, national socialists were socialists and creatures of the left. The big distinction was the nationalist bit not the rest.
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#5
How do you deal with the fact that in Germanmy the party called itself socialist?
Oh! Really? They said so? Oh noez, it must be true! Just like North Korea is clearly a Democratic Republic - I see i'm all wrong, my argument has been thoroughly beaten!

How do deal with the fact that Mussolini was a socialist?

They are leftist ideologies. Leftists just like to use the term fascist to describe things they don't like... which is fair enough. Words change in meaning over time. However, national socialists were socialists and creatures of the left. The big distinction was the nationalist bit not the rest.
Mussolini was a fascist - no really, he was! I know an actual fascist that idealises him. It's arguable whether Hitler was a fascist. You're quite wrong - there is actually a definition for fascism. It involves a corporatist system and hyper-nationalism. Socialism, on the other hand is inherently internationalist, and a key point is the abolition of capitalism and working class emancipation. Furthermore, while fascism relies on class collaboration, socialism relies on class war. They are almost entirely opposite concepts. Where fascism demands hierarchy, authority - socialism is based in a culture of rebellion and champions equality. It is frankly incredible that people link the ideologies together, when they are in a state of perpetual opposition.

Perhaps in America, you haven't seen it, but in Europe, it is made very obvious. In Germany, when the Neo-Nazis get rowdy, we beat the living hell out of them - it works. In Britain, the BUF (British Union of Fascists) and National Front were violently opposed by socialist groups such as the AFA and Antifa. Now, with the EDL (English Defence League), UAF (Unite Against Fascism), an organ of the SWP (Socialist Workers' Party), counter-demonstrates each time. In Sweden, there is considered a problem with far-left groups literally hunting down fascists. Russia, in recent years, has seen massive clashes between anarchists (read libertarian socialists) and fascists. The Front Nationale in France are public enemy number 1 to the centre-left Socialist Party. I could go on, but I don't think that's necessary.
 
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#6
Oh! Really? They said so? Oh noez, it must be true! Just like North Korea is clearly a Democratic Republic - I see i'm all wrong, my argument has been thoroughly beaten!
Well, in a word, yes. They were socialist governments. Socialism, as any other system isn't pure outside the lab. The parties regarded themselves as socialist parties. That being the case it is fine to believe them.

Mussolini was a fascist - no really, he was! I know an actual fascist that idealises him. It's arguable whether Hitler was a fascist.
Yes, he was a fascist, after the socialists booted him. He always regarded himself as a socialist. The big turn here as in Germany was the fierce element of nationalism. That is, conceededly much more of a characteristic of the right. But that's about it.

You're quite wrong - there is actually a definition for fascism. It involves a corporatist system and hyper-nationalism.
There may well be but the term is tossed about freely without much regard for accurate use.
 
Nov 4, 2010
29
0
#8
Charleslb, where do you base your opinion that dominance is a value of conservatism?
In the attitudes and values that conservatives are expressing and manifesting all the time in their words, and their positions on the issues, and the public policies they support. Conservatives either want to heavy-handedly win the "culture war" and dominate our society with their wholesome "morals" and "family values", ? la the religious right, or they want to force a law-of-the-jungle economic system on all of us in which everyone has license to pursue social dominance by selfishly seeking to acquire a disproportionate amount of wealth and economic power, ? la libertarians and free-market fundamentalists.

In either case, equality is not exactly a big value in the conservative value system; no, you don't hear conservatives talk a lot about ?galit? and fraternit?, just libert?, for conservatives democracy is reduced to a one-dimensional deal, to just a social-Darwinian form of freedom in which we're all at liberty to eke out some personal economic superiority and lord it over the peons who aren't as enterprising or cunning as we pride ourselves on being. Egalit? and fraternit?, heck, such concepts sound downright pinko to a staunch conservative, they get in the way of the pursuit of socio-economic self-aggrandizement and dominance.

