The assumption that your own consent is the prime moral concern in everything is the same assumption that nothing has value outside of our own internal preferences as individuals.
"Consent" as a foundation also lays the path for justifying evil. Remember that all the lockdowns and other such mandates were supported by people on the basis that the mere potential to fall ill "violated their consent." And then there's the constant online arguments of whether "the child can consent" and why. Moving the issue from "it's evil" to "it's nonconsensual" opens the door for people to ask materialist consequentialist questions about what really counts as consent and who can and can't and why those reasons are valid or not. It should never have gone beyond "it's evil and I'll kill you if I find you doing it."
Been absolutely loving the Lotus Eaters in the past few months - a perspective of not merely being "not ashamed" of one's nation and heritage but consider it to be "good, actually." Good discussion here.
They just need to progress beyond the pit of whinging. They are terribly British and unfortunately Britishness is tied in with serfdom. They need to call forth the spirit of their rebellious ancestors. The same spirit that drove their cousins to propel English thought into something much greater. I doubt if the Lotus Eaters will ever ACT upon their beliefs.
1900: "Without God, man will revert to his bestial nature." 1950: "Whilst I don't necessarily believe in God, we must comport ourselves by Christian morales." 2000: "God is antiquated and illiberal." 2023: "WHERE THEM KIDDIES AT!?!?"
To be fair, the ”where them kiddies at”-people are primarely congregated in the Anglosphere. Perhaps I’m wrong, but some parts of Eastern Europe aren’t as plagued by the sloppery slip while being as secular
You need to go back further... Ancient Greece: "Women represent the destructiveness of nature, which we see as evil (nature), and they are a threat to civilized society. They are emotional and irrational, and it is the role of the civilized man (in his virtuous, civilized and superior nature) to control and restrict them for the benefit of mankind (because despite their destructive and evil nature they are ultimately needed for the continuation of the species)." Late 1800s: "Let's give women power in society, surely nothing bad will happen!" Women then proceeded to fuck everything up for the last 100 years, turning society into a degenerate shadow of it's former self where good is evil and evil is good. When women get what they ask for, everyone suffers. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with abandoning a patriarchal societal structure. Technology may advance thanks to the foundation men have built for society, but society is quickly collapsing on a social, legal and cultural level.
Great discussion. I was surprised how much Carl actually gets it. It probably would have been easier for him to double down on being a lib but he seems like an honest truth seeker. Much more than you can say for many with followings his size.
@@mattyice852yeah but he's real slow to admit things once he already knows what's going on. He is smart and he does know but the problem is that he's trying to tell the truth without breaking the rules, which by definition adds some percent of dishonesty.
@@suzukisixk7 I think that speaking around issues that are constantly getting people banned, sometimes arrested etc, is smart. You can often pick up what someone means. I'm sure he tests the winds sometimes too before coming out with stuff. It's probably one of the reasons he's one of the only people turning this into a pretty decent media company. Bleeding heart radically honest spergery has gotten a lot of people in bad positions, which is where you DONT want your people to be. But I understand what you mean. Hope you have a good weekend.
@@mattyice852 He used to not just speak around certain issues, but push back against things that were true but unsafe to really agree with. It's close to Peterson with his outspoken commitment to the truth but then the revealed refusal to do so on specific topics, despite Solzhenitsyn being a great hero of his. Sargon, for his part, used to push back against those who would like him to cover the racial component of many of the things going on more accurately, and to take it more seriously. He has started to do this better now, as the fire keeps rising. All things considered it's been a nice thing to see, but I can't help but wonder if this is where we should've been at 10 years ago, when it was already quite obvious what existential threat they were aiming to be. A lot of time was wasted lol-cowing the issues. On the other hand, maybe it couldn't really have gone much of another way. Edit: I say push back, but the only thing that really comes to mind is the insistent emphasis on culture over race, or perhaps better put more generally: on something that can be undone, reverted, or improved, over something that's more innate or impossible to undo. But to call that push back is unfair, it's closer to a lagging admission as Suzuki Six said. But for his intelligence that lag is almost impossible to believe to be genuine. If Sargon were a gatekeeper who moved with the ground lost to the target audience, he might behave similarly. On the other hand, if Sargon, like many of us, was brought up on a diet of liberal priors and instincts that are hard to uproot, he might behave like this as well.
