Prof. Mark Sedgwick: An introduction to Traditionalism 

This statement is more a free-masonic point of view (elite versus profanes) than what could be strictly called a "traditional" point of view ( If "traditional" would mean something really defined!) It would be better to say that error can't be opposed to the truth (but it is so obvious that there is no need to tell it). Guénon's sentences and views are not to be taken as infallible. Too much guénonians don't even realize that they have made for themselves a sort of paradoxal "esoteric religion", that is why they so often repeat their master's words without any further examination and are also so often very agressive and sectarian.

If ideas concerning religions and the structure of Reality is criticised, it is fundamental to introduce the exact point of view from which the criticism is made. Guenon's point of view is that western culture from the renessaince onward betrayed the sacted heritage of humanity. The name of this betrayal is modernism, which denies Truth, denies the basic tenets of every religion and the basic efforts and achievements of humanity since time immemorial. Modernism is the "religion" of scepticism, relativism, nihilism and greed. It organises society from a purely quantitative view and considers only economic and material factors. It considers humans as clever animals and clumsy computers. Modernist ideologies filter into the general, unidentified world-view of the masses. They spread an atmosphere of despair and hedonism. Modernism suggests that everyone is entitled to have their own view, that everyone has a right to criticise everything, because there is no such thing as absolute Truth and everyone is basically equal. It is a sad and miserable cluster of ideology which opposes the normal religious mentality of humanity and soon will result in replacing humans by robots and artificial intelligence. However Truth is one: the essence of humanity is sacred, the universe is vertically structured, there is one God, one Consciousness and one Reality. That's Guenon's point of view. What's yours?

@@hyperouranios_topos Thanks for your response ! My point of view is that Guénon's analysis on this matter (the déviation of "modernity"...but what really means such a word ?-is too unilateral. What he calls "modernity" is not entirely bad, dark and corrosive than what he says. Or seems to say , because he had more postive views about science in the beginning of his activities. These are a few remarks: 1) The works of Guénon would have never been published in certain forms of "traditionnal" societies. For instance do you imagine Guénon's universalism accepted in a muslim society ? Or in medieval christianity ? Obviously not. The proof is, among other things, than many muslims claming hat Guénon is theirs, hardly rad his books and ut his universalism under the carpet of prayer. That is the sort of paradox that always amazed me since I know Guénon's work : that modern secularism was the environment which made Guénon's publishing possible. 2) Guénon's views avoid to mention that materialism and scientism also bring very good things. For instance, if you have a toothache are you not rather happy to have modern technologies and medical improvement so that you have not fear to suffer what our ancestors had to suffer for a simple tooth decay ? Same remarks regarding the so-called bad role that the Western world is suppose to have made in some so-called "traditional" countries. Let's face it objectively; in fact with all the real bad aspects of colonization, Westerners also brought a lot of positive things. Reading history books shows well what was, for instance, the hygiene state of North Africa before the French came: it was a catastrophe; various diseases, deep poverty, no structures as roads or hospital etc...The Turks who rules these north Africa lands before the French did absolutely nothing to ease the bad conditions of life of the populations. Without the French presence (relatively short) these countries could have never had their present birthrate for example! Same remarks for the British in India or elsewhere. Sure that the British were hard but they also brought good things: things are rarely as simple as vilains versus good guys. By the way it would be cruel but fair to mention, among similar historical facts, the atrocities and hundred of victims made by the muslims invasion in India. Was this not as well a colonization and an very awful one with a good number of massacres? But this doesn't interest Guénon and the "traditionalists": they only worry about the colonization made by westerners. For them there is victims who smell good and others who smell bad. 3) I suppose that you totally agree with Guénon's views about the evilness of what you call modernity. But anyway aren't you presently using a computer to express how much you hate modernity ? Although modernity gives you this computer among a lot of other things in your everyday life ! And all these guénonians who spend their time criticising modernity , they almost all live in Western lands ! Why don't they live for more "traditional" countries ? The answer is simple: because they don't want to loose modernity advantages. The are just hypocrites. So what I just want to say is that we should really avoid any black or white view of this sort of realities. Sacred things, metaphysics etc are crucial but the sense of pragmatism is as well important. Guénon often idealized "traditional" societies : let's remember what he said about China or India. China for him was the most peaceful land in the world, while he praised India as an examplary land. But reality was different from such idealization. I would only recall that India is one of the most violent land in the world and that the cast system, far to be what Guénon's writings could make believe, is, as you know, an horrible system which brings a lot of sufferings, while the average hindou is very far from being a "natural" metaphysician but has probably a lower level en metaphysics than the common european catholic... To end these humble remarks I would say that the views on modernity that had such an indisputable traditional features like the famous Algerian emir Abdelkader were far much balanced and realistic than the rough opposition induced by Guénon. Anyway I still appreciate many things in Guénon, but I never considered that I have to accept blindly all his statements. God or nature, as you want, gave us the precious gift of reason and discrimination, so it would be so bad to not use it, thinking that blind acceptation is a proof of spirituality ! PS: I apologize for my bad english and all the gallicisms. I am French. thanks for your indulgence !