And, again, if we're not talking about the "libertarian" type, if rather we're talking about the fundamentalist or fascist type, well, that type of conservative blatantly wants to use the power of the state to impose his views and values, he wants to feel the clout to dictate to our culture coursing through his veins. Yep, whichever type of conservative or rightist we're talking, at the core of his mentality and ideology is the will to dominanace. Why do you think that during the Nazi era it was mostly right-wingers in this country who sometimes thought that that ole Adolf over there in Germany had the right idea, why was it ultra-conservatives like Father Coughlin who tended to be pro-Nazi? Hmm? Because the Nazis and fascists simply expressed in a more naked form the same dominance-oriented outlook that lurks in the Neanderthal brains of conservatives.

:)
 
Last edited:
Aug 4, 2010
862
0
#9
In the attitudes and values that conservatives are expressing and manifesting all the time in their words, and their positions on the issues, and the public policies they support.
such as?

Conservatives either want to heavy-handedly win the "culture war" and dominate our society with their wholesome "morals" and "family values", ? la the religious right, or they want to force a law-of-the-jungle economic system on all of us in which everyone has license to pursue social dominance by selfishly seeking to acquire a disproportionate amount of wealth and economic power, ? la libertarians and free-market fundamentalists.
That they have to "fight a war" to use your term suggests that others are fighting the same war only what they wish to establish in the catagories you enumerated is different goal, policy, end etc? So, what this means is that there are competing notions in society and advocates of each hope to establish their own as the prevailing view?

Sounds like you perfer to say nasty things about those whose ideas you disagree with rather than confront them in the marketplace of ideas.

What issue/value/moral (your pick), in specific are conservatives trying to impose upon you? Why are they on the wrong side of that issue etc? Why are you right?

In either case, equality is not exactly a big value in the conservative value system; no, you don't hear conservatives talk a lot about ?galit? and fraternit?, just libert?, for conservatives democracy is reduced to a one-dimensional deal, to just a social-Darwinian form of freedom in which we're all at liberty to eke out some personal economic superiority and lord it over the peons who aren't as enterprising or cunning as we pride ourselves on being. Egalit? and fraternit?, heck, such concepts sound downright pinko to a staunch conservative, they get in the way of the pursuit of socio-economic self-aggrandizement and dominance.
Yes, that is quite specifically true. Conservatives and Classical Liberals do NOT advocate equality as a first value. They advocate liberty as did the framers and as remarked upon and recorded by such iullustrious commentators as Alexis de Tocqueville. The reason that Conservatives and Classical Liberals do this is because the only way to achieve this leftist notion of equality is by trampling on liberty. The policy of redistributing wealth to achieve "equality" can ONLY be accomplished through use or threat of use of force by the government... taking from Peter to give to Paul.


There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Rush, Hemispheres
 
Nov 15, 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
#10
Charleslb, I feel as though you are only dealing in extreames when you think of conservatives. I do not wish to argue points on extreame "lefts/rights", the dominance you refer to comes from the extreame right, and the same case could be made about the extreame left. My point is simply that pure and simple conservativism does not value dominance in any way.

Conservatism simply strives to keep things the way they were intended. What is wrong with this goal?

Also I do not see how conservatism is not equal? Everyone is born with the same rights, that is equality. How people choose to live their life after birth is their own choice, if someone works harder than I do, then they deserve what they have. Now yes their is some corruption in the world, but not everyone who has more than person A is bad. Why should person A have to give up what they worked hard for to give to person B?
 
Nov 17, 2010
11
0
A van down by the river
#11
Too bad the uber-leftists idea of fairness, equality, parity and unity will not have the desired effect of raising anyone’s standards of living but lowering the standards of the wealthy, affluent achievers and job creators to closer match that of the underachievers. And that, in the long run, will hurt everyone.
 
Nov 17, 2010
11
0
A van down by the river
#14
Hey chuck! If the world were made up of trek characters you and those like you would simply be the Borg. Everything for the Collective. Nothing outside the Collective. We make inferior races superior beings. There is no individualism. There is only Borg. Resistance is futile.
 
Nov 15, 2010
137
0
Co. Springs, CO
#15
Hey chuck! If the world were made up of trek characters you and those like you would simply be the Borg. Everything for the Collective. Nothing outside the Collective. We make inferior races superior beings. There is no individualism. There is only Borg. Resistance is futile.
Lol, I think it is pointless to talk to Charleslb. I do not think he ever intends on defending his points. He just dropped all of these rehtoric bombs on the forum and then jetted.
 

Similar Discussions