I love the transition that Carl has gone through in the last 6 years. It mirrors my own, from thinking my country could be atomized atheist that can self govern to a more "well we have to have the same set of values for that to work, and the best way to get to that point is via religion, even if you don't believe in it." I don't believe in God, but, I haven't missed a week in church since 2021
Starship Troopers has the most correct assessment of voting, one that liberalism misses entirely. If l oppose some piece of tyrannical legislation but I live in a country where 51% of the populace agrees with it for reasons that are completely beyond my control, does that mean I consented to it? Obviously not, so their committment to _DEMOCRACY_ relies on very malleable definition of "consent."
Re-enchanting the world through religion/spirituality is extremely necessary. I say this as an ex militant atheist. If I may offer some advice on how to re-enchant a rationalist’s worldview, one first needs to attack their base presupposition that irrationality is always a bad thing. I can not emphasize how much these people hate irrationality and unfortunately religion is one of the things they most associate with irrationality. As for how to convince them, here are two methods I have found effective: 1- Art/Creativity is Irrational You can explain that art is valuable and requires creativity. Creativity is inherently irrational, spontaneous and random. Even though it is irrational it produces a desirable outcome: Art. 2-Talking to Pets is Irrational Many people will talk to their pet to bond with the animal despite it not understanding language. This behavior is illogical yet we do it anyways for emotional reasons, not logical ones. It matters not; despite it being an irrational behavior it makes both the owner and the pet happy
They're not irrational, just too difficult to grasp by the average mind of a modern man. There is logic and order in aesthetics, but it's usually at best apprehended intuitively by artists - not properly comprehended as it was in the best days of high philosophy and high theology of the West. In my opinion the normies aren't that important to convince to believe in the supernatural, to avoid complete societal collapse - what we need is a complete purge in mass media of any and all degeneracy, including all pornography + any consoomerist propaganda (nearly full ban on corporate marketing and advertizing).
I would disagree about ''art'' or even creativity being irrational. I guess you would need to define creativity. I guess it is ''irrational'' as it isn't necessary to existence in some very fundamental way as searching for water and food, building shelter is. I would argue that it being valued by us means it is necessary in some ways as it often tries to express some observation about reality, which in that case, for it to be understandable and coherent requires rational thinking to build a project. This observation may point at a problem or even some contradiction in our ways of life, it may try to help us deal with some aspects of reality. I wouldn't categories unconscious thoughts as irrational either. Irrationality to me is for example, someone doing something that they know will lead to a bad outcome. It is irrational for someone that wants to lose weight to eat mcdonalds everyday. Irrationality is a faulty judgment, something that is contradictory or simply wrong in nature. Such ''art'' pieces, as i have seen many in my classes, are simply garbage. They are incoherent and meaningless and shouldn't be called art.
Glad Carl can admit that Christianity is essential for free and prosperous society. Praying that he will come to also see the intellectual robustness of Christian epistemology. It’s not just a silly fairy tale that gets good results. It’s the truth and that’s why it gets good results.
I'm sorry, but God not existing is a core weakness in Christianiity. If we go back to being a Christian civilization, then in enough time the scientifically literate will come to the same conclusion again. A free and technologically advanced Christian society will inevitably produce Atheists, because most people judge the existence of things based on material reality, and Christians cannot argue God's existence based on material reality.
What is the most haunted place in Britten. That will shake him up. More atheists need to meet a demon or too. That is what wakes people up. Paul even promotes it. Toss the aethiusts to Satan and they'll come back to Jesus. Works everytime...if they don't die.
In due time, in due time. 4 years ago it would have been unthinkable for him to write about "the universal acid of liberalism." I truly believe that as he delves deeper into the value of sentiment and faith he will eventually find his way to God.
@@blue18404what? Modernism was kicked off by the Protestant Reformation which started tons of religious war and then established liberalism to keep the peace. It’s certainly not the Catholics fault. If Christendom remained none of this would have happened
@@Nightdiver20 Idk, they didn’t seem to mind when bill Ayers was putting them in courthouses and the White House.. Maybe he said there are only two genders..
18:30 That’s my critique of Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance argument as well; he presupposes that society is an arbitrary positivist construct, and not an inevitable Natural Order inherent to our physical existence. All possible configurations are not valid; there’s only one right answer really.
@@suzukisixk7 Type in real exorcist in RUclips with an open mind. My parish priest was an Exorcist. A man who served in the British army at the Kwai river. He was a pillar of the community and perfectly sane. The stories he told.
