All of this started decades ago. I worked for a medium sized company in a suburb of Chicago, IL. The Accounting Manager was out for some months on medical leave: I was the assistant and acting Manager with her out. She was eventually forced to quit for health reasons. The company did not promote me BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A DEGREE. What I did have was 20 years of experience. They hired a young lady - WITH A DEGREE, OF COURSE - right out of college. She had a degree and graduated with a high GPA...and she knew nothing about actually doing the job. Guess who had to give her a crash course on how to actually perform the job? Me. I had to give her a crash course in all she had been supposed to learn in 4 years of collegem. Life can be strange.
Have you heard James' podcast on credentialism? Since education became commercialised through loans there is a surfeit of people with academic training. Add to this the Grievance Papers and we can see education is little more than a sorting house for those prepared to be groomed and go deep into debt
I was eager to hear James engage with the post-liberal Right's critiques of Liberalism, because it's probably a mistake to ignore them. But that's not really what we got here, which is unfortunate. A few questions: 1) Is the only critique of Liberalism on the Right that it will inevitably evolve into Communism, or is there more to it than that? 2) If Liberalism is a sufficient bulwark against Communism, how did we get where we are? Is the argument that the US was never truly governed by Classical Liberalism? If so, are we in a "Real Liberalism has never been tried" situation? If the argument is that we were once governed by Classic Liberalism, when was that time, and how did it end? 3) Is reading something Mao wrote really the best way to go after the post-Liberal Right? In what way is that a better method of debunking their worldview than actually engaging material they themselves would provide/suggest/adhere to? 4) If we disregard labels for a minute, are there not at least some accurate criticism in what Mao wrote there? Do we not observe the consequences of cowardice and undefeated slippery slope every single day in the current state of the West? 5) Does anyone on the post-Liberal Right literally argue for Fascism? Michael Malice, for example, will tell you that Liberalism does not work, but I don't think I've ever heard him make a positive case for Fascism. I'm a financial supporter of James and New Discourses, so obviously I respect him and support his work. But if the goal was to debunk the post-Liberal Right, this doesn't really accomplish that. If the goal was to demonstrate that Liberalism and Communism are ideologically incompatible, fair enough. But shoehorning the entire post-Liberal Right into an 80-year old document written by Mao that probably no one on the post-Liberal Right would associate themselves with comes across as a strawman/guilt by association tactic rather than a sincere attempt at engaging their arguments. Again, I respect James and his work. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he wasn't trying to strawman or guilt by association. But if he thinks the post-Liberal Right is as dangerous and wrong as he claims they are (a claim I don't necessarily disagree with, at least in part), then he needs to do what he has done with SEL, CRT, etc. and actually engage their arguments as they themselves present them. Critiques aside, thanks for everything you do, and keep up the hard work, amigo 🤙
The argument from the post liberals are yes, that liberalism lead to communism. And the way they argue it, is the same way the communist argue that capitalism will evolve into socialism. Because most of the post-liberals, are ex left wingers. That got kicked out of the left, joined the right. But now make their own version of the right, that is just more left wing views. The thing is, we see the alternatives these post liberal use as examples, on how to combat communism. And it is just bullshit. They pretend a stronger catholic church would block communism. So tell me about the south american country with a weak catholic church that allowed the communist to take power? Oh right, they all have a strong catholic church, and they feel quicker than the liberal west to communism. Is liberalism perfect? No, but it fall slower than any other ideology including monarchy. Look up socialist monarchy, or look at the royals in Europe and tell me who do not support Davos. No, it is not anything "true", in what Mao wrote. He claimed anything that does not support his world view, is because of liberalism, And in another letter, he would use the same examples to explain why the old emperor had to go. He does not argue from a honest view. Hel, the reason why Chine did not experience the same fall as USSR, is only because CCP got aid from the west. So, you can blame people like Kissenger, who is also a anti liberal. And yes, plenty on the post liberal right, argue for fascism. They claim it was our free market capitalism that lead us here, and we need to take state control of the market to fix it.
Agreed and very well said. One of the things I don't hear him talk about is that the right is primarily reactionary and currently in a state of ongoing discourse.. where I see a mix of "classical liberal" and "post liberal" (I would use the term "collectivism") mindsets being stated and discussed. There isn't a coherent and unified force that I can clearly identify yet on the right that has reached the level of "wokism" in size. At least that's what I picked up from the Nat Con talks that I've watched thus far.
I'm not associated with Dr Lindsay and nowhere near his intelligence and skills, but i'm a Classical Liberal Conservative, which is one of the actual evolutions of Classical Liberalism I came up with. My beliefs involve Classical Liberalism's principles and Conservative cultural values working side by side. "1) Is the only critique of Liberalism on the Right that it will inevitably evolve into Communism, or is there more to it than that?" So far it's been a common criticism i've heard from British Conservatives who call themselves post-liberal, but it's not the only one, some of the believe the Englightenment era was a cultural mistake, or that Christian religion is the only way to oppose Marxism. Similar ones are common There are more here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Vt1BAfUigI4.html (It's not the full debate) and I also have had this said to me in a debate as a reason for Classical Liberalism's failure: "Classical Liberalism has trouble trying to resolve this because it also promotes personal freedom (but only within the confines of your culture social norms) and equality (in the sense that we are all equal in the eyes of god) I don't think it possibly for Classical Liberalism to not become some form of progressive Liberalism we need to move past it and into a new philosophy that is post liberal it may have some things from Liberalism like property rights but definitely not going to be liberal." Other more religious post-Liberals seem to blame either Individualism or atheism as reasons for Marxism's success, but there's historical proof, including what Lindsay has covered, that proves that is not the case. Many Churches are now Intersectional, including the Vatican. "2) If Liberalism is a sufficient bulwark against Communism, how did we get where we are? Is the argument that the US was never truly governed by Classical Liberalism? If so, are we in a "Real Liberalism has never been tried" situation? If the argument is that we were once governed by Classic Liberalism, when was that time, and how did it end?" *Classical* Liberalism is sufficient, but America's further left Liberalism has not been so much about the Individual, I call this variant neo-Liberalism, as it has been subverted by Critical Theory for some few decades now. Notice how everything is identity and about groups? This Liberalism isn't "what can you do to protect my rights", it's "what can you do to protect "people of colour", see the difference? The English never thought this way, which I can say being from there. Whereas the principles of protecting the rights of the Individual are no longer what Liberalism are about. It no longer is about addressing the issues with corporations and the corporatist relationship between corporation and government. Classical Liberalism was a major success during the 1990's Britain. No one cared about race, sex, or any of that nonsense, workers rights were solved, etc Then the Fabian Society Socialist Tony Blair began the subversion of the UK. There are more eras. but i'm not an expert on the American point of view. The British Empire was founded on Classical Liberalism with it's crusade against slavery: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_NoWIZv96KU.html "3) Is reading something Mao wrote really the best way to go after the post-Liberal Right? In what way is that a better method of debunking their worldview than actually engaging material they themselves would provide/suggest/adhere to?" It is, because a lot of Conservatives are making the mistake that Liberals are all commies at this point. They need to know that Intersectional Social Justice subverted the west, as I have personally seen since 2011. It's started with subverting the online New Atheism movement, then moved on to a lot of other online communities and institutions from there. Teaching people that this is a Chinese marxism and how to counter it is how we fix this subversion. "5) Does anyone on the post-Liberal Right literally argue for Fascism? Michael Malice, for example, will tell you that Liberalism does not work, but I don't think I've ever heard him make a positive case for Fascism" Fascism, no, religious authoritarianism yes. I've lost count of how many times in more Conservative channels and circles I have been told I'm to blame for wokeness or i'm just as woke as the marxists are, or that I can't be Conservative unless I agree that religious Theocracy is the way to go. It's not most of the post-Liberals, but a lot are saying it. Hope this info helps you! I do agree with you that the post-Liberals or National Conservativism movements do need a more comprehensive look at in the full Dr Lindsay treatment as well, even if I agree with them on a few values. I just dislike their rejection of Individualism.
