You clearly don't get what he is saying. There is an emphasis on "shall", as in "Man ultimately will form Governments and organize societies". But this is not because of "free will", but something that happens organically. It's funny that you come along 200 years later and think you can debunk a great philosopher from the time with a simple sentence.
Why were the notions of Managerialism and The Cathedral ever invented when you had de Maistre all along predicting them two centuries before they were a reality?
"In 1802, he was sent to Saint Petersburg in Russia as ambassador to Tsar Alexander I. His diplomatic responsibilities were few and he became a well-loved fixture in aristocratic circles, converting some of his friends to Roman Catholicism" OMG, he was devout.
However when speaing of "you have to work to eat, how cruel!" that leftists bring up. I think the origins of this, or rather what is truly meant, isnt what they are actually saying. Once we consider leftists somewhat of weaker intelligence, particularly verbal intelligence, then we can translate this instead to. "I can eat disproportionately little, compared to the amount of work I do." Which is a true attitude. And this realtes to how economy is run in general. Most leftist complaints are by far social complaints and results, ramifications, of economic mismanagement and misdefinition (economy as an end unto itself. Man for economy, not ecoomy for man). I doubt any leftist would be angered by the prospect of being able to settle freely, use natural resources to develop himself and his home. The point being that what effort is put in has a true result to it. A proper, equal, appropriate reward/ result. This may be why the means of production meme is so strong. I myself consider that man should in most cases be a producer rather than a consumer (as is the current model) and a worker (personal work space) rather than an employee (which is the current model). I dont think any rational (still rational at least) leftist would disagree. However leftists may be the ultimate deranged doomer accelerationists who simply want to accelerate all their vices and all the evil in the world because they cant take it anymore. They may very well be so far down the rabbit hole of evil, becoming so themselves and acting so, that they see to justify themselves through some made up evil. Any good is thus a mirror held up to them, and what they see they hate. But they cant stop now, they dont want to, they want to validate their personal evil by fighting a cartoon kind of evil. /end rant (smart people bury these late night polish mans rants)
I think the more sophisticated form of the argument would generally be in response to the idea of capitalism being "voluntary", with the leftist saying that they are de facto forced to work *for a capitalist* in order to sustain themselves - which, to an extent at least, is true, though the idea that most must subordinate themselves to some hierarchical institution is not really the issue i have with capitalism (and all actually existing socialist regimes have recreated this dynamic anyhow) and it really seems that a lot of leftists just want to be idle and consume more and that's really their main bone to pick with it; that they're not being pushed along the ever accelerating hedonic treadmill with consumption driven dopamine hits quickly enough - they're still very much capitalists insofar as they cling to the promise offered by capitalism, not understanding that it's an impossible one to fulfill
Where do you find these readings? What leads you to them? And most importantly, how do you have the time to read all of this while keeping up with life?
Problems I see in all these spiritual historians, or if you like philosophers: • no practical insight into balancing monarch and nobility; always biased toward centralization. • reluctant to admit possibility of incompetence / corruption. • do not account for how, from Crowmwell to Roosevelt, the network and appeal of materialists replaces warm bodies on the field many times faster than monarchies.