I don't get how anybody can seriously propose conservatism as any sort of moderating or limiting force within liberalism, considering the abject failure of conservatism to do just that in the previous hundred years. Contrary to what Carl is implying, conservatives aren't so weak simply because they don't make their arguments "hard enough". They were weak because deep in their heart of hearts conservatives ARE liberals, and as liberals, they were unable to withstand the arguments of the civil rights revolution - and what was the logical next step of the liberal project - without contradicting themselves and their own liberal priors.
Insofar as conservatives did harbor illiberal beliefs, it was because they held Christianity as a parallel moral structure. They were illiberal in spite of their liberalism not because of it. The unavoidable outcome of this inherent double-think was that conservatives were made to made to feel a deeply painful sense of guilt, embarrassment, and cognitive dissonance every time progressives pushed the liberal envelope a little further, as they were forced to twist the illiberal beliefs they still had in a doomed attempt to make them fit the liberal moral frame.
Liberal vs Conservative muddies the waters too much because both categories are so awash in propaganda (mainly of the liberal variety) A better way to frame the issue is warriors vs merchants. Once the merchants get control, they suppress the warriors (war is bad for business) until it reaches a point where the barbarian hordes just roll in and squash the merchants. Those barbarian hordes eventually become merchants themselves over time and the cycle repeats. The merchant class holds more power over time because conquest costs money, so the warrior class (when it’s in power) can’t suppress merchants to the same extent that the merchant class (when it’s in power) can suppress the warriors.
@@Mike37551 I wouldn't consider a significant portion of what qualifies as modern Conservatives to be warriors. McCain and Eyepatch McCain, sure, but Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz would not have been warriors under any social order.
There are barely any warriors now because there hasn’t been a full-mobilization war in almost a century. Judging by its behavior, I think it’s fair to assume most/all of the cold warriors have retired or been purged from the deep state. Don’t think there’s a ton of rabid anti-communists in the CIA anymore. This goes to the point of so many “conservative” politicians really being slightly less liberal liberals, or just flat out grifters. The idea of speak softly and carry a big stick has been replaced by the idea of squawk and shriek incessantly and fight minor wars with 16 oz gloves and one hand tied behind our back.
@@50centpb7 My man, that was such a sharp analysis, your both two posts. 🥰 The "parallel moral structure" and "cognitive dissonance" which together leads to weakness towards liberals, it explains everything. That is it! You have absolutely identified the core problem.
Or you might put it in a certain way, when your view of the universe is a cold mechanical one then you yourself eventually become a cold and mechanical being. As one takes after their parent. They are in the image of their father…and their father is The Machine.🤖
Love Carl, he was absolutely instrumental in my political formation. But I must admit that it is a bit frustrating hearing him always on the cusp of an epiphany to just back away time and time again.
Seeing the benefits of faith is not the same as having faith. I acknowledge that religion can be a great guidance for a society, because most people are inherently illogical and their minds are naturally stunted. That doesn't apply to everyone though. We are not all equal, not even close. Some are more human than others. The leftists ironically need religion more than anyone, because they're exactly the kind of people i'm talking about.
No no, you heard them all we can do is build parallel institutions because the choas that corrupted the previous ones we built certainly won't do it again......... Honestly, this is why Christians will continue to be persecuted. Like the Woke the celebrate being the victims...
Carl has a habit, I think, of attributing too much explanatory power to ideology and presuppositions. With most liberals that I have interacted with, it seems far more like that ideology is a thin veneer over the ego. Scientific materialism and liberalism allow you to feel like the smartest guy in the room, whereas the religious perspective is humbling. You aren’t the center of the universe, nor the font of wisdom.
As someone that has never been religious but do appreciate its role and the power it has to keep morals in place, i have never found that scientific materialism is an ego boost. Anyone that doesn't have faith should realize that nihilism is the simple truth of the universe and that neither you, nor anything that you do, matter to anyone or anything. It's a thought that crippled me for a long time until i came to accept it but one thing it didn't give me is a feeling of self importance, quite the opposite. I had to read the greek Stoicist to really see how that was always a problem for people, and has some have said : I cannot run away from death, but i can get rid of my fear of it.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang No, eddie, you're still religious because you keep to the idea that you are a man, equal in dignity and worth, to the rest of man which you deemed, in your nihilism, as meaningless.
