Your remark that that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" arise from the Left, out of revolutionary thought, reminded me of a quote from former Confederate chaplain Robert Lewis Dabney: "American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition." It is but one line in a much larger quote, but he properly inferred that the conservative of his day (late 19th century) merely imitated the radical of the prior age. Such as it is with (American) conservatives today, their vaunted principles are progressive victories inherited from the past century.
Indeed! Conservatives are the progressives of the past generation and are merely conserving a degenerate form of society or government; playing catch up at best with radical progressives.
I think this is being generous, saying conservatives actually CONSERVE "old" values. They've degenerated so far that they no longer conserve what was once radical long ago, they merely conserve the gains of the opposite party from the previous year.
I am far too brainlet to comprehend much of your prose sir but I am improving over time. Sometimes I think of something you say 6 months later in another context.
Been loving the frequency of the videos you’ve been putting out. Hard to keep up but I’ll watch them all. Don’t let the YT algorithm keep you down. Your work is phenomenal.
A great topic. I try to avoid using terms like left/right, liberal/conservative. There is virtually no meaning to these words anymore (if there ever was one) besides good and bad
Thank you for your interesting perspective. I have always described myself as an ultra Royalist so I found this fascinating. While sentimentally and romantically I am attracted to the Jacobites but i am wary of such legitimacy claims as in the Carlists as forms of idealism. I support in the end those Kings or Queens that actually are anointed and crowned. As an Australian l am loyal to our constitutional Monarchy (which is not ideal but it is better than a republic) and our King Charles III. it is for Charles III I would be willing to give my life and i have a emotional and intellectual love for the King as I did for his late mother. I have no desire for Prince Joseph Wenzel to replace our present King even though I am both Catholic and Royalist.
Hi everyone, There’s a new AM fan club Discord server that has been set up! Come and join if you want to discuss AM-only content. discord.gg/BjWNmuRhJu
I like the idea that the monarch points toward what is beyond human, the sacred; this is done symbolically for the uplifting of the people and concretely. Hard to imagine a "conservative" prime minister achieving that.
"Ultra", also more Catholic than the pope? Now, what's a word for broad ethnicity? I don't like white, or causation. Anglo-Celtic is too specific. What do you use?
You're expecting left and right, conservative and liberal, to be coherently defined in terms of ideology. In America at least, the great majority of conservatives and liberals are not ideologues, and the simple and robust ties that connect them to one side or the other of the partisan divide are unaffected by the winds of ideological change.
Regardless of where in the world it is, “left” and “right” have always been and must necessarily always be relative terms. Expecting anything more is folly.
@@arthurporter131 Don't agree. They are relative only if measuring in terms of ideology. In terms of attitude and temperament, it isn't relative. Progressive and reactionary ideals depend on the time and place, but the way the sides select their ideals is based on emotional attitudes that remain the same no matter how much the terms of debate change.
How does this apply to current politics? Who would be the Temporal Leader of Christendom in the world today? An Emperor of America? Charles III becoming Catholic and reestablishing the British Empire?
@ApostolicMajesty Hi, new viewer here. I'm an American Catholic, been trending towards Royalist for some time, though until watching this video, I would have said Monarchist. I have a couple questions. In current usage, as you point out, monarchy has become virtually synonymous with royalism and kingship. You are, of course, correct about the etymology and I agree with the point made regarding the American president being more of a monarch than the King of England. That does raise the question, however, what fundamentally is defining of "Kingship" as opposed to "monarchy"? I believe Plato/Aristotle define monarchy as rule by one for the good of the polis, as opposed to despotism being rule by one for his own desires. My first thought goes back to your comments on revolution and rule by God vs. the post revolutionary secular state. Would I then be correct to think that one of the defining points of Kingship, as opposed to mere monarchy is the idea of divine mandate, and divine anointing? Clearly, historically, this is present in the Catholic world with the coronation essentially being a near sacramental rite. Is there anything else that is definitive of Kingship, other than the concept of divine anointing? in the sense that it is a distinctive of Kingship as opposed to a strong President, or Chancellor? I agree that the idea of heredity is not essential, but at the same time it does seem to be important to the Legitimists. In Ultra circles, would the idea be acceptable of a person who is not of hereditary royal blood being elevated to Royal status as a King, if such person were anointed and crowned by the Church etc?
I am not a catholic but this guy I dont think claims this here,because all royal lines descend from someone who at one point wasnt king,there is no unbroken chain of kings rulling since creation.
Identifying with ultraroyalism in the 21st century is even more cringe than antisocial colorfully-haired American gays that identify with Stalin and Bolshevism
Spoken like a true adherent of Whig History, albeit one brave enough to slander some of the Cathedral’s sacred cows, at least on the internet. Still you are the naive lackey to those who perpetuate the myth that ours is greatest of all possible worlds by virtue of being the newest, the same myth that gave you the colorfully haired Americans gays and Marxists in the first place. We all have a long road to travel but you should never take for granted that you didn’t get turned around somewhere along the way.
@@gch8810don’t get me wrong, I am no enemy to the ideal of a strong, centralized state with limited democratic elements. But if, like in this video, you are merely taking monarchy to mean a strong superstate built around a powerful central figure, then that’s okay, but you’re then essentially reducing the concept of monarchy into a useless semantic abstraction that adds negative net utility in the service of understanding and being succinct and purposeful with language. Also comparing the US President to a monarch is one of the most comically absurd things I’ve heard all year - pure psychosis
I don't recall having ever seen "colourfully-haired American gays that identify with Stalin and Bolshevism". Trotskyism perhaps but not Stalinism. Perhaps some introspection regarding the precise usage of labels may be of use.
@@ApostolicMajesty “I haven’t seen it therefore it doesn’t exist.” 90% of young “social democrats” in the US are psychotic Leninists that legitimately think mass murdering landlords is morally justifiable and that the Soviet Union was a democratic system. As an American and a student specializing in 20th century Russian political history I can very much testify to this. The largest “social democratic” political streamer in the world, Hasan Piker, is literally (not literally figuratively) a crypto-Stalinist.