I know this is an old comment but i will respond in case you are still active: 1. because there is no specific answer to that question. The degree of centralization within a civilization is dependent upon so many factors, organic and inorganic, that it is impossible to articulate. This question is like saying "what fiscal policy should the state enact". The answer is that it depends on the needs of that civilization in that area of space and time. As for what seems obvious to me, the advancements in technology today highly favor centralization because the person who wields them (especially the military and industrial base) is disproportionately more powerful than they would have been in any other point in time. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it does mean that any society, including the liberal states, will be more centralized than even the states of antiquity or the middle ages. I will also say that there is a big difference between a state which can do everything and a state which does everything. Every state, by the definition, is capable of anything, especially during a crisis during which people lean more heavily on the state, but that does not mean it is ideal for a state to do all things like you see in a communist or fascist society. If a state seeks to do all things it is either due to an abuse of power or a complete deterioration of human quality within the state and society (either case is a death sentence). 2. This is also unanswerable. Corruption is simply a product of man's fallen nature and the degree of corruption within a society is directly reflective of the moral quality of its constituents (all the people collectively). Evil men will beget evil times and good men will beget good times. 3. The awakening of the masses and the dulling of the aristocracy is an essential part of the cycle of any civilization. The monarchy was not a passive victim during the french revolution for example. This revolution occurred because the aristocracy deteriorated to such a low level of moral quality that they lost their right to rule and were overthrown. If they were like their lion-hearted ancestors, no revolution would have happened. The same is true with any other revolution and any state. The better more capable strata will naturally overcome the inferior strata regardless of philosophical or theological correctness. It is not enough to be correct because you must also have the power and prowess to uphold what is right in the face of incessant opposition (which will always exist). Good men beget good times and evil men beget evil times. Likewise a powerful aristocracy (in the sense of what is real) will survive and a weak aristocracy will be dethroned. The aristocracy simply became weak and degenerate and this was the first visible part of the decline of western civilization.
Should all men be equal all must would therefore have to be identical in all ways. However the mere fact that no two men are equal, which underlines their individuality and complexity as they are a part of a collective greater than them, is evidence that equality as it pertains to men is impossible. For equality necessitates injustice, violence, to those who are as they are, created by forces higher than them, through no will of their own. And yet this is also the origin of charity. hah I can sound smart! Rousseau btfo'd!
De maistre is most brilliant thinker of the last 300 years. Also on the quote at 1:54; this is a criticism of all liberal thinkers at the time and of liberalism in general. Their ideas were entirely caught up in abstract ideas and concepts with no merit in the real world
As a Frenchman I would say your pronunciation of de Maistre is fine. After all, it's to be expected that foreign names are anglicised in their pronunciation, and your anglicisation of de Maistre was by no means egregious. (As for AA's Rene "gooey-non" I will make no comment)
@@supahnubz What? "Despite his close personal and intellectual ties with France, Maistre was throughout his life a subject of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which he served as a member of the Savoy Senate (1787-1792), ambassador to Russia (1803-1817) and minister of state to the court in Turin (1817-1821)."
Very slight correction, but wasn’t this a book of two unpublished (and unfinished) essays that was put together after de Maistre’s death? Your recounting makes it sound like Maistre had intentionally written it as a book.
And then that littke frenchman went and inspired a nice germsn man with a big ol' bushy beard to put those ideas into a economic system! But thats a story for another time.
Sheep are born carnivores, yet everywhere they eat grass.
Democracy as merely a monarchy stuck in permanent regency.
Insightful and exploitable.
Reminds me of Lord of the Rings.
De Maistre you say? More like De BASEDtre
I shall see my exit...
Good riddance.
"It wasn't REAL democracy"
That's rich.
Good vid brother
Big ups for de Maistre - one of my favourite traditionalists/reactionaries.
I like him very much
De Maistre is a wonderful writer
de maister looks like a more pessimistic julius caser
can you blame him?
Only 36 minutes late and am I glad to see this. I love de Maistre and especially his witticism.
"Men do not decide to form Governments". "Man shall and must organise societies". Is there anyone who can think for themselves today?
You clearly don't get what he is saying. There is an emphasis on "shall", as in "Man ultimately will form Governments and organize societies". But this is not because of "free will", but something that happens organically. It's funny that you come along 200 years later and think you can debunk a great philosopher from the time with a simple sentence.
Why were the notions of Managerialism and The Cathedral ever invented when you had de Maistre all along predicting them two centuries before they were a reality?
2 videos in a row? You spoil us Settler.
Settler's channel is a real gem, sadly criminally underrated. A true reactionary philosopher of the modern day.
Probably one of the, it not the best videos by Settler's Lament. Love these ideas and analysis. Keep up this great work.
Thanks, donate to Settler's Lament www.subscribestar.com/settlerslament
Whoooey! And thus was I de Maistre-pilled.