@@kwazooplayingguardsman5615 I mean, the word religious is fairly vague. Merriam webster defines it as : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. I meant it as being part of religion. You could basically say that it is impossible to not be religious. I can frame my view of reality has an acknowledge ultimate reality and so can quite literally anyone. You just have to believe that your view of reality is the closest one to the truth which in some sense, it is as no one can witness life other than with their own eyes and senses. Continuing with this notion, who am i to say to someone that believes they have seen God act in their life, that they are foolish. It may be that they did, even if it is only their own interpretation of the events. Some call that phenomenon just luck, other call it destiny, other like me just causality. Luck is only what we call our inability to fully understand every movement of reality that leads to a point. If someone wish to personify this fact of reality, some may view it as foolish. I see it as giving a bit of mysticism and hope as this reality is quite gruesome.
I believe building your life on family is building on sand. We can't help but desire eternity and perfection, but human beings will break under that expectation.
End of the day the reason every system fails is man does not want to acknowledge Christ is King. Any attempt we have to replace Truth with a facsimile the results will be disastrous.
That Benjamin thinks he’s being generous to Christians to think of them in the same category as Muslims is telling, both about the horrific Islamization of Britain and the peculiarity of his historically and theologically limited learning.
You can't prove that Christianity is any more correct than Islam. God not actually existing is Christianity's primary weakness, and the reason it will always fall to liberalism in the long term.
The problem with Muslims is that they deny the Divinity of Christ; their ethics are fairly similar to those of traditional Christian societies. Attacks on Muslim values and modes of living were always veiled attacks on religious values and religious modes of living in general. There are legitimate criticisms of Islam, but none that have been raised in the public sphere in the past 50 years are even remotely valid.
8 years ago, he fancied himself a defender of liberalism from the illiberal left. Today, he is proudly illiberal himself. I've never seen a better encapsulation of the modern conservative movement.
Fascinating conversation. In reference to the reality of the bell curve meme these scripture verses are relevant. Whether 90 IQ or 140 the key to knowing God is humility. 1 Corinthians 1:27-29 KJV But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence.
@@nicholasfry4253 we used a lot of religious motives to establish the state even though a lot of us weren't religious. The majority of Israelis were never exactly atheists either. Furthermore, the secular hope was originally in socialism. When that failed, first with the prague trials that ended support for close relations with the eastern bloc but then of course in the 1980's, the secularists turned to Oslo. The base idea was that by making a deal with the Palestinians that Israel would be normalized as a nation like any other and that they could be seen as normative members of the liberal internationalist left. That failed and on the college campuses today outside Israel we see a complete and clear rejection of that possibility. They will always be seen as Jews. Therefore, its rather clear that Israeli traditionalists got what they wanted and remain highly motivated by zionism. Secularists in Israel on the other hand are often quite disillusioned by what they thought zionism would achieve but didn't.
@@Ebeneezer_van_Pelt ....why. is it worth it. They know what will happen. That is why you don't fuck the succubus or any demonic entity's. Now dragons are fine as they might eat you, but you still have your soul. It does matter as Gnosticism is a lie that is baked into modern society. Do they deserve to be dammed. Luciferins were tricked into believing in universal damnation by said gnostics. It doesn't help either that the left broke up any form of universal consestives from the church. Good example is works vs faith and salvation. Big turn off for a mostly gnostic society today. Not defending them. Also does eating demon sound gross to you? I know God will purify the monsters....but do humans have to eat it? You know when God kills the kaos beasts before sending the Satanists to the lake of fire for the second death. I know that God put all the animals for humanity to used....but sounds like canableisum.
No lie, no irony. What is this about? Is this real? Is anyone laying this case out without endless irony? Where did this come from, and why is there always one conservative saying it? Finally, is sounding like BLM a concern at all for you?
Has Carl read the Last Superstition by Ed Feser? Feser goes into discussion about how the mechanistic view of the world was mainstreamed because of the scientific revolution which had it goal to conquer human nature but it actually doesn’t work. A lot of contemporary philosophers that are studying this are becoming Platonists and Aristoteleans
@@dribblesg2 yeah I hope he becomes more popular. I mean I guess trooning out becoming popular will hopefully make people wake up a bit because they will be asking what a human actually is
This comment thread is the dumbest I’ve ever seen. A) it is the most exciting time to be alive. We literally get to see the internet awaken the sleeping world to finally see how stupid and gross the elites are. B) more and more ppl are coming to the realization that God and Christianity are critical to have morality in society (God’s Great Awakening). C) the only way the second golden age will arrive is if the current generations do something about it. There is no guarantee on when the golden age arrives. If we as the current living generations do something about it, we can make sure the golden age comes sooner. We can be the generations that make history happen. The demoralization that the current generation allows the establishment to propagandize onto them is maddening. Why do you allow the establishment to dictate the view of the world for you? Why do you play their game? Think outside the box. Stop thinking within the establishment paradigm. Their whole point is to demoralize you into submission.