“There is nothing that has done more havoc to the rain of revival than the illusion of "modernism and theological liberalism" Liberalism sets itself as another gospel but not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” ― Oluseyi Akinbami The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous. “As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.” ― Gore Vidal “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” ― Robert Frost “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley “I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square. And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.” *Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher. “Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology. A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.” ― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018) Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected. Most liberals defending liberalism simply want a liberal revolution to stop where they were the state’s favorite child and have the privileges. But you can't fix stupid. Or Liberals. They will do every possible mental gymnastics to convince themselves that liberalism is the solution to all the madness we see now. It’s not, it’s the logical progression of liberals. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. “Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Why Revolutions devour their own children … By John Vincent Palatine, published Dec, 2018 jvpalatine.com/why-revolutions-devour-their-own-children/
James you're brilliant thank you for bringing all this to light and going through all the public discourses that are coming and framing them in a way that i am noticing all around me, fits what i am noticing going on in the world, and fits in to my worldview/framework and pointing out where these evils are coming from.
"Liberalism" is individual liberty. Good and bad things can be done with liberty. The people have failed liberalism, liberalism hasn't failed the people.
@@blarbful I’m kinda kidding, but not totally because it does sound as if liberalism isn’t able to stand on its own without some form of intervention… in this case, fighting for a version of liberalism more aligned with the original enlightenment ideas. Paleo-liberalism perhaps, similar to how the Buckley-ites have been trying to conserve conservatism from neoconservatism and more recently Trump-ism. I’m not saying I disagree with James, but just find it a little humorous that that was what I found myself thinking at the end of the talk. I suppose that same logic, if you could call it that, could be applied to any system of ideas. So yeah, MLGA. 🇺🇸
@@CriticalThinker02 Why would any desired fundamental ideology stand on it's own without intervention? Stable state is tyranny. Lifting civilisation out of tyrany will always be unstable and will always require effort to maintain. So yeah, maybe it can't stand on it's own, I still take it. It needs anti-marxist update, that's for sure.
@@vivecthepoet36 A little… we’ve seen plenty of evidence/fruit from both ideas. We know communism leads to death & destruction. (Classical) liberalism can work, but it *needs* to be underpinned by Christianity.
I think the decline of Liberalism is due to the loss of the sense of agency in our time. I was watching a NOVA documentary on consciousness, and the take away was that there really isn't free will. I think this is shown in the medicalization of "bad judgement". On the left, any bad decisions are blamed on poor upbringing, bad genes or trauma. On the right, there is now an emphasis on how we are wired to want children, or to be self interested, or to have certain interests (with regard to gender and occupation for example). It isn't that these are wrong observations, but there is a squeezing out of "the soul" or "consciousness" or "reason". I think that it is an even bigger issue than the decrease in religiosity in the west, since both the most religious and hardcore atheists put an emphasis on the importance of making a deliberative choice on your world outlook. Now with AI and brain science, we are being turned into automatons in our own evaluation, and there seems to be an attitude underlying everything that "people are going to do what people are going to do" and you don't have to ability to really change yourself for the better.
I don’t understand. Liberalism was never good. They were just able to package it more respectably. They always came out with their claws whenever they were challenged. How did FDR get to get elected for 4 terms? He was a tyrant. He would have loved this time.
We experience life as though we have free will, and the mechanics are as yet incalculable for us. The result is the same, and we should treat everyone as though they have agency.
The problem with liberalism, as you yourself have learned, is that it is fragile and vulnerable. That is why it must exist in a symbiotic, rather than parasitic, relationship with conservatism and traditionalism. In our current situation, it is unmistakably true that liberalism sympathized with the far left for decades, and defended that sympathy by continually saying things like, “Who cares? What’s the big deal?”. Conservatives who cautioned against it were “squares”, “judgmental”, “intolerant”, etc, etc. The far left exploited that, and continues to. And many liberals became “woke” through that relentless psy-op. Simply put, liberals are so “open-minded” that their brains fall out. What we saw over the last 60 years is liberals siding with the far left and attacking conservatives, thinking that the “religious right”, or conservatives, or Republicans, were the enemy. And instead they ushered in something far worse, by their own standards. Put another way, liberals are like little kids constantly whining about rules, saying “but daaad, whyyy can’t I go play in the street?”. Then they become adults without growing up, and they get run over. The “American experiment” undertaken by the Founders was the gamble that people could be given a higher level of freedom, and behave responsibly and constructively without anyone making them. It is understandable, given what liberals have done over the last 60 years or so, as embodied by the decadent and hedonistic Boomers, that some would start to conclude that experiment has failed. I don’t take that view. But the hour is getting late. And the only answer is a very strong resurgence of Christianity, voluntarily, on the part of the people. And the reversal of anti-Christian actions by the government, primarily the Supreme Court, over the last 100 years or so. Progressivism is the real enemy. Of both liberals and conservatives. It is the source of both communism and fascism. And the conflation and confusion of liberalism and progressivism must be clarified for that problem to be solved.
I won’t blame liberalism for an introduction to communism However I would think that communists find liberals to be fundamentally weaker and more useful to their aims than conservatives I could be wrong, but it appears that not having a solid foundation leads you astray to communism or other post liberal systems
Nope. The State used conservatives for a VERY long time because conservatives love law & order. It’s only recently that the conservatives have actually realized that the Federal agencies are not the friend of the people. I don’t know what took them so bloody long. It’s actually quite annoying. Anyone who lived as an adult through post-9/11 will tell you that the conservatives for SURE were used by the government to give itself more power. Look at the AUMF, look at the Patriot Act. Those two things alone destroyed our Republic and Congress gave itself a standing ovation as it gave away its power to the president (one tyrant) to bomb countries in the name of fighting “terrrorism.” The communists will use whichever political side to push censorship and give the state more power. They’ll hide themselves as pseudo conservatives (the neocons) and take the country further and further towards total State control.