Putin and Dugin are Marxists who are committing genocide of the Russian people and replacing them with Muslim migrants. And together with the globalists they are destroying European civilization. Putin is the puppy of the globalists!

@@patlog1346 are these people in your room right now?

I was not impressed with Sedgwick. Superficial answers, weak articulation of ideas and arguments. Could have invited 3 experts each of Guenon, Evola and Dugin

@@latitudeselongitudes1932 just a classical modern man, but objective i agree with Markus. But the fact is that as Guénon would say, the modern paradigm produce these encyclopedic minds who are gifted to analyse a phenomenon, each part of it...but then they stay there. They never engage in any spiritual path, any transformative readings that have as target the transformation of the being...they just gather informations accuretly..

​​@@latitudeselongitudes1932 Dugin is a GRU's agent, an astute impostor, not a traditionalist. He is a postmodern nihilistic and chauvinistic thinker, the symbol of his movement is the Chaos Cross of Crowley: he is trying to subvert traditionalist thinkers in favour of a neo-stalinist chauvinistic political order, that wants to confuse european fascist movements. Read for example the article of Thuletide. Bannon also is a clown that robbed money in Italy at the Meloni's party. He is ultra zionist and a subverter. These opinionists and impostors don't have nothing to do with giants like Guénon and Evola. Hossein Nasr instead is more serious, but he is mainly a university scholar, not a real esoterist like them.

@@user-fg7nw6ln1z 100% agree

Putin and Dugin are Marxists who are committing genocide of the Russian people and replacing them with Muslim migrants. And together with the globalists they are destroying European civilization. Putin is the puppy of the globalists!

Bit like Astrology or Hinduism or indeed Ante diluvian civilizations…..

Spengler is a clown

​ @evolassunglasses4673 I've just witnessed your comment being shadow banned in real time. Mo*goth's Re*iew is a top lad and his videos definitely make Spengler more digestible.

Spengler said in his last book ,"Man and technics" that because Faustian culture is so directed towards everything and eternity, it will be Faustian culture that will end all cultures, and it wil do so by technical "progress"..I am afraid he might be wright.....

Putin and Dugin are Marxists who are committing genocide of the Russian people and replacing them with Muslim migrants. And together with the globalists they are destroying European civilization. Putin is the puppy of the globalists!

By Ucranian secret services actually

Right. Trump likely isn't influenced by any intellectual, even one of Bannon's calibre. Trump's nostalgia for the past does not extend to pre-history. He is a traditionalist only in the sense that he rejects radical wokesterism; this also holds true for his base .

@@markwarning7305 Trump certainly has a verbally thrifty technique of calling out BS. that make pompous heads explode🤯

Trump's full of shite... like your corny emoji@@BruiserBailey1

So much for the word traditionalism misrepresenting traditions: it obliterates them and the profound truths of life.