I was with Carl for a while on only progressive liberalism being the problem & classic liberalism being fine, but now I'm of the mind it all has to go. Classic liberalism taken to it's logical conclusion always leads to progressive liberalism & let's not pretend classic liberalism isn't an entropic force either!
All political philosophies taken to their logical conclusions will manifest some kind of disaster. Constrained Liberalism works, so long as we retain a healthy fear of God
Ok, so have you compared it, to nations that did not try classical liberalism? East Asia, South America, Central America, South Europe, North Africa, East Europe, India or the middle east? Who among these, handled communism better than North Europe? Or are we going to pretend places like South America, not liberal, very religious, do not have a problem with voting in communist parties? Stop being a leftie, who compare what you dislike with Utopia. Use real world examples.
First of, what the fuck to you mean by tory boy? Do you think the tories are classical liberals? That, clearly show, you have no idea what a classical liberal is. Second, what are you comparing the west too? Oh, right, your made up version of the world, so your utopia.
Just flat out false that A always leads to B. Do some more thinking, nothing is necessary. It's all contingent. By this logic, we can't even advocate for conservativism either, cuz it will "inevitably" lead to liberalism, or whatever other thing you don't like. You don't get to look at how history turned out, and declare it will always turn out that way.
Great show, Auron. Any chance of having Paul Kingsnorth on? He's a very intelligent and interesting man who has converted to Christianity and has some really good takes, especially in regards to AI/Transhumanism.
What Carl’s missing here is that the people who’ve fallen for atheism are not, in fact the clever ones too smart to realize what’s good for the plebs, but rather the ones not quite clever enough to make it out the far end of the bell curve. Atheism is the midwit position.
I completely agree. You're saying what the RUclipsr says, so you get likes. But why is that true? The masses need their opiate? It has to be deeper than that, right?
Categorically refering to the ”midwit position” to support your argument is a midwit position. But you are right that many outspoken atheists aren’t very clever
So being correct makes one a midwit...? If you've ever wondered why you're so unintelligent, now you know. Don't confuse atheism with whatever religion the left subscribes to. They have a fanatical faith which worships the destructiveness of female nature, nothing else. Theism is for people like you, the mentally stunted who cannot cope with their human desire to understand everything. It is indeed a plebeian mentality, if that's how you want to put it. The men who wrote your religious books where likely atheists themselves, who knew that blind faith is the only lasting way to control society for the better. Fear of the unknown both countered, and adapted.
Good discussion lads. Very heartening to see this sort of collaboration. It's really important for this type of common ground to be discovered and explored
Summarizing , so far, ( half way through the conversation) the marriage of liberal to conservative is what I believe Carl Jung talked about when he used the term integration. For instance: The free thinking artist with great talent and focus needs the help of a conservative mindset to help them to be seen by more than their friends and family. If its a good "marriage" then it helps both parties. Integrate your own masculine with your feminine and you are likely to be fairly well balanced and easier to get along with. We need each other for the truth to be seen, heard and felt. (This is why I use the artist as an example) Without the money man (conservative) there is no great invention that can reach the masses. And just for the record, this is not rocket science. For all recorded history we have seen this to be true. It is always the intellect that is last to recognize the obvious. Why? Because we think too much and DO too little. Build a house before we become a philosophers and we'll all be much better off. Thanks for the talk gents.
@@50centpb7 Yes, but it's not a good marriage. And "good" is the operative word. I'm sure I could come up with a better analogy for integration. Perhaps it should be said that we need the divine integration, coming from the Great Mystery, God or just something bigger than yourself. That said, all of us seem better off reaching for that which we sense is good but we may not know why except that it has been good for a long time, like raising kids with a few rules that they have to follow so that we don't end up hating our kids. As for the best of both worlds, as far as I can tell, all the most beautiful works of art were conceived through extreme devotion to the inspired moment that managed to last and last despite the less than ideal surroundings. Suffering was built into the day. The elation one got through the results was a little slice of heaven. Balance. Disciple (conservative) with talent and free flow (libertal) marry one another to complete a great work of art. I believe that for this conversation, it's an internal marriage. For the world at large, the rules first then the freedom to imagine. The artist of the 60s used to say, "man, there are no rules!" And they were wrong. Just look at the quality of work. Much of it is horrendous to look at and it's not exactly just a matter of taste. The depth is not there. When God is part of the equation it shines through good art and it just so happens, in my opinion, that God is highly creative and very disciplined.