That is the NRx critique. Not having a faith gives you liberal freedom. Many can't handle it, and need their divine purpose. Here comes communism to fill that void. Maybe most people aren't smart or self-driven enough for liberalism.
Left wing people like James Lindsay shouldn't be able to gatekeep the right. Liberalism was a radical left wing ideology at the time and still is just an older leftwing form. Unless you think that all the Christian Monarchs of Europe, which the liberals dethroned, were left wing. Which is ridiculous.
@@beishtkione24 yeah yeah. I've heard this before. The french liberals were left wing but somehow the founding fathers and English liberals were somehow right wing. You know who was right wing? The King of England. Whose rightful authority the liberals went against and usurped. Americans were granted land through charters by the King. Our revolution was illegal and immoral.
@ChucksExotics It's more complex than that. Both Jefferson & Hamilton could be described as liberals, despite wildly disagreeing with each other. Thomas Paine & Edmund Burke were both liberals, yet had completely opposing views on the French Revolution.
I am a trucker around N.Y.C.. I frequent Wharehouse's that unload shipping container's from China. I found one of those brooms of which you speak! They are made of thin bamboo branches wired together.!
Great work I just went through a Carl Truman book recommended to me by my pastor...and immediately saw the hegelian structure in his structuring of his book on the Modern Self. And began writing my church an email about how that hegelian structure is and how marxism is just a progression of it
Jordan Peterson is downstream from Hegel. Do you disavow him too? The flow of ideas is not linear, they branch out and twist. Hegel is not responsible for Marx, Marx is responsible for Marx.
@Vivec the Poet I've noticed that about Jordan peterson. Remembering things that pointed that out after going through Hegel. I understand that Maex is responsible while also following Hegellian influence. Fauerbach being present in marx's life as well. I'm aware I don't understand everything, I can't possibly have that Gnosiological perspective. So would I condemn JP, no, I condemn no man. My God does that. You know, the One that is the Truth, Life, and Way. Complete in himself and creates out of abundance. It's arguable to suggest that without a God like that we wouldn't have derived the scientific method. Going from a study of His word to a Study of His Works Sure, the magi still exist, but they don't sustain empires very well because they are lacking a super-ordinating narrative ethic that supersedes the self. Their ethic is based on self as equivalent to absolute truth. This is echoed in Trans for example when their whole argument is summed up in "I am who I am."
You nailed it to start out ! Once again you have it figured out. Victor Hanson has been one of few who dont knee jerk and he totally gets it and us. All of us on all sides and the history and philosophy behind it all.
James Lindsay destroys the strawman he created with facts and logic after some losers dared to diss his precious liberalism. Slay, queen. (I'm just poking fun, mainly. You make a great case why no man should put his blind faith into any ideology - including liberalism. Since you obviously has a giant blind spot when it comes to the critique of it.)
Liberalism only works if you have a moral ethic that all of society follows. With the destruction of a uniform morality, or course, we are in a post-liberal era. You can’t have liberalism when part of society refuses to follow the rules and refuses to punish ppl for not following the rules. Just as good ppl do experience being taken advantage of, liberalism is just too liberal towards ppl that will take advantage of it. You need to establish proper boundaries in order to protect yourself from being taken advantage of but liberalism will not set those boundaries and then you lose everything. I’m 100% libertarian/classical liberal BUT I have a deep foundation in Christian morals and principles. I do things to serve others in my life. I try to be good because it’s the right thing to do, not because of government requirements. I have higher laws I follow. There’s just not as many ppl who think that way. There’s even Christians who say they are more likely not to do something bc the government says it’s illegal vs bc it’s just bad to do. I don’t agree with that mindset. Allowing the principalities to dictate your morality is not very Christian at all. It’s also not very liberal or libertarian in my opinion. Liberalism comes from the Enlightenment and the founding principle of the Enlightenment was that Truth mattered and that comes from Christianity. God is Truth and the Truth matters. I’m of the belief that without Christianity you cannot have Liberalism. Plain and simple. It’s something the classical liberals who are atheists are seriously going to have to reconcile within their beliefs. You have to acknowledge that Christianity is the root of liberalism. And if you believe in a non-Christian society, well then you can’t have liberalism for it will turn into what you see today.
Liberalism didn’t come about from Christianity, it came about IN SPITE OF Christianity. Good isn’t truth because there is no empirical evidence for God, you nut. You sound like Islamic extremists, and your logic is no different. Liberalism > religious nonsense
Theoretically, one could base the morality of a secular liberal state on the natural law and allow non-Christian religions a seat at the table if they're willing to accept that baseline. The problem, of course, is that Natural Law is often seen as Catholics sneakily trying to get their way by calling it "natural". =/
I argue further that Liberalism grew from Christian thought in English & French culture. That's why the places where Liberalism has had its best results are Britian, France, their colonies, and nations with similar values. That said, a man who believes in the rule of law, individualism, and self-responsibility needn't be of the Book.
@@Pan_Z I'd say Liberalism had terrible results in France -- the Reign of Terror was of a piece with the disasters caused by Marxism. But that was because it lost the Christian underpinnings that kept it sane. Without the conviction that fallen humanity will inevitably misuse power, Liberalism tends towards utopianism and therefore disaster.
A problem with so much of criticism of liberalism is that it seems to assume that "the currents of history" are somehow just in the atmosphere. What is seemingly forgotten is that these social changes are brought about by living people. People for whom 'common sense' is a thread built up from what they are taught, then tempered by what they experience, AND from their inherent way of reacting to things. So, where does common sense start? In childhood. From parents, if there are any, and from school. And we are finally coming to understand what a problem 'liberal' schooling can be. Common sense for liberals (those for whom emotions are primary) is mediated by 'fairness,' much more so than by reality. This why they gravitate to communism, because they don't understand that communism (an alternative version of 'the people rule') is, and has always been, a fraud. There is nothing communal about communism, except the misery that it causes. That is also why when some of them start to notice that the results do not match the promises, political 'conversions' are always from liberalism to conservatism, not the other way around. Way too much more to say to fit it into a brief summary, but a gentle, hopeful personality leavened by crazy 'settled science' founded on lies and misrepresented 'facts' are two of the drivers of liberals' apparent refusal to see reality for what it is. They believe the lies because they want them to be true, and many seem truly to believe that reality can be changed by kum-bah-yah and/or by government decree. That's for the rank and file. The leadership are not so naive. They are not 'liberals.' Instead they are manipulators who say that they 'feel your pain,' pandering to the fairness notion, but depending on their constituency to remain as helpful idiots by feeding the notion that help is on the way. That is also why they always work to make citizens dependent, so that even if individuals protest their never-ending poverty, they remain quiet so as not to lose what income the government deigns to give them. Haven't even started to scrape the surface, but this is already too long for a 'comment.' So, I'll stop.
Does he still come to the chats when these are released? My dean and I need to reach him badly, and it seems like there is a way **to** reach him. I just don't know where his email is or how to reach him otherwise.