Auron Macintyre did a good video using De Maistrian theory to challenge the American constitution
Please link the video.
@@johnnotrealname8168 ruclips.net/video/QZo2pEu3oog/видео.html
@@oaa-ff8zj Hey thanks mate. It is beautiful how de Maistre analysed constitutions.
De Maistre shares some territory with Sir Robert Filmer.
proud Frenchman (Rousseau was Swiss so don't put it on us)
Yeah that always makes me laugh.
>Implying Switzerland is a real thing
@@SettlersLament as the Kingdom of Savoie (where de Maistre was from)
He wasn’t the only insane francophone philosopher
"In 1802, he was sent to Saint Petersburg in Russia as ambassador to Tsar Alexander I. His diplomatic responsibilities were few and he became a well-loved fixture in aristocratic circles, converting some of his friends to Roman Catholicism"
OMG, he was devout.
However when speaing of "you have to work to eat, how cruel!" that leftists bring up. I think the origins of this, or rather what is truly meant, isnt what they are actually saying. Once we consider leftists somewhat of weaker intelligence, particularly verbal intelligence, then we can translate this instead to. "I can eat disproportionately little, compared to the amount of work I do." Which is a true attitude. And this realtes to how economy is run in general. Most leftist complaints are by far social complaints and results, ramifications, of economic mismanagement and misdefinition (economy as an end unto itself. Man for economy, not ecoomy for man). I doubt any leftist would be angered by the prospect of being able to settle freely, use natural resources to develop himself and his home. The point being that what effort is put in has a true result to it. A proper, equal, appropriate reward/ result. This may be why the means of production meme is so strong. I myself consider that man should in most cases be a producer rather than a consumer (as is the current model) and a worker (personal work space) rather than an employee (which is the current model). I dont think any rational (still rational at least) leftist would disagree.
However leftists may be the ultimate deranged doomer accelerationists who simply want to accelerate all their vices and all the evil in the world because they cant take it anymore. They may very well be so far down the rabbit hole of evil, becoming so themselves and acting so, that they see to justify themselves through some made up evil. Any good is thus a mirror held up to them, and what they see they hate. But they cant stop now, they dont want to, they want to validate their personal evil by fighting a cartoon kind of evil. /end rant (smart people bury these late night polish mans rants)
I think the more sophisticated form of the argument would generally be in response to the idea of capitalism being "voluntary", with the leftist saying that they are de facto forced to work *for a capitalist* in order to sustain themselves - which, to an extent at least, is true, though the idea that most must subordinate themselves to some hierarchical institution is not really the issue i have with capitalism (and all actually existing socialist regimes have recreated this dynamic anyhow) and it really seems that a lot of leftists just want to be idle and consume more and that's really their main bone to pick with it; that they're not being pushed along the ever accelerating hedonic treadmill with consumption driven dopamine hits quickly enough - they're still very much capitalists insofar as they cling to the promise offered by capitalism, not understanding that it's an impossible one to fulfill
Where do you find these readings? What leads you to them? And most importantly, how do you have the time to read all of this while keeping up with life?
You don't keep up with modern life - that's how you have time for quality culture.
Problems I see in all these spiritual historians, or if you like philosophers:
• no practical insight into balancing monarch and nobility; always biased toward centralization.
• reluctant to admit possibility of incompetence / corruption.
• do not account for how, from Crowmwell to Roosevelt, the network and appeal of materialists replaces warm bodies on the field many times faster than monarchies.
I know this is an old comment but i will respond in case you are still active:
1. because there is no specific answer to that question. The degree of centralization within a civilization is dependent upon so many factors, organic and inorganic, that it is impossible to articulate. This question is like saying "what fiscal policy should the state enact". The answer is that it depends on the needs of that civilization in that area of space and time. As for what seems obvious to me, the advancements in technology today highly favor centralization because the person who wields them (especially the military and industrial base) is disproportionately more powerful than they would have been in any other point in time. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it does mean that any society, including the liberal states, will be more centralized than even the states of antiquity or the middle ages. I will also say that there is a big difference between a state which can do everything and a state which does everything. Every state, by the definition, is capable of anything, especially during a crisis during which people lean more heavily on the state, but that does not mean it is ideal for a state to do all things like you see in a communist or fascist society. If a state seeks to do all things it is either due to an abuse of power or a complete deterioration of human quality within the state and society (either case is a death sentence).
