New Theism and Liberalism Versus Realism with Matt Johnson 

6:19 to 7:11 - Saying that secular humanism was a product of Christianity and thus isn't an isolated and independent phenomenon is not the same thing as saying every good thing we have came from Christianity.

45 minutes in and it seems to me that Mr Johnson is more of a liberal than a realist because much of what he says is all in his head.

There you go again, like in the condensed version. Pretending that Hitler was the only Nazi in Germany.

53:09 That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Not very historically informed.

How long can you listen to an audiobook with his voice? I could do 2 hours. So it would be a short book lol

Do you guys know about Demographic Collapse? Most European countries, and the US?

I don't know a single intellectual who believes in Adult Santa or that fairytales are a necessary basis for modern life. What the frell is the guy talking about?

A very superficial discussion of realist theory overall.

Zoe darling, Singapore is very capitalist, but it ain’t at all liberal. Try walking and chewing gum in public there one day.

invite john mearsheimer to this program and debate with him .

The basic problem of the West is that Capitalism is hollow. It's great when transitioning from systems of oppression as immigrants have proven for literal centuries, but consumption, the basis of modern capitalist economics, is ultimately hollow. It serves no higher purpose, fills no deep need in our human need to feel our lives are meaningful. That's not to concede that a higher purpose is automatically mystical/delusional in nature -banishing world poverty would be a higher purpose, but at where the West is in the arc of human development putting genuine thought into what it's general cultural purpose is would help counter both general ennui and the encroachment of tribalism and fanaticism of all kinds.

Persistant Vocal Fry and chuckling for no reason are obvious ways to boost your credibility. Those aside, he makes some half decent points.

Am not anti immigration but why couple meeting western work shortages with permanent residence ? There could also be migrant work while the west sorts out its demographic issues and either learns to automate or have the indigenous population do less glamorous jobs

Biden Trump debate??? How long have you been sitting on this?

Takeaway: read "Dominion," "Stalin," and "Bloodlands."

Quillette should consider releasing interviews less than two months after they occur.

I read the title for this video and immediately pressed play expecting to hear some ludicrous argument for why liberalism and realism are in conflict with each other and ready to defend that one can be a liberal and a realist. Then I learned that some wonks discussing international relation have adopted the term realism to describe an international relations theory they have which has nothing to do with realism as I understand it: per the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy - Generic Realism: a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.

Anderson Karen Martinez Helen Clark Edward

🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: UNLAWFUL DOMINION: In the preceding chapter, it was proven beyond any semblance of a doubt, that an actual patriarchal monarch (that is, a genuine, saintly king, as defined in that chapter) is the only type of person who is qualified to rule a nation, just as lesser societal units (such as nuclear families, extended families, clans, tribes, villages, towns, and cities) are best governed by their respective patriarchs. Therefore, logically, any system of administration OTHER than one controlled by a naturally-arisen patriarch, is inherently evil, wicked, illegal, illegitimate, criminal, and adharmic. Also, turn to Chapters 25 and 26, in order to learn the reasons why the concept of “matriarchy” is not only adharmic, but downright farcical! SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization, in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically, by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world. Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism”, in the Glossary of this book. Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on an ideology of both social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably within the atomic and sub-atomic realms. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite, in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely ECONOMIC systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere, because socialism depends on a governing power to organize society in a very meticulous manner. In any case, assuming that socialism is nothing more than a form of economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any kind of free-market exchange (the latter of which is objectively moral - or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation, according to the principles of sanātana dharma. At worst, socialism/ communism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime, that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially the freedom of religious practice. Witless Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposedly-wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies, is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his evil acolytes, had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx, who, for his sustenance, solicited funds from his friends, instead of earning an honest living as a writer. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e., a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen, by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort resources from his subjects, in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a human in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available. Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system, and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence! No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Cont...

Protestants aren't Roman Catholics, but they owe their tradition entirely to Catholicism. It's the same with secular humanism and Christianity.

It might be respectful to recognise the parallel influence of Buddhism and Hinduism to non-Christian civilised societies, although the mercy and forgiveness of Christianity might be considered unique in some ways.

When did the letter "T" become deleted from the word "IMPORTANT"?