"I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!" Bones to Captain Kirk regarding his medical diagnosis of Spock, who had just been severely debilitated as a consequence of his mind-melding with Rock Mother, whose offspring had been being mined by the human occupiers of Rock Mother's home planet... Dr Jim is the great mathemetician at the helm of chalkboards, mapping out this superfluous, nutty equation of post-modern, woke, gnostic nonsense trying to force itself upon the good people of this great nation and beyond... and his OnlySubs army is subsequently oufitted with all tools and weapons, including knowledge of their proper use, that will maintain and protect us from the inevitable destruction this enemy within is hell-bent on manifesting... ♡ cheers! do good, be well, live brave, my friend! 🥰
@@ourdictatorship i'm hoping someday soon the Classical Christian Academy my next year's 5th grade son will help host another Californian speaking tour : our Central Coastal communities could stand a good solid reminder that the rhetoric has shifted... we need to outst all these hall monitors from their self-appointed seats of power. 'who died and made them king?' we have declared "no [mental] taxation without representation!".... they're gonna end up with their tea bags in the harbor again...! my apologies for the mixed metaphors. 🙃 if anyone who has a reactionary defense for those 'slips' in language - like from "equality" to "equity" - rampant in our present-day culture actually sits down and listens to Dr Jim, they would be appalled at how complacent they have been in selling us all out. when i first realized this myself, i was listening to the then current podcast here on PRAXIS. my mind shook free of the veil, and suddenly my path out was quite clear. my anxiety lost hold over me and i was and remain fearless and certain about how to keep that veil off of me for good. *** i believe he has a contact page on the New Discourses webpage. his services can be more easily obtained when you offer to pay for them, opposed to fishing out how to get them donated... i have a friend who paid the consulting fee to have his prompt assessment of her delicate employment situation. and he was extremely discrete, as far as i deduced from her updates during the exchange. good luck! i wish we could clone him! but also i am glad we cannot!! 😉
@@ourdictatorship *** i seem to remember it was something like a $500 flat fee for meeting with him explicitly for his professional assessment and advice on how woke your agitator is and what you can/should do to protect from their personal and vicious attacks.
I'm a lifelong hippie liberal, and I have the hardest time expressing this difference between liberalism and wokism/communism in my videos. I myself struggle to keep it clear. Love how you point out conservative tendencies to go in the same direction as woke.
mate, you watch Lotus Eaters, you should be aware that the comment section is monitored by an algorithm that censors us. Why are you making the same arguments as the marxists do?
Classical liberalism and secularism were vitally dependent on the individualist, pluralist, "all of us are ultimately saved in Christ" Protestant-Enlightenment culture from which they were borne and thrived. Unsurprisingly as Christianity vanishes in the West, so does a common belief in classical liberal principles. Although you may disagree with their values, the NatCon and Catholic Integralists are at least proposing moral-political solutions to post-liberalism. You have to share a meta-belief in human dignity and loving others prior to any entertainment of liberal values.
What is this babel? The advent of Liberalism was a response to medieval Christianity. Valuing empiricism and logic over faith and superstition. We need Catholicism and organized religion in the same amount we need wokeism and DEI. Keep thy religion to thyself you theocrat
I think it asks for some bravery to be able to call out what's wrong in the two extreme political isle of the american illusion and to point what's going on, even in subtle ways, i command your honesty and intelligence to see through what's going on. Even if not everyone will understand it.
the possibility that post-liberalism may exist in the left and right alike, raises the question: just how much is freedom well and truely desired in in practice? throughout history, non-democratic political system of one kind or another were far more common than democracy and liberalism. no political system ever truely supported the individual's desire for intellectual growth beyond the dictates of the existing social order. the support of tyranny, in any stage thereof, is very much a part of the problem, and not only the system itself.
@@drdeesnutts48 - I’ll add to that - Freedom requires responsibility. Most ppl have given up their responsibilities to the State. We have existed in a post-liberal society for quite a while.
I don't think that lack of desire for it is the problem, but that individualism is not conductive to creating political pressure groups, or to became activist etc. Just look at politics many unpopular things get voted in, even democracy doesn't reflect what ppl want.
I think you're ignoring the most glaring difference between the world before and after liberalism - technology. Most of us don't have to plow the fields from dawn till dusk to survive, so there is no actual need for a minority of nobles to subjugate the majority of the peasantry, and from there the principle of live and let live takes over, seeing as it's the most non-dangerous way to coexist. The only reason for liberalism to actually come to an end is when the resources are starting to run out, which may well be coming.
For those interested in reading widely on how individual liberty can morph into socialism the book by Jose Ortegas "revolt of the masses" is worth a look.
Well, you don't really need a whole book to divine how individual liberty can morph into socialism.... it's the abandonment of ethical objectivism in exchange for ethical subjectivism. If reality is objective, then I have to adjust my ethic according to that which already is. OTOH if reality is subjective, if it's something that I create, and if I don't like what it is, then I can change it to whatever *I* want it to be.
@Rich Vestal yeah Actualize it into reality. That relationship of creator to created is put as "there is no maker without that which is made" leading to a maker contigent and completed in the act of Making, which effectively creates Himself.
@Ross Campbell I'm not sure what the question is. Are you saying what I said is fulfilled in creating man in His own image? The Judeo-christian view is that God is complete of his own, creating out of abundance. Not a contingency of his existed. What I was writing was the definition of hermetic belief written in the essay "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition" which describes the distinct difference between the two views
A question I have is how much did liberalism was really the primary ideology on an individual level? Most everyone follows a template in life, and for good reason. I might be biased, living in a lower class area, but where I am not many people rigorously examine their lives and put their best effort into life. if people refuse to make a good faith effort in their own lives, and this happens on a massive scale, can liberalism still work? I think when you see how much attention people give celebrity gossip and sports, it makes you question how well people can make their own decisions. I think the flaw in liberalism is that it has reduced the "push" factor in human motivation in favour of the "pull" factor. It is a nice idea, but it doesn't work with most people. Most people seem to need boot camp, not an afterschool club. The concept of quiet quitting and people choosing to live off of government assistance seem to be only the latest manifestation of that. People mostly choose ice cream over carrots, and entertainment over education. I am no exception to this and it makes me wonder if I can even run my own life.
To the extent that liberalism functions, it functions as chains on central power. To the extent that it fails, it fails because those same governments resent chains and will always recast them into an ideal that can only be brought into existence through copious government intervention if the people aren't constantly on guard against that eventuality. Turning the liberal project into a source of identity is inevitably catastrophic. A properly liberal people in the American tradition needs to see the government as a chained dragon, not a trusted ally.
David did you see the response….Liberal is not how independent or dependent an individual is.. Liberal is defending our liberty … your comment proves the video. Your judgement of others txt book Marxist socialism ~ 31:38 … no mention of LIBERALISM
These aren't just ideas, these are people. People have biological natures, and epigenomes that adapt to the environment. If they have free access to resources, and are rarely challenged in life, they become intolerant to stressors, which leads to authoritarian tendencies. Liberalism, without voluntary morality enforcing some kind of moral code that requires making sacrifices and doing hard things, will always lead to authoritarianism. Always, always, always.