2. This is also unanswerable. Corruption is simply a product of man's fallen nature and the degree of corruption within a society is directly reflective of the moral quality of its constituents (all the people collectively). Evil men will beget evil times and good men will beget good times.
3. The awakening of the masses and the dulling of the aristocracy is an essential part of the cycle of any civilization. The monarchy was not a passive victim during the french revolution for example. This revolution occurred because the aristocracy deteriorated to such a low level of moral quality that they lost their right to rule and were overthrown. If they were like their lion-hearted ancestors, no revolution would have happened. The same is true with any other revolution and any state. The better more capable strata will naturally overcome the inferior strata regardless of philosophical or theological correctness. It is not enough to be correct because you must also have the power and prowess to uphold what is right in the face of incessant opposition (which will always exist). Good men beget good times and evil men beget evil times. Likewise a powerful aristocracy (in the sense of what is real) will survive and a weak aristocracy will be dethroned. The aristocracy simply became weak and degenerate and this was the first visible part of the decline of western civilization.
I dont know where else to ask but does anyone know why 'renaissance man' deleted his account?
@@DionysianLovecraftian but seriously tho
Should all men be equal all must would therefore have to be identical in all ways. However the mere fact that no two men are equal, which underlines their individuality and complexity as they are a part of a collective greater than them, is evidence that equality as it pertains to men is impossible. For equality necessitates injustice, violence, to those who are as they are, created by forces higher than them, through no will of their own. And yet this is also the origin of charity.
hah I can sound smart! Rousseau btfo'd!
@Settler’s Lament yes good old Joseph de Maistre! Will you do more? I know he has stances in regards to Protestantisme
De maistre is most brilliant thinker of the last 300 years. Also on the quote at 1:54; this is a criticism of all liberal thinkers at the time and of liberalism in general. Their ideas were entirely caught up in abstract ideas and concepts with no merit in the real world
Listened to this on my drive to gangland earlier. Riveting.
Liberty Equality Fraternity is also worth a read, a nice debunking of Mill
Oh yeah I have begun to read that. Berlin thought it was a good refutation and Isaiah is not a Reactionary.
Mill?
Excellent stuff.
I wouldn’t call de Maistre right-wing, I’d call him conservative. Not the same thing.
Bravo!
Excellent!
As a Frenchman I would say your pronunciation of de Maistre is fine. After all, it's to be expected that foreign names are anglicised in their pronunciation, and your anglicisation of de Maistre was by no means egregious. (As for AA's Rene "gooey-non" I will make no comment)
As an Non-Frenchman your point is stupid he was a Sardinian thinker, not necessarily Italian of course.
@@johnnotrealname8168 He was a Frenchman from the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, which was partly inhabited by Frenchmen.
@@supahnubz No he was a Sardinian. His culture was French but he was Sardinian.
@@johnnotrealname8168 No, he was from Savoy, making him a Savoyard. And considering people from Savoy are French, consequently a Frenchman.
@@supahnubz What?
"Despite his close personal and intellectual ties with France, Maistre was throughout his life a subject of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which he served as a member of the Savoy Senate (1787-1792), ambassador to Russia (1803-1817) and minister of state to the court in Turin (1817-1821)."
Very slight correction, but wasn’t this a book of two unpublished (and unfinished) essays that was put together after de Maistre’s death? Your recounting makes it sound like Maistre had intentionally written it as a book.
I think he was just explaining the book but you are correct.
I'm sorry, what was Rousseau tearing apart?
And then that littke frenchman went and inspired a nice germsn man with a big ol' bushy beard to put those ideas into a economic system!
But thats a story for another time.
None of these men are French.
And then our world has been fucked ever since.