The benefit of a written constitution is that it provides inertia or friction or an anchor. A democratic mob can swing anyway it wants, but a constitution provides institutions, standards, and guidance that will oppose the mob, that will slow it down, that will mitigate its extremity.
The acid of Liberalism is simple mathematics. If man is Universal then your personal preferences must also be so. Therefore, you can impose yourself on others as the universal good. Further, anyone who disagrees with you is acting contrary to the benefit (as you see it) of humanity.
In the Social Contract Rousseau distinguished between natural liberty, civic liberty and moral liberty, and argued that the latter is higher and cultivated out of the order of the pact.
Regarding 'merchant rule'... Even much of India was never directly/totally under British rule. There was a feudal patchwork. That said, multinational corporations tend to produce evil results.
This is one of the best and most potent philosophy videos. I found the analysis that liberal analysis (pun? intended) becomes fully dissolving in the absence of a moral skeleton very poignant. Comprehensive liberalism being so, well, comprehensive it eventually even develops a physical correlate (it being directed towards the very human body) is also rather intriguing. However, I don't think that is truly a trait of liberalism per se, but rather, any dynamic that breaks down to [technological possibility] + [lack of a regard for the human form as sacred] I would, for example, also think the exact same thing would happen under a deeply secularly conservative society without that sacredness dogma, if for no other reason than to enable a) radical cybernetic life extension and b) enhancements for pragmatic (rather than self-realization and other fanciful) reasons. This dynamic is completely novel in the history of this species, and by the way still expanding both inside the liberal Western world, as well as the rest of the world (as well as still increasing in depth next to breadth). This is why I am so blackpilled about the future of the species. If we don't have either a) a collapse such as Kaczynski advocated for, or b) some adoption of mentioned moral imperative of regarding the human form as sacred, then our species does not have a future. A post-human successor species maybe, but not our current species. It's hard to shake off the impression the ultimate future of the human species, if current trajectories hold, is for it to be reduced to essentially brains in vats -- after going through a period of brains "at least" still being housed in mobile cyborg platforms. The direct switch from biological bodies to stationary vat brains living in a virtual reality is of course regarded as inacceptable. But the cyborg body stage will eventually be axed.
In other words, the comical aspect of this that Carl mentions is quite literally because (according to scripture at least) God is intentionally making fools out of those who glory in their wisdom.
I don't understand the pessimism, yes things are bad, and the onlt way out is through. But the wind is no longer against us, the momentum is going in the right direction.
Although Liberalism should get its fair share of criticism I think it’s often conflated with and subsequently blamed for instigating larger cultural tendencies coming out of modernity. This does not only include a paradigm of liberal assumptions but ALSO features centuries of secularisation, scientific progress, technical innovations, and non-liberal competing ideologies
I agree. People that are just becoming aware of proper political philosophy have underestimated the impact of technology. “Liberal-modernity” - the combination of comprehensive Liberalism with the materialistic organization of society. They go hand in hand. People aren’t going to give up technology.
@@DrOktobermensch Correct. They go hand-in-hand. The external human world is always the manifestation of our internal state, and modernity, and all its isms, ideologies, economic systems, theories, perspectives on history, is precisely a mixed collection of liberal principles at their final expression, OR brief local reactions to those principles.
An uncannily accurate depiction of modern progressive society is the movie Demolition Man. It was a very cheesy movie, but some of the themes are dead on (by accident of course). An overly progressive utopia where language is monitored by a moral code and AI filter at all times even in public, disempowered police, elite bureaucrats, and a large homeless population rotting in the Utopia underground, and a large section of that population treated as extremists. Also banned in society is meat, fossil fules, contact sports and even physical sex between a man and woman. Masculine behavior has been pushed to the fringes of society.