I believe that Classical Liberalism has it's flaws, which can be subverted by the Neo-Marxists as you said they created the ideology to do, so the solution I chose in reaction to the post-Liberal Conservatives/ Traditionalist Conservatives/ National Conservatives criticism, I came up with a solution: Classical Liberal Conservative. The principles of Classical Liberalism can fit well with Conservative values of family, tradition, heritage, and culture. It would address these criticism. People really need to understand that Classical Liberalism is *right* wing, and both Classical Liberals and Conservatives complement each other, not enemies. Politics are not left (Liberal) vs (Conservative) right. It's Socialism and Corporatism vs a lot of ideologies. The Left vs right is a Americanism subversion by the marxists. That's what I hear when I hear Mao.
@@Charon-5582 Outside of the context of the conservatism of the past 40 years, I'm not really sure I agree. But I do think Lockean, Classical Liberalism and Burkean Conservatism are two components of the way out of our current dilemma.
That idea seems similar to my concept of the progressive conservative.... you know... progressives just doing the speed limit- which probably is a very large portion of the population if many in the middle thought much at all about it. Not all change is "progress" - so we need to do it carefully snd slowly.... hard for some to understand in such a rapidly changing and artificialized world.
@Vivec the Poet I would agree with the latter but not the former. My point is that modern conservatism is progressive and liberal. ie neocon or progressive conservative. I would classify burkean ideals as traditionalist nowadays... no upon closer inspection I stand by my previous statement that conservatism is a strain of liberalism.
I didn't feel like this really engaged in a meaningful way with post-liberal right thinking. I'd really love to see take the same amazing detailed approach you have with woke works
So how does Libertarianism fit into this classification scheme? Is that what is being called Classical Liberalism here? Or is it part of the post-Liberal Right?
I've heard libertarianism summarized as the "non-aggression principle." Meaning you can't use force against anyone who didn't use force against you first. Both of them seem to prioritize harmony over truth, which leads to a loss of both I think.
Originally, modern libertarianism was the melding of the American individualist mutualist anarchist tradition of Benjamin Tucker (the first American to refer to himself as a libertarian), and the Austrian school of Economics, most notably the liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, and their marginalist school of thought. The combination of anarchist politics with marginalist economics. This was done by Murray Rothbard. Axiomatically based on the non-aggression principle and the respect for private property rights. But the mid 20th century saw the decline of liberalism after the progressive era and the establishment of Keynesianism. And the word was co-opted by the New Dealists. So, by the time figures like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman started emerging, it was unfitting to refer to them as "liberals" within the American mainstream. So therefore, the word "libertarianism" came to encompass not only the strict anti-state anarchist+Austrian view, but also became associated with the re-emergence of a new school of liberal economists and intellectuals.
@@fortunefair the NAP can only exist in an ordered society. Liberalism presupposes a world we do not live in, nor one that it can create through its own means.
Because liberalism has failed. Liberalism doesn't evolve into communism but it cannot properly defend itself from subversion. Also, how can you argue for natural rights from an atheist perspective? I'm curious about that. I think the idea of liberalism becoming communism is an American one because liberal has long meant "leftism" over there. You are wrong with equating non liberal "right" with Mao's suggestion. I have never encountered the former saying we must constantly struggle and destroy family and friendship for ideological purity.
Exactly right. The way I put it is that Liberalism is the ONLY political philosophy which accords with the Natural Law (as the Founding Fathers clearly saw). The only issue is that too many people forget that individual liberty goes hand in hand with individual RESPONSIBILITY. "Skin in the game" as Nassim Taleb would put it. Any philosophy that forgets the link between freedom and responsibility is NOT liberal. Collectivization of responsibility (both when consequences of one's actions are negative and positive) is NOT liberal. And in any case, it is a formal Truth that authoritarianism (the opposite of liberalism) is not compatible with complex adaptive systems (such as human societies).
What the Founders saw was that there needed to be balance. Checks and balances in the government, but also strong civic institutions, sometimes through law at the state level. There were established churches in the states, even when it was not allowed at the federal level, for example. It is liberals’ rejection of the wisdom of Washington, Adams, etc on these matters that has caused disintegration.
@@vaportrails7943 Nonsense. Liberalism is the answer the Founding Fathers adopted. I guess you did not listen to the video or read what I wrote. Moron...
What is James reading from at 5:15, I've listened a few times and can't see where he references it? ETA: Got it! he references Mao _after_ reading the text..
Capitalism refers to making production decisions based on capital markets (i.e. rate of return must exceed borrowing costs, so only the most efficient projects are attempted)
No, capitalism is private ownership. And you can do what you want with that property. That is what capitalism means. What you used, was a circular argument argument that capitalism is what you fine in a capital market.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 By that logic hunter-gatherers were capitalist as long as they didn't get raided by another tribe. I agree that private ownership is essential, but it's important to notice both the good being sold and the money for which it is sold. In the US we have the appearance of private property but we don't transact in real and Constitutional money (gold and silver) but instead fiat currency. Perhaps you'd argue legal tender laws are a violation of property rights
@@anonymousAJ Yes, what the left have been calling "evil capitalism", since almost the French revolution, is what humans have been doing since we became self aware. While, what the left claim to be the past, that we all lived a primitive communism, is based on false stories, of living in the garden of eden, or that we all lived in harmony in the 1st age.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 Your definition would also fit monarchy perfectly. Capitalism is the rule of the merchant class, without or despite the monarch and their divine authority. How does one accumulate capital other than from taxes or simply stealing it? By trading as a merchant of one kind or another.
Hi AJ, capital markets are part of finance capitalism, not capitalism itself. For example Oludah Equiano bought his freedom from slavery by trading on the side during sea voyages, not because he had access to a capital market or was making production decisions. He did not wait for a liberal owner to grant him freedom as a right, either.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this kind of thing happened before just a generation or two ago and is the reason the left are now called 'liberals'. The right abandoned the term 'liberalism' some time around the McCarthy era and the left picked it up and started pushing 'free speech' as a liberal principal. I'd love you to go into the details of that at some point as I haven't had a chance to look into the details much yet, but it would be very informative and relevant to this 'post-liberalism' thing that's happening right now.
Free speech is arguably the litmus test of whether a society is liberal or not. Whatever the left thought of free speech in the 1960s and 70s it laid free speech back down as a principle sometimes in the early to mid 2010s, and the conservatives have picked it back up. There is nothing “liberal” about the contemporary left.
