All of Gray's initial list of what is dead about liberalism are highly debatable. Liberalism was never about "libertarianism" in the current definition of that word. It was about "liberty", or "freedom" in a broad sense. Liberalism is at the very heart of freedom of speech enshrined in law. The supposed "woke" repression of points of view is largely a myth. I would like to see a list of the items being repressed. Scientific expertise acquired by government doesn't displace moral and political judgement. That's just a silly juxtaposition of paradigms or criteria seemingly at odds with each other but which are in fact complementary. We all must stop at red lights except ambulances or fire engines. Contrary to conventional wisdom, modern liberal society is really about intricate prohibitions that increase personal freedom. Think about food safety, or freedom from slander. The first is all based on technocratic scientific expertise, the second about limiting the power of the more powerful against those with less power. As someone said, modern government is a big insurance company with an army.
He doesn't address the institutional corruption of science by for-profit forces. A lot of seemingly well deserved controversy around authoritarian Covid Big Science, as in "Follow the Science" (or else!). Well designed double-blind methodology, for example, is made a mockery of. One hypothesis given short shrift is; the fix is in, and it favours the emperor's dowsers, Clever Hans, and celebrity scientists who dodge the issue, deflect attention to relative trivialities, effectively acting as apologists for corruption. If feminists, indigenous rights activists, etc., have corrupted and de-legitimized popular notions of scientific truth and beauty, as I think they can and do, corporations, captured academic institutions, private fiefdoms in the mass media, in short, powerful moneyed interests, have done far worse. This problem dates back to Galileo, and before him to Socrates.
Jesus-Christ is finally revealing himself to the world after going through this nightmare The Trinity (All will be taught by God) There are three persons in one begotten God named: “SEIGNEUR” (LORD) "Je Suis"-Michel-Imanuel ("Je Suis") is a real person Such are the names of our Trinity, the name is the identity and this identity is an Angel. To act as God, the three persons of the trinity must act in unity. When the Roman church held in its hand the spear that pierced me, water came out (Spirit Imanuel) and blood (Angel Michel) Michel, stripped of his Angel and Imanuel of his Spirit, signaled the moment for the Trinity to act in unity. My Father Angel “I Am” was reunited with our person Michel and my Father Spirit “I Am” was reunited with our person/ange Imanuel. The trinity becoming one in “I Am”, I could now present God. My heavenly Father, who bears on him the Angel God, that is his Name, was also the depositary of the Spirit God. As the LORD does not need an additional spirit, he gave the gift of this Spirit to Jesus. The angel Jesus and the Spirit of God merged and this is how Jesus became the son of God in heaven. (A new heaven was created) The person Jesus stripped of his identity received a new name: “Michel” Angel of the covenant The Redeemer (2/4) The Book of Life Since the beginning of Christianity, religious leaders and their followers have transformed the gospel of Christ into a gospel about Jesus, rejecting the ideal to retain only the meaningless idol. In human consciousness, Christ has become synonymous with Jesus, thus depriving all men of their inheritance. It was the beginning of idolatry, we raised Jesus and lowered Christ. Their idol fell and Christ was thrown to the ground. --------------- “Whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved” --------------- With his angel “Je Suis”, Michel became the book of life. The angel Michel becomes the Angel of the covenant. This is the name that must be invoked. (3/4) The Prodigal Son --------------- A man had two sons, the younger one asked his father: Father, give me my share of inheritance because I would like to live my life on earth and experience the life of men. The father agreed and gave him his share of the inheritance. After having lived the experience of men, in a disordered and perverse world, he found himself destitute, unhappy and forced to feed the pigs with the scraps of life. He went into himself to question himself and realized that he was happy when he lived with his father. He then made the decision to return to his father's house. When his father saw him coming, he ran towards him to welcome him. Then the son said to him: Father, I am not worthy to be your son, make me one of your servants. The father answered him; it is too little for you to be a servant to me, for I have destined you to be the light of the nations, to be the alliance of the people. Then the father said to his servants; let's kill the fatted calf, let's eat and drink because my son has come home. When he saw this, the eldest son became very angry and said to his father; Father, I have served you all this time and you have never sacrificed a single goat for me, while this son of yours has squandered all his possessions and for him you sacrifice the fatted calf. His father told him ; My son, you are always with me and everything that is mine is yours. This brother of yours was lost and he is found, he was dead and came back to life. --------------- The youngest son is Jesus-Christ and the eldest son is Christ-Michel. (4/4) The King Monarch “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” ( So we begat Jesus-Christ ) Wisdom. Knowledge and the fear of the LORD, such will be his treasure. When Jesus fell from heaven because of idolatry and Christ was thrown to the earth because of human indifference, my Father and I raised Jesus-Christ and the dead in Christ were raised with him. Then Jesus-Christ came and sat at my right while I made his enemies a stool for his feet. Today he stands as Christ with the Spirit of Truth and reigns as King with the Spirit of Holiness. These Spirits are in fact the same Spirit, it is the Supreme (A-O) Spirit, (purified, whitened, refined) with two new identities, the angels: (A) Christ et (O) Roi. ( the ancient world has disappeared ) --------------- The Supreme (A-O) Spirit is within and without of all things and beings in motion or at rest. We cannot see him but he is there, he is with you and he is in you, it is his omnipresence. ( the Supreme Spirit has power over all flesh )
it strikes me, contrary to my comment before, that neoliberalism, in condoning "choice", 'believes' that people make the best choices for themselves??? If neoliberalism promotes choice, why can't people choose not to work???