Lol really? Tell us more

​@@annharding9634In fact this 'lecture' was really bad and shallow, this fat dude even said that maoist China have 'affinities' with traditionalism🤣 Jinping is a proud stalinist, like the GRU's agent Dugin. Traditionalists despised profoundly Chinese communists, they defended Tibet: Marco Pallis for example. In reality the esoteric christian ideal defended by Guénon and Evola was that of the Templar Order, destroied by the Philip the Beautiful, the subversive and greedy french king, that of Dante's Imperium etc. Dugin, Bannon, Carvalho etc. are all grotesque postmodern figures that doesn't have nothing to do with them. On a merely academic level Hossein Nasr is a more serious intellectual influenced by traditionalist esotericism

So true! I can’t get enough of him actually, but I think he takes the critique of modernity a bit too far. Even if it’s all true, we need to start where we’re at and it makes no sense to live in the world with contempt for it. This is why I love Vedanta - the world is fine and doesn’t need saving.

​@@rodblues6832Yeah maybe you're right about that. I haven't read the Vedanta, just Guenon's books on the subject.

I agree. Trump is a very shallow man w shallow ideas but he does tend to favour making a 'deal' as a pragmatic approach to differences between countries which i take as a positive. Why Bannon became involved is clear from Bannon's perspective but it showed Trump's shallowness.

@@MrBallynally2 Bannon is an idiot as well. I doubt he ever read any of the Traditionalist schools and just wished to be associated with such niche thinkers

Hahahahah.

All views ... but his ? 😆

@@MarkJohnson-dr4ws including his

​@@ISlappedCleopatrasAss so you don't believe in objective truth.

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 the best scientists admit that they don’t have a full understanding of reality. Views, opinions etc can be influenced by bias, ignorance and misunderstandings.

@@ISlappedCleopatrasAss each scientist contributes a part to the puzzle. Each theory or hypothesis can contain some truth and some falsehoods. But you can combine the truths to find the correct worldview Aren't pyschists trying to find the theory of everything.

Time stamp?

@@they365 00:21

@@mirmahmood2619 yes, its him.

But for Dugin the Apocalypse is not the heralding of Golden Age, but of the supreme arising of Russia to world domination, just as Russia is tasked (instead of God) with bringing about the Apocalypse. As I said, Dugin is a dangerous man and not a traditionalist in the vein of Guenon, Schuon, etc.

Freddie is correct. Dugin's version of traditionalism is opposite of Christianity in important ways, such as "dethroning the Logos" for chaos, and making Russia a divine state that takes the place of the "kingdom of God". For this reason 500 Eastern Orthodox scholars declared the Russian World doctrine (related to Dugin) heretical. True traditionalism is in accord with Christianity and many of its adherents practice it.

Freddie. There is true traditionalism, and then, as you rightly note, there is what some who come later (and of modern mentality) make of it.

Schuon 's books have no much values. At their best that's morals and pious clichés. at their worst that's non-sense and absurdities. I think for instance of what he wrote about Joan of Arc, saying that one of her providential role was to... prevent France to become protestant !!! How is it possible to write such stupidities, that remains for me a mystery...! Because there is of course no direct relations with lutheranism and England. Henry the VIII created anglicanism which is not a at all protestantism. protestantisme was born in Germany not in England ! There is obviously no relation between this fact and the hundred years war period ! If the king of England had been also king of France, it is obvious that nor Henry the VIII neither anglicanism would've ever existed ! These points are enough to show Schuon's absurde writings about that. And a large part of Schuon's book is made of the same stuff. But there is more: Schuon also said that protestantism is a legitime approach inside christianity ! If it is not a huge contradiction I don't know what it is ! So he said that Joan of Arc avoided France to become protestant but in another chapter he explains that protestantism is not bad ! Moreover Schuon ended bad, as a megalomaniac preposterous cult leader in the USA : he was worshiped as a sort of super avâtara by a group of naives or depraved disciples, if we only call disciples such people, while Schuon was a false spiritual master, belonging to the kind of cheaters Guénon had denounced. His cult was a mixing of syncretism, megalomania, obsession for nudity, sexual, oddities, incongruous doctrins and millenarism. "You will know them by their fruits" as we can read in Matthew. That's what happen when esoterism becomes an ideology. You can find details about the sad odyssey if Schuon in Pr Sedgwick 's book "Against the Modern World".

People that disagree with him or Putin - suggests that he and Putin are aligned, but they're not.