I found this to be one of your weaker releases sadly. It's 95% discussing the very real evil of Mao and the left, which absolutely need to be discussed. But the other 5% is just "see the post liberal right does that too!" which just comes off as some weird strawman attack on your end. Outside of a very small minority of crazy, try to take over the world types, the average right winger or even far right would absolutely be more amenable to working within, or at least parallel to liberalism. The left is entirely bent on controlling everything, everywhere, forever. Just seems like an odd one out for ya
Love your work... If the postmodern right is using the term "liberal" as synonymous with "woke," then you yourself, James Lindsey, have made a lot of the same arguments that the "postmodern right" is making. You need to differentiate *your own* insistance in standing up against "woke," as being substantially different than Chairman Mao's advice. ❤
I think atheism is really the main question rather than liberalism. Atheistic liberalism is selectivity applied so easily to block Christian influence, and fails, perhaps by unconscious intention, to block the rise of doctrinal atheism, known as communism. See Yuri Bezmenov and Bella Dodd as examples of ex-communists who've talked about the importance of spreading atheism toward the communist goal. Also, I think atheism does not have any origin source of what is good, or that which *should* be, like a divine being, so it's only substitute for a moral center is the system of conflict management (avoidance) known as liberalism.
But liberalism can't function as a conflict management system if certain baseline assumptions aren't placed beyond the hands of men. Natural Law liberalism can do that by putting core rights and responsibility into the hands of either God or Nature. That doesn't work against ideologies that want to toss God aside and mold Nature to their will, though. Likewise, liberalism seeks compromise through debate on the basis that all parties are trying to pursue a single underlying truth. But if there's no single truth to pursue, there's ultimately no point in debate.
@@ikkinwithattitude I concur. I believe Karl Marx said "Communism begins where atheism begins." Both Yuri Bezmenov and Bella Dodd pointed out the solution is a return to Faith in Jesus Christ, literally. Two different communist defectors with decades of knowledge, trying and operational experience in eroding nations.
@@fortunefair Christianity is certainly the most effective counter to the belief that nature and truth can be molded to one's will. But I do think that people who struggle to believe in the supernatural can be made less destructive by getting them to accept the Logos more generally. Communists operate under the accurate assumption, "No God, no stable nature/truth/morality." But that means that we can get atheists part of the way back by giving them a halfway house where they can recover stable nature/truth/morality.
@@ikkinwithattitude I think people have been struggling with this question for a long time. I conclude by now that trying to uphold something like "Christian values" without Jesus Christ Himself is a fruitless pursuit. Things fall apart without the center. I am also beginning to sour on the logical approach as an appeal to atheists. I think the communist campaigns for atheism have already made many, namely young and naive people believe that atheism is synonymous with logic itself. It's one of what James had called the "wizard's circle"- a logical loop where they see "religion" as "belief" but "atheism" is classified as "knowledge" in their minds, meaning it does not have to stand up to scrutiny- it just wins by default (and let's be honest... atheism is a dialectical response to Christianity; other religions are moot). There is no acknowledgment that atheism is also a faith based belief. In fact this would probably be anathema to their ears. The Catholic faith has the logical side and the mystical side (ie Saint Pio). I think the mystical side of the Church has been too forgotten of late because people have been made to feel embarrassed about anything that rationalism rejects, but if that side is ignored then rational thought starts to eat itself alive, and our lack of ability to accept that there are some things humans just can't understand just turns into myriad crazy superstitions anyway. The French Revolution included the monstrous "Cult of Reason". New Atheism was followed by New Age, which is just a hodge podge of Satanism- ancient paganisms, witch doctors, fortune telling, communing with demons, astrology, witchcraft (feminism lol).
@@fortunefair My contention is that Jesus Christ is a living Person who embodies the Logos and wants to bring people back, so it's possible for those who are on the path back to the fullness of truth to be upholding Christian values with His help without necessarily realizing it. As for the communists convincing young and naive people that atheism is synonymous with logic, I think the damage is largely self-inflicted. Successful communist brainwashing wouldn't be largely undone with surprising frequency by a set of 2+ hour lectures on the Bible by a seemingly agnostic psychology professor. The only way that happens is if that's literally the first time the young and naive have been shown that the Bible is deeper and more meaningful than Aesop's Fables. In any case, I don't actually think that reason alone can win the day. You need the young and naive to want there to be a solid Logos because the things they care about can't survive without it; only after you reach their heart will their minds be open to such an enormous shift. But in the gap between them wanting the benefits and being able to see that a story couldn't be that useful without being true, they'll at least stop being actively counterproductive to American-style liberal democracies... and given the current negative direction, being effectively neutral is actually a net positive.
29:00 Hi James, I agree with your use of 'productive socialism' to describe the Deng era, but would suggest we have now moved beyond this to 'consumer communism', in which the target market for luxury goods is not just export on behalf of off-shore (originally) Western companies such as Apple, but domestic and international demand for explicitly Chinese brands (such as TikTok) and Chinese hardware without a western brand name. This phrase distinguishes the current situation from classical communism, which was of course disdainful of consumerism in general, calling it decadent. In my view, it is Western companies doing good business in China under the eye of the CCP which has been just as influential as the Maoists in western universities, if not more so. In fact, I believe our academics are scrambling to keep up because China itself has moved way beyond Maoist thought. The 14 Principles of Xi Jinping Thought specifically reference Marxism but do not credit Mao at all.
This sounds very Marxian. Don't forget that part of his thesis is that all societies 'evolve' until they reach the perfect socialist state. That was the first reason why I rejected Marx. This makes no sense, unless it is a pincher movement.
Mr. Lindsey, there’s an issue you have to address that has been avoided by yourself, Boghosian, Weinstein, and any other real liberal that has called this leftism for what it is. In truth, you guys have identified that the left has developed a religion that is a face mask for Marxism. And in that I applaud you, I’ve learned from you (the hours cannot be counted). But (the big BUT) I have heard very little addressing responsibilities for liberals, who has, en masse, parlayed their liberalism into the Woke religion. So glad your saying what I’ve been saying for a couple of years now, this leftism is not liberal, or liberalism. But, it’s easily painted as the new liberalism because that’s who is woke. The same mealy mouth hyper independent citizenry that, as it turns out, is really a homogeneous blob of Marxists. And that is a result of liberals claiming a notion of ideals that are different from Christian values, a notion that no liberal atheist has ever been able to overcome. Now that the Tower of Babel has been built by the hard work of liberals Mr. Lindsey subsumes to what has been the longest post-WWII trope, conservatives are the problem. It’s Christ that you’ve always tried to re-bury. As the Bible is like a mirror to point you toward your sin, I’d like Mr. Lindsey to take part in looking in the mirror. A post-Christian society is this worlds worst nightmare, a hell on earth. I’m listening Mr. Lindsey. You’ve taught me so much over these few short years. I’m listening to your diagnosis, your treatment, your attention to details. But, I’m also listening for you to take responsibility for your part in this Tower of Babel. Conservatives know that is unlikely, even though it is probably most of your audience.
To summarize, the ideals are a distraction from the mess that gets made. Also I think when he says liberalism he's picturing a country without it being either totalitarian or perhaps medieval, rather than.... more Christian influence over laws and no over-idealizing when it comes to kicking out or jailing communists and radicals.