Very impressed by him laying out what we know and don't know about this topic at the beginning. I feel that far too often historians who write for a general audience don't do that because they think it makes themselves sound less credible or something. I honestly think it makes you sound a lot more credible and wish more people in more fields would do this!
philosophical/political theory seems to ignore activities of daily living, including cleaning, tidying, shopping and cooking, or that without manual workers, our system wouldn't work? yet, i suggest the latter 'jobs' conflict with more academic 'work', leaving those who do them, disenfranchised? more to the point, 'liberalism' has taken me, 61, all this time to try to figure out, and, I'm still not sure I have 'solved' it, definitely being poor. I have children and i've lost 3 teeth! Due to neoliberalism's 'mystique', i suggest we have a longer time to familiarise ourselves with it in order to prosper from it. indeed, it would seem that this ability can reasonably be stated to be a human right, given the centrality of the theory to our lives now? Thus, obtaining this above-delineated 'faculty' is another argument to support longevity research, no???
Memes hitching a ride on a planetary tale Sea monkeys Earth monkeys...solar system monkeys. Redundant spheres in a dimensional redundancy monkeys Our existential Hiatus until we teleport buckaroo bonsai
Orwell was wrong. Telling the truth is not a revolutionary act. It is a counter-revolutionary act. Because the lies come from the Revolution. As this learned gentleman neatly explains.
Zizek asks a similar question: can we do away with religion after the death of god? Following Jacques Alain Miller, Zizek believes that what dies on the cross is not JC but God. The question then becomes: after building our moral and ethical systems on monotheism, can we now safely pull up the ladder and abandon it? Gray would say we cannot
I fundamentally disagree with Zizek on this. He has this from Hegel. His main point is that God died so that we could be free to then improve our societies. Its our responsibility now, not Gods. I think this is a flawed idea. The main wisdom of religion, specifically Christianity, is that is places heaven outside of this world. We will never as humans create paradise on earth, which rids us from utopian ideas which have come in many forms the last 100 years, including the one John Gray confronts here. Placing paradise outside of this world and keeping God alive gives us a basis to make decisions in this world, and to try to improve it while staying in touch with some core values. Its the basis of our society, therefore removing it was always unwise.
@@keto0303 Do you believe there is actually a thinking/creative entity called god? Or is it just a concept/metaphor that allows us to argue for moral values?
@@wowjef The most honest question to that is that I have no idea. I used to be a firm believer, then I had a period of hard atheism to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. Now I find myself coming back to a belief that there certainly are things unexplainable, and for us as humans to think that we can figure it all out with reason and science is delusional. Faith is highly subjective and its not a constant. I think there are universal truths and wisdom in the universe, who set them up, is it a God, I dont know. Christianity does provide a moral framework at least which our predecessors used and guided them.
The big problem for Dawkins, something that he by now must be fully aware of and is having trouble to cope with, is the fact that the simplistic dogma that has made him famous is now being compehensively debunked by sound scientific facts. The post-Darwinist dictum is that spontaneous mutations in DNA create some individuals with superior adaptability who then dominate through selective pressure. This mechanism works beautifully within a given species, but cannot explain speciation. Speciation is a mystery and Dawkins must know this, and yet he keeps pushing his theory because his entire fame is based on it.
I'd pay more than makes sense to read a detailed and lengthy review by this John Gray about the other John Gray's book "Men Are From Venus, Women Are From Mars".
This is kind of embarrassing, to be honest. He’s giving off a very old person being bigoted but still needing social approval energy here. If people don’t like your values, they don’t like your values, deal with it. How is government-sanctioned bigotry any more tolerant?
The grandstanding end of this discussion is embarrassing. People don’t protest the crimes of any random government, but their OWN government’s crimes; something they actually have a say or moral responsibility for. What would possibly be the purpose of protesting another government? The idea makes no sense. Gray lectures us on humility, and then posits some bizarre, universal moral duty of protest to (he thinks) outline the hypocrisy of today’s protests. What nonsense.