Figures. Typical American / Western cluelessness about all things east. And south and north. Same goes for most people in most countries. Even within countries lol. Plenty of crank philosophies floating about America that aren't really taken seriously by anyone of average intellegence. It's the bright-but-not-bright-enough that get sucked into such convoluted spurious crypto-spiritual flim-flam, not the truly intellegent. Deranged Russian "thinker" Ayn Rand tops the American crackpot philosopher's list hahaha....

Thank you for sharing this perspective.

It’s is very good to put him in context, would you guess at an American or British equivalent?

I'm half Ukrainian half Russian. I'm really aware of Dugin. You are 100% correct. I'm extremely skeptical who take Dugin seriously, including Jordan Peterson.

What did you expect? Britain is 1,000 years divorced from Christianity, and arguably one of the most radically divorced countries in Europe from it.

Ironically England is the home of one of the greatest Orthodox monasteries on the planet, the one founded by St. Sophrony of Essex.

You’re the devil

It has lot of truths which your western enlightenment influenced minds is finding difficult to understand

Do you honestly believe this video has informed you aboit traditionalism 😂😂😂😂

Love dharma is the way of Jesus Christ. Actions of love where they are both undeserved and deserved are the driver of transformation towards the kingdom of heaven. Incrementally and iteratively, not in a quick revolution. To me, this Dharma and algorithm leaves traditionalism and it's fixed castes in the stone age dust.

This isn't correct. Christianity predicts the coming of the antichrist before the end of the world.

You're espousing a bullshit version of christian theology

Yes, hence the title ' Introduction to traditionalism'.

Could you please recommend a good source on the topic?

​@@waltershumer4211​​ You could check out the channels of Philosophicat, Ariya Khattiya, Saiyad Nizauddin Ahmad, or Apostolic Majesty. I would suggest reading books by Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Macrobius, the Mahabharata, Titus Livy, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Eddas, Alexander Wolfheze, Numa Denis Fustal de Coulanges (his book The Ancient City), or Thomas Carlyle.

I’m sure you’re capable of doing better, then. Let us know when you have put together a more in-depth video.

​@@waltershumer4211read those thinkers yourself. Evola for example I found quite approachable.

Very well said!

It has always been Islam vs the white man

theres not a hope Bannon touched these thinkers. I believe he simply associated himself with them to appear smarter than he actually was.

@@ahmadfrhan5265 It has not, the Prophet (PBUH) was sent to all mankind, not only to the Arabs, and the greatest ally of his Family is an Indo-European country. Yes, it is true the European and Islamic civilizations have battled each other, but there have also been great areas of tolerance and cooperation. Look, for example, at the modern alliance between the pious Muslims (Persians, Pashtuns, Levantines, etc.) and the Orthodox Christian civilization in Russia.

@@Wully02 Slavs , and southern Europeans are not white to us nor they are considered western to us, only the Germanic , Anglo Saxon and Norse European and we are already at war with the race of decadence, Allah said he will not guide wrong doing nations and as all previous nations that challenged Allah , Allah just guided few of them and eradicated the rest, white people embody all the trials the prophets faced. They will never accept Islam as a nation and our alliance is false there is no alliance only one will inherit this earth and Isis is true Islam and k non Muslims is justified since your governments k our people and our governments true administration is the White House so normally they don’t react and that is why the mujahdeen take it upon themselves to whites whenever they can. No peace k us and enjoy the moment and you know well it will not last as you see the west falling even geopolitically which will restore the Islamic Caliphate. If the east rise the west demise.

This was an horrible 'lecture', all traditionalists are extremely complex and aristocratic thinkers, that don't have nothing to do with impostors like Dugin, Bannon etc. Dugin is a postmodern chauvinist, his symbol is the Chaos Cross of Crowley, he being a 'christian' is just a mask for his agenda. Also, traditionalists didn't had nothing to do with low I Q religious postmodern fanatics like protestant evangelicals, wahhabites, zionists etc., they saw those things like Counter-Initiation's puppets, the absolute negation of Tradition. They had some appreciation politically for Maurras (Guénon) and Codreanu (Evola) for example , but they saw those movements only as a first step towards a traditional politics and Civilization, not as complete ideologies. Read directly their books, which are hard to really understand, don't listen to mainstream misrepresentation of them. You could start from Evola's 'Mask and Face of modern Spiritualism', and you will see how profound he is.