You embody the "faith needs reason to keep it grounded". This is why so much ground has been lost to the woke, because you're too busy throwing stones and thumping on your bible, because James doesn't share you ideology (hmm sounds familiar 🤔)
@@1SpicyMeataball Seeing as how I got 7 upvotes so far despite being on the 'home field' of various 'conservative' acolytes and minions to this grifter, I'd call that a win haha.
James is fire when he takes on wokeism and its corruption of academia. But he's out of his territory when he delves into politics in general. Jordan Peterson is the same way.
@spaceknight793 I’d say James falls down politically when he refuses to see that the energy behind wokeism and ESG is coming from bad faith actors and grifters on the political scene who want to use compassion as a cover for their corruption. Other than that I think James is pretty spot on. I think James likes, like most highly principled people, want to give the benefit of the doubt to people’s acting in good faith but lets face it, bad faith actors are everywhere and Machiavelli is still much studied today. There are of course those who are good faith believers in wokeism but until an ideology is somehow useful to those in power, it will not advance. The political class just see the true believers as useful idiots.
Please stop being cringe and refusing to talk to people who criticize foundations of liberalism. You cant extoll the market place of ideas up on stage and then treat people like you did im the Paul Gotfried encounter. Also the obsession wirh the flourishing of the most antisocial elements of the gay lifestyle being something at the heart of the liberal project is very strange.
The right wing post “liberal” movement is a side effect of allowing the Marxists and Leftist to appropriate the term “liberal.” They were never liberal in any way, but they wanted to present themselves cloaked in the conceptual idea of “liberalism” in the western mind that valued liberalism. Now they have so weakened the term that it is toxic and synonymous with what should be regarded as left wing Marxism. Now the right is, as usual, falling for the left’s incorrect and disingenuous use of language even in their counter movement. This still helps the Marxist movement because it undermines liberal society and gives them the initiative. They’ll win the propaganda exchange and be able to frame themselves as the “reasonable” alternative to the religious authoritarian backslash. Another problem here is that the people in the right who are intellectuals don’t form organizations and take action that lead into movements. The people on the right who do do those things aren’t intellectual enough to truly understand their own ideologies in their correct contexts so they are susceptible to being redirected against their own long term interest.
Liberalism has two main problems: 1. It's too tolerant of anti-liberals. If someone advocates for "Hate Speech" laws, their right to freedom of speech needs to be suppressed. You are still free to advocate against rights, but by doing so, you're forfeiting those rights. "My rights are not up for discussion, let alone a vote" mentality needs to be mainstreamed. 2. It's so productive that it let people become lazy and apathetic. "A republic, if you can keep it" is not just an empty slogan. Liberals need to stop running away from the Marxist accusations of hegemony and dominant power and bla bla bla. Start educating your kids on the actual values of liberalism and why it is important. Don't let the state do it for you in schools, as the state is, and always will be corrupt.
Indeed. The problem with most modern political philosophy is that there’s WAY too much government allowed to be involved in our lives for us to be liberal today anyway. Social security, public schools, Medicare, federal income taxes, etc. All of that crap is socialism. People want to give up their responsibilities to the State. They don’t want to take care of their elderly parents or teach their own children. They put up with paying taxes bc they want these things from the government that any true liberal/libertarian would absolutely reject. Liberalism in its truest form is about being responsible enough to have the freedoms allowed in liberalism. Since everyone wants to give up on their responsibilities, we are of course in a post-liberal era. Authoritarianism is what they seem to be asking for anyway. For those of us who hate authoritarianism, the pandemic should have been quite an eye-opening experience to see how willingly ppl were to just give up all their rights to be told what to do. They didn’t want the responsibility of making the decisions for themselves. They wanted the government and institutions to tell them how to think. And this was the MAJORITY of the people. Regardless of how James feels about liberalism for himself, the majority of ppl have spoken and they enjoy being told how to think so that they don’t have any responsibility. Thus, the obvious turn towards a post-liberal mindset for both political sides.
Both 1. & 2. can only work iff you defer control to people & groups who do not bear the consequences of their doing, like state government & corporations. Binding control back to those who do bear all the consequences of what they're doing fixes this, & there is no better way of doing so (& arguably only) by reverting control back to individuals who own property & denying that groups can even have rights.
For the first, we have popper. For the second we have, well, smith himself. The problem isn't that it's supper productive, but there's a niche not being served, which stopped being served. Faith and community.
Why should someone who advocates for hate speech laws have their freedom of speech supressed? Is it because hate speech laws violate freedom of speech? That's what I think you mean, but tell me if I misinterpreted it. If that IS the case, why shouldn't you have *your* freedom of speech suppressed for calling for the suppression of the freedom of speech of hate speech law advocates? It follows the same logic of: call for the violation of free speech -> have your free speech violated. If this idea actually gets applied, it's going to either be self-destructive, or unfairly favour some over others.
@@etrs Your logic is that twisted "self-defense is murder" logic. It's literally from basic liberalism and natural rights 101, once you violate a negative right you lose it's protections.
Pointing out that liberalism isn't communism and that the two are at odds in values and structure isn't any kind of argument against the idea that liberal values create an environmental niche in which communism readily grows. A parasite needs the correct kind of host to grow, even though its wellbeing, growth, and reproduction is strictly at the expense of it's host. If you want this argument to be persuasive, you would need to argue why liberalism doesn't necessarily create the communist parasite's niche, not that a parasite and it's host are not identical. Of course they aren't.
I was going to comment about being a fan of some of the moderates who spoke at NatCon, like Douglas Murray and Louise Perry, as a Center-Left Liberal myself. But as I listen to this, I realize that the recent Postliberal critique of Classical Liberalism is probably even more erroneous than I thought it was, and I also think James perfectly describes the right wing Anti-Woke backlash that is just now gaining momentum.
@@vivecthepoet36 Lol, I'm still a fan of those particular moderates, who are capable of nuanced disagreement on topics like these. And anyone who can browbeat followers into subverting their organic inclinations might be taking a somewhat Marcusian approach, but in this case only ironically and for noble purposes.
Libertarianism is probably the more correct term for the form that is associated with 'conservativism'. Conservatism for christian conservatives is actually quite a bit more holistic than what woke-lefty-progressives see it as. For them its essentially just the rightwing religious nutjob stereotype. Thats fine, as a conservative I dont care what they think anyway! The days of trying to understand and find common ground are long gone.
You are invoking "inevitably", as if History have a destiny. That is Hegel. And if it was liberalism that was the problem, you would have no post-modernism and relativism in CCP and USSR. Or in most South American nations, that was never liberal. But they grow even quicker there, showing your argument wrong.
@@shadbakht How can it be, when Marxism and Liberalism have two completely different core values? You're also being blinded by the Americanism left vs right dichotomy, which, i'll add, is very partisan politics way of thinking.