Liberalism was sold to us initially on a purely economic basis eg it is oppressive for little Jimmy end up a blacksmith like his father & grandfather & great grandfather before him. He has to break free & become an entrepreneur & invent new production processes & therefore we all come to benefit economically even if that's cost of the cohesiveness of Jimmy's community. Now it's all about 'self actualisation' so little Jimmy is being oppressed by his small community because he wants to be a trans porn actor so he can self actualise & to hell with wider society & of course no one not even Jimmy benefits.
you added the last part about jimmy's community. It was assumed that Jimmy would always find community because community was natural. Nobody gave deep thought on what it means to be in a community or how much we needed a tighter community. We are now realizing that people are often fairly needy upon some amount of community. Maybe not in all his dealings but very few can stand without it. We often base our societies by the examples of the extremes and people at the top because they're more likely to publish and proliferate their views. This means those types of people will represent an extreme of existence and is often one type of sustainable reality that works for them but it may disregard other sustainable life situations which others may need and may not thrive in the former case because not everybody is that extreme former case. Jimmy now follows down somebody else's path and find it doesn't work for them but is otherwise trapped. The original progenitor of the idea wasn't wrong for their own existence and the existence of the friends amongst them but to push it to everybody wasn't liberation but rather a social pitfall which doesn't work for Jimmy.
I was convinced that liberalism destroys a society way before it was discussed in social media and sorts. Back in 2008 I have read a couple of anti-liberal works from the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. One major work was the one of a Spanish catholic priest, Felix Sarda y Salvany: Liberalismo es pecado from 1884(Liberalism is sin). That was among the very first literature, that opened my eyes for what is happening around us. As a catholic monarchist (which I also consider myself) he draw a clear line: Democracy-Liberalism-Socialism= a structureless, diabolical world, packed with elegant words and empty fake moralism.
It's interesting in an academic sense to try and ponder the orb of when and who began pushing the notion that classical liberalism could work without the people living under it being Christian, but ultimately fruitless. Like finding patient zero for the Spanish Flu, at this point any utility of knowing who the originator(s) is/are is minimal. However I don't think it's that Liberalism works only with a Christian population. It's more likely that liberalism works with a population that has a hypermajority of like-minded people of a culture with a certain set of traits that are generally found in a Christian population. A kind of liberalism seems to largely be working in Japan for example, which is by no means majority Christian, but does have a hypermajority of an ethnically Japanese population that's majority xenophobic (in a good way) against foreigners moving into the country solely to increase GDP in the short term. Cultural consensus is a much larger factor than shared religion, though of course shared religion is a great way to generate cultural consensus. Needless to say, diversity is the enemy of both potential outcomes existing
@@skylinefever We'll have to see how long it lasts; both countries are already experiencing the beginning of demographic collapse. I agree that they should maintain their current immigration stance no matter what and that they should downsize the economy as the population decreases. But we all know that the general consensus of a politician's job in the modern world is to make sure "green line go up".
What is English if not the inheritance of Teutoberg and the freedom of Germanic tribes from Rome? When Germany abandoned it's parochial tribal laws in The Reception (of universal Roman law), it set it's culture against it's institutions with awful consequences. But those tribal laws and customs The Seleness, is not Christian.
"Society going out of its way to play along the fantasies of an infinitesimal minority" There is a term for that: aristocracy. But instead of this neo-aristocracy being based on merit, ability or legacy of one's bloodline, it's based on one's degeneracy, subversiveness, marked inability to function meritoriously in society and/or one's detachment from reality. They're like a new brahmin caste in Western society whose sole purpose is to prove their disattachment to reality and society by being subversive degenerates.
yeah Carl they have already tried the womb transplant in india. it went horrible as you can image, flesh rot is super scary especially when you did it to yourself.
If religion is the way, then which religion? If Christianity is the way, then which form of Christianity? Will the next revelation provide a better form of Christianity?
Auron MacIntyre, thank you. Please try to pronounce the references, authors, thinkers, books either you or you guest MORE CLEARLY and carefully. The sound was not clear throughout so articulation is essential.
Does the justification for private property stem from the same philosophical roots as transgender-ism? Aren't they both expressions of individualism/liberalism? Will traditionalists be forced to give up economic individualism as they embrace cultural collectivism?
The assumption that your own consent is the prime moral concern in everything is the same assumption that nothing has value outside of our own internal preferences as individuals.
Well put sir, couldn’t have said it better
@@RealBadgerScrutiny Isn’t Patty a lady?
@@ZephaniahL No I'm a bloke.