Interesting! I thought that Christianity was an inherently slave /anti traditional morality?

Yes, you're right. It certainly solidified into a system of sorts in the early 20th century, but on a grand timescale, it only extracts its Western metaphysical principles from Plato, with parallelisms from Upanishads and Vedas.

Lies it's not a erroneous definition of jihad. It's the definition promoted by most islamic scholars in muslim majority countries. Your definition is politically correct lie promote by politically correct academics

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 so you are calling the encyclopedia brittanica editors liars,lmao

@@torat1511 yes I called them liers. If they speak the truth you Islamist jihadis will start a campaign against them go practice tawriya to some other uneducated dhimmi

@@torat1511 even if they are not deliberately lying they willing bought the lies of the islamic scholars who lied to them about the meaning of jihad. There are many clips of what these lying imams say to their muslim audience

​@@torat1511​ educate yourself on this topic please: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Both military and personal forms of jihad exist and are acted upon. Why would you believe everything you read online? Anyone can do it and everyone have their own biases.

Our institutions are hollowed out. The real driver of power is The City of London and international finance.

That would be the late Guillaume Faye. Look for his book 'Archeofuturism'

I prefer A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth as a starting point, but only if one is not bothering (foolishly) to look into his mystical, alchemist side.

No significant insights to make it worth the time

​@@zetristan4525 You're spamming comnents now

... You weren't the intended audience then. Junger's point was about finding the warrior ethos even in a period where warfare had become cold and impersonal.

Kick n mix?

I mean the New York Times refused to run stories on the Holocaust so yeah kind of….

It was classic progressive kneejerk anti-Trump. Trump was caricatured as a 'wrecking-ball' which is ridiculus. He's reactionary to progressivism. And because he's against the deep state, "the cathedral" whereas I wd say Trump in this respect is heeding Eisenhower's warning, which Bannon as neo-con does not.

Oh please.

It was unimpressive in general, superficial answers, articulation of arguments

​@@erikschad179 They put Putin on a thumbnail about traditionalism 😂😂😂

Can't believe he reduced the Great Leader Trump like that! Trump the sophisticated, the utterly complex...

If we don't try and understand why the Anglo-sphere has reduced our homelands to economic zones and us to economic units, we have no chance of saving anything of our civilisation.

Yes, many of those thinkers predictions have been proven right .

If you think intellectual is a perjorative, I question your decision to subscribe to Unherd too

@@iratepirate3896 UnHerd do a lot of good stuff, but intellect is not everything. Principled thinking, self awareness and humility are neccessary. So much intellectual discourse is rhetoric (a war of words) and seems not to lead to greater understanding. In my humble opinion:)

Wonder how it can be called an "ancient" philosophy.

ChatGPT is biased tool, cant be used as credible source.

22:00 mins: Establishing the esoteric as Self realisation or self-development is totally within the modernist frameworks of individualism and Socratic self-knowledge from Hobbes and Descartes. It places the esoteric within the incongruent context of say self help books self-enlightenment psychology of self realisation and free identity formation. It looks like some fancy stuff added to a wholly social psychological scientific world view. I mean if the traditionalists are against progress in science and technology, surly the science and technologies of self enlightenment and self realisation are extreme versions of modernist individualist progress. Foucault has written on this as part of his Critique of modern psychology and mental heath instructions, but the Critique is, in the first instance political.

Two things about the "individual warrior" that seems to be in Nietzsche is it is really a re-representation of Roman Stoicism and Stoic virtues, though medieval Chivalry, not really esoteric at all just old, and not a lost tradition it features in the Arch-Enlightenment/Romantic thought of Kant and taken up by Foucault's in his later work as "care of the self", and is now of interest to capitalist liberals, wanting to use it against the far left, in the way they did with Sartre's individualist existentialism. The men are standardised against, and expected to become, like the old warriors, the virtues of protecting feminine virtues. Good for feminists who want both freedom and protection , but without the cost of giving it over the the political state to mediate it. They want it to be, socially and psychologically, immediate, that is to place it in the hearts of their men. Ever likely this is appealing to both left and right feminists. The forgotten exoteric tradition of men going to war for the women. funny how these left and right aristocratic philosophers always see it as someone else's job to go to war. they'd be Nietzsche's herd i guess guided by people who, won't themselves, be turned into food and clothing.