Dude this is going to be an unpopular cheap skate take as far as anyone else reading this goes but this is one of those I know I am right things so here goes, on RU-vid please make your level 1 tier less than 5 buck, that figure is a threshold for most people is not justified in their own minds as the entry tier for most youtube channels when looking at it from a purely value orientated perspective. which with tier 1 like yeah it's ok to consider value. It's just that RU-vid members is not the same kind of thing as your own site. Creators that get this do well frankly, other than trying to go to video for the podcasts cause the algorithm will play into that. it's about outreach, you get amazing numbers when you get hosted at events and on other channels and you really should be looking to find ways to convert those numbers into viewership for your own stuff. Got to start bridging those virtual gaps, Like I wish I subbed sooner lets put it that way.
Disappointed that Anericans are captured by "rights" and unaware of English Common Law which the whole legal system claims to have derived its legitimacy from. Common Law is thousands of years old and developed alongside modern society through the millenia. Fundamentally we are acting lawfully as long as we do not tresspass on other's liberty. It is established that Acts of parliament (statutes) are merely guidance notes for the jury of our peers we are entitled to as a sovereign individual. The jury may disregard statutes if they are seen to be unlawful in each particular case. The judge is no more than an expert installed to advise the jury.
Im no longer a huge fan of common law. What drives the court cases (at least here in Oz), is legislation, and changes to legislation; the common law is little real defense, unless the politics of an issue is on one's side. I did jury duty here one time in a drug case, the magistrate explained it was 'balance of probabilities' that the guy was dealing drugs; it was an open and shut case that he was dealing, despite xyz reasons. It was a complete and utter waste of time. The jury was not asked to show compassion, or understand his point of view, it was just he was caught with greater than 2g of meth, and that automatically made him a dealer, and so we found him guilty of being a dealer (most probably). It was a complete waste of time and money. Although it was eye opening about how easy it is for the police and prosecutors to win a conviction for drugs...by design.
Sorry, James, but the mask mandates were not a liberal/conservative issue. They were a public safety issue. And the meat of that debate was not really the gov't's right to impose them but whether the science behind them was accurate. Had the science been irrefutable (it wasn't) then the legality would not be questioned--not any more than a speed limit or other traffic laws.
Imagine thinking that a world ran by totalitarians hand in hand with corporations is a capitalist one. Capitalism is where the economy is left to it's own devices and populated by private enterprise. Corporations are not private enterprise, they are publically owned, publically traded, publically regulated and often publically funded. I can't believe I have to say this, but public and private are two completely opposite things.
Lack of hard work very rapidly takes someone under water. The irony is that in the 'workers paradise', where they were going to get their own land, and work their own plots; ultimately it was all just stolen by the state, and the people worked for food and board. And they worked, in the early days they worked to death, not for themselves or their kids, but for the state. That cold, empty breast of thing, that always demands more.
@@andybytheway How about let's not quibble over what to call the current system, and let's both engage in HARD WORK side-by-side planting molotov cocktails and pipe bombs near where the centres of power are... I care not whether you consider Wall Street or the City of London 'Capitalist' or 'Communist' (lmao imagine thinking that actually though)
@@andybytheway Capitalism isn't something that it's possible to 'opt out of', so there isn't really 'freedom' involved. Read Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism. Capitalism is above all else a SYSTEM OF VALUE where shareholder profits are the highest priority. And even your definition LEADS TO this naturally, through an evolutionary process, and if you don't understand that, it's because you've been tricked by the system to tacitly support its continued hegemony. But I digress. So you think that Corporations shouldn't be allowed to 'exist' (at least in the way they do now)? Then we agree! But my definition of the word 'Public' is something that is REGULATED to reflect the WILL of the public, which must be by a GOVERNMENT that is the ARM of the PEOPLE. So I'm sure that we must disagree there... But yes, basically, Thatcher was an asshole, and go to Liverpool and ask any working-class family with someone at least 50-60 years old what they think of the period of 'privatisation'.
@@scythermantis It's as simple as this. Corporations only exist, and can only thrive in a socialist society. Shareholding and all that shit automatically makes that company a public entity and not a private one, private companies competing in a free-market is the definition of capitalism, no matter how many twisted talking heads and politicians claim it is defined by corpos. The more socialist a society becomes, the more control corpos have and the more they point the finger and say "See? Capitalism doesn't work, we should vote for moooooorrrreee government and regulations!", then people do, it gets worse, then more blaming of "capitalism" blah blah blah the cycle continues until compkete control or complete societal collapse.
Great work, James! I think the time for debating is over. Anyone espousing Leftist principles needs to be continually invited to go transform a country that DOESN'T have a constitution rooted in Liberty. They need to go there and prove their ideas work with a society that ostensibly welcomes socialism. Venezuela comes to mind. Hell, even Cuba. Go there and prove your system of governing works. Prove that it provides true equality. Prove that the people living under this regime are happier than all other societies. Once you've achieved that, we can talk. But, for now, leave the United States alone. Stop stirring our melting pot with your fucked up divisive theories.
Liberalism doesn’t exist without past cultures that struggle honestly not maniacally to better their civil cohesian while maximising prosperity. Maoists see only one or the other and not both, succeeding. Make no mistake maoist revolution in the west today has nothing to do with socialist heavy tax systems and benifit and privlage programs health and welfare etc, that to a degree hve coexisted with free market because! The reason many nations have done ok with both economic freedom but high taxes is because they celebrate small biz development with common sense not over refulation, and easy bank loan service for small startups. When the innovation of freedom is allowed, even when bogged down by rediculous tax burden someway they still find a way to thrive. Im talking about certain European nations and other nations that have still way too high taxation, but yet they actually are more economically free then the US, this is not all across Europe, much of Europe is like Canada and Australia, a maoist woke helll hole overtaking propserity of any kind because bondage of masses is the only transcendence for these twisted clowns
See the Maoists are sneaky, they imply Communism isn't just Liberalism for The Public (ie Complete Liberty of the State), and they attack Anarchists (Complete Liberty of the Person) by projecting on the other all the same flaws, problems, and threats the ideology itself poses. But there are other Liberalisms-- an almost infinite number of Liberalisms both unreasonable and reasonable. Most people that Communists and Anarchists would like to fool need Liberalism in moderation, balanced with other ideas such as life, happiness, equality, truth, freedom, and faith. This is why Liberal is an insult to extremist groups. Because they are calling them fools for not pursuing liberty to its terminal, or for pursuing liberty at all. Liberalists and anyone else who makes liberty their primary consideration will be impacted by it and be swayed in one direction or another. Which was the goal all along, to shake up the loose threads of society and gather as many of the orbs as they can like it was a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. You've got to have multiple standards to grasp onto and refuse to let go. Otherwise you will be shook, you will be tricked, and you will be captured.
So its jealousy and face-saving the whole way down. Basically we want what you have but dont want to do the work to get there and when they dint get it theyll lie about the reasons and disparage you until they get it.
This was hard work flitting between different literature and I gave up after 12 minutes 👎🏼 If you're going to critique how one ideology sounds like another one, at least bring someone else on to play the opposition.