I honestly have never heard Gray sound so confused. Some decent ideas here, but also a lot of horse manure. Religion ushering in tolerance? Laughably, astonishingly false. Consumer choice was always a propagandistic selling point for the free market: the ultimate value was always the unleashing & deification of man as producer; choice was the hoi poloi’s reward for letting great men do their thing (and, especially, keep their rewards). I think he’s right about the inherent amorality of the market, but that’s not only a problem of choice, but of pluralism, which he’s apparently favors. What? Maybe I’m jumping the gun here because I’m only about a third through, but this seems to already be completely off the rails.
Liberalism was founded on Christianity. Thats the point. When Christianity loses its influence, liberalism becomes void and devolves into what its become.
Parthians were Iranians, they just were not Persians, but definitely they were Iranians. I've never heard anyone contest that! Must have been a slip or something.
He’s an atheist. “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,“ Romans 1:21-22 ESV
I think the woke claims to victimhood are more prosaic than the suggested re-imagining of Christianity as Rees Mogg predicted 30 years ago: ‘In Campuses across America the new buzz word is ‘oppression’ any group that claims to be ‘oppressed’ is suddenly possessed of an asset, an entitlement with which to leverage claims to redistribution of wealth’ p110 The Great Reckoning:Protect Yourself in the Coming depression by William Rees-Mogg & James Dale 1992
By bringing the Uygur's into this conversation, condemns him in my opinion. It reminds me that he supported Mrs Thatcher. If this man was a dispassionate intellectual, won't he know that Uygur's genocide was a means to destabilise China. Especially now that China is opened, he could at least try to discover the truth before opening his mouth.
When I began my work life, the department of the company that handled people was called "Personnel". Personnel was responsible for taking care of employee needs and issues. Around the end of the 80's, Personnel suddenly became "Human Resources". I thought this was strange at the time but I subsequently realized that how the business viewed employees had changed. Employees were no longer people but just another type of depreciable resource. This was change, but it has not resulted in progress.
His *books* (plural), eh? Seeing as only one or maybe two even deal with the Roman-Parthian/Persian conflict, what would make those Iranists qualified to find all his books a joke? Methinks, the set of "iranists finding his books a joke" has one element: you. Who, I will go out on a limb, is not even an Iranist. Not even going to ask what a "romaboo" is, nor do I care.
I assume by "romaboo" you mean "pro-Rome" , in which case stop your paranoid whining and actually listen to what he says rather than what you assume he is saying.
@@Unknown-jt1jo Or, sadly, an actual Iranian who, depressed about the current state of their country, desperately longs for the days when "Persia Rule The World (tm)". You can possibly tell at which scenes in "300" they cheered or booed. 😆
It has been said, and I wish I could remember by whom, that liberalism’s natural end point is intolerance and illiberalism. This occurs when the liberal state starts enforcing liberalism as if it were akin to the Articles of Faith in an Established Church. Dissent goes underground lest it be punished. We can see this in the dogmas of DEI, where through coercion and legislation, equal outcomes are being enforced, language is enforced, and criticisms of the doctrine are treated as a threat to inclusion, and called “hate.” Fear keeps the masses in line, fear of social and career penalties. You might even be asked by your bank to take your business elsewhere. In Canada, where I live under the Trudeau Doctrine (intolerance with a sunny disposition), we are well down this path. I don’t recognize my country anymore.
What a disappointment at the end with the comments on wokeism. I took careful notes and was very impressed during the lecture, but on woke, Mr. Gray does not define it and hardly even describes it. Basically, as far as I can tell, all he does is accuse its proponents of insincerity. And as for why woke advocates focus on certain oppressed groups and not on the Uighurs, It’s clear that they don’t know much about them, so focus on the oppressed minorities they do, that is, those in their own countries. This starts with African-Americans because of the George Floyd murder.
Clearly not very good notes. He spends considerable time discussing "hyper-liberalism" as his preferred term as consisting of a theology of moralistic social science as imagined by Auguste Comte, the ill of which is not at all attempting to criticize social injustices but rather in intellectual intolerance.
The original autopsy report by Hennepin county medical examiner dr. Andrew Baker the day after floyd died found there was "no physical evidence suggesting that mr. Floyd died of asphyixiation. The toxicology test showed that Floyd,46 had a "fatal level of fentanyl in his blood, along with methamphetamine."
He definea it perfectly abd several times. Woke = hyper liberalism. The idea that man can be whatever he wanta to be at any point without restraint. It is the loss of balance% equilibrium essential to all systems.