The image of the political cultural and virtue layer cake, with each having the norms and virtues associated with their "function" and vice versa, so a hierarchical layering of functions, is in part traditionally Platonic: Gold Silver and Bronze types of people, for separate types of role with norms and virtues. This is not a lost esoteric tradition it is dead and well in exams and qualifications; it is also in part the medieval Catholic uptake of Aristotle and virtue and function. its a very bad reading of Aristotle on the function and the unity of the virtues in his Ethics. The opening of the Ethics is "Every man seeks some good, The Good is that which everyone seeks". it is not be read as a definition or axiom or principle, but as a paradoxical non sequitur. To take Sidewick's view its a compositional fallacy like all people on the road are going somewhere , The "Somewhere" is where everybody on the road is going. reading this as straight assertion lead people to think of a hierarchy of functions, all unified under a single unity goal aim purpose. it modern political versions are: right liberal progress to greater GDP utility and pleasure that requires freedom, and left socialist progress to rights equality justice that will be freedom. This is not the kind of unity Aristotle had in mind, all the virtues must be exercised together by a rational animal. Eudaimonia is not a temporal progress end as the logical unity supposes but the synthesis of the virtues in an action judged and done appropriate to its context and event. When Sartre supposedly turned Aristotle on his head with "not essence precedes existence, but existence precedes essence" It cannot be right because he has just reversed a very bad understanding of Aristotle from Aquinas generally. This new revised view of Aristotle is now common but John McDowell makes this very clear in his discussion in "Mind and World" and in his responses to criticisms. Its clear in Kant where the "faculties" or Powers" of the mind are multiple some functionary but they must work in harmony and hierarchy can be seen as the enemy of this that leads to transcendent aims (the Just, the Good, the right, the freedom) that are impossible and self destructive. Kant's Third Critique contains everything here but much more suited to and coherently "expressing" the non place of the inexpressible between reason and the sublime experience of nature as beyond understanding.

its a bit of a stretch I think to think of any political social psychological hierarchical structure to be like this esoterically justified one. its a fallacy of similarity of surface images not depth, so a representational similarity but not structural or intertwined. An intertwined and rooted shape essentially can't be abstracted or parts of it abstracted and moved and copied somewhere else. In a way that is what marks the traditionalists from the modernists, the modernists work though parts and wholes, as if each part were something that can still move or function when taken out and put into a different context and intertwined whole. Indeed moderns just say, we are getting this policy that works "in A" and bringing it over here "to B". This is modernist methods of analysis and abstraction and then "their" problem of complexity. the world view of traditionalists deny the analysis and abstract move so they don't have a problem of complexity but one of things being intertwined into their context and so no abstraction and no universal law rule and series to carry them else where. indeed in the modern world of so called opportunity hierarchy, those at the tope can move rootles and free from any world city to another pretty much, while the lower modern day peasants are tied or now can move from one peasant's proper place pace to another peasants proper place. the upper hierarchy can move countries according to self interest, something made possible by left and right modernisms of globalisation and de contextualisation. In what sense then is this global moving between countries at all like traditionalist rooted notions of hierarchy. There is only a surface similarity.

The philosopher to read, for heterodox and radical approaches to politics in the 20th century is Heidegger, and his early work on Being which was his attempt at the destruction of Western metaphysics in his N##I period. Then his later work on freedom and essence and truth, then the main book is a collection of notes "Contributions to Philosophy" which is a nightmare, even in comparison to his other writings. he had a massive influence on the post world war two French far left, and from them to the US left liberals now. In relation to nature it has some affinities with late 18th early 19th century German Idealism and Romanticism ad so strangely the environmentalist movements at least in terms of not seeing nature as resource for human use which is how they characterised modernity and science and technology from Bacon. Its is also the era that the notion of the Volk emerges out of. The thing is this turn of Romantic and aesthetic German Intellectuals, is at once a turn and massive expansion of the Universities prior to but seen as essential to the organisation of yet to be unified German State (1871) 200 years after the 30 Years War. This was the result of the need to create a massive civil service for the coming unified State to be, and that the German Aristocracy were the first to realise in Europe, that their power in land was on the way out, and they need to train their kids in Universality in Reason so as to carry on their position in a what they realised was a new social order to come out of the industrial revolution. (Eg as in Marx later of new economics means new social order.) thus the moderns here area continuation by other means of Aristocracy but with better ideological disguise, suitable to the new age. no one will believe "All things bright and beautiful" in this age. So the exclusive aesthetic taste abilities that made them exceptional as the wealthy Aristocracy becomes efficiency accuracy expertise and technocratic morality as law to justified their wealth power and freedom. in the new context to come. So there is continuity here that Marx misses I think, between pre modern and modern.

I don't know how singing, dancing, drinking alcohol, smoking or road rules are outlawed by Christianity.

@@grannyannie2948 Christianity has no laws. Various Christian sects have all sorts of prohibitions. Are the Mormons not Christians? Are the Amish and Mennonites not Christian?

@@grannyannie2948 Are you dancing Granny? Better get your mind right.

@@glennmitchell9107 Mormons are not Christian, they follow a false prophet and some practice polygamy.

@@glennmitchell9107 What's dancing got to do with a rational mind.

I think they will lose

@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 Sure you do.

Except many of their predictions have come to pass in ways that only someone with insight could conclude.

@@aaseviltwintheboomerslayer9860 Please could you give two of their (non-obvious) predictions? Even if you just write 2 sentences. I'm normally an attentive listener, looking to learn... the blah must've run me out of patience.

​@@zetristan4525 why should I accept your version of reality. Your enlightenment influenced mind finds it difficult to understand these simple truths. I don't subscribe to this philosophy but i believe they got certain things right.

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 Of course you shouldn't because I didn't present anything about reality, in two comments above🤔 I only asked if you'd share some (non-obvious) insights from it.

​​@@zetristan4525 What in the heck is "minds of the past"

You don't really understand what they mean by "self-realization".

Azov are heroes. They embrace nationalism and tradition. Fight imperialism and invaders.

Who cares, why would he waste his time on understanding the evolution of a specific Ukrainian military unit? They're not important when it comes to discussing the broad strokes of the Russian-Ukraine war and it's implications on the geopolitical landscape.

​@@UnpluggedDieselnot really, they are literally the paid henchmen of the GAE, fighting for drag queens and gay marriage.

@@aaseviltwintheboomerslayer9860 That's "it's not important" not "they're not important" and Colborne makes clear in his book that the Azov movement is much broader than the Azov regiment, which is itself pretty important. As Colborne says in his conclusion: “The Azov Regiment is probably the only official military unit in the world that was born from a core of far-right extremists and continues to be connected to a broader far-right social movement. Despite unconvincing efforts to separate the two, it’s clear that the Azov regiment is part of the broader Azov movement and should not be treated as something distinct from it. A military unit like the Azov Regiment has no place in a democratic country’s armed forces and should be disbanded.” You often hear apologists for the Ukrainian government say that every European country has its far right activists, but only Ukraine has an Azov regiment.

This 90 minute video was posted 10 minutes ago, so you clearly didn't listen to it before proclaiming your uninformed judgement. You literally have NOTHING to offer.

Ahh, complaining about the patriarch whilst you alone claim to speak and think for all women. In two consecutive sentences. You've clearly thought deeply and independently.

That's why women are so unhappy today.

@@evolassunglasses4673 most of my friends are earning lotta money, have options , are happy women. Better than suffering at the hands of some wife beater.

@@tabithan2978I must have blinked…in the UK and Ireland it’s not possible politically to say what a women is… I expect it’s the patriarchy again pretending to be feminism, sounds traditional…..

There are no solutions inside the Liberal paradigm. Wake up.

Nothing is more dangerous than Liberalism and open borders Globalisation.

There are many people mentioned here who fit that description. Do you mean the interviewer and interviewee?

Possibly dangerous twaddle? You sound like a woman.

@@Thomas...191 mostly the credibility of the concept and its purported relevance. dodgy at best.

Probably the most ridiculous comment ever made on RU-vid ^

In group preference is completely normal around the World.

Read Evola.

@@evolassunglasses4673 sure when you read Gloria Steinem.

@@tabithan2978 Is that meant to be a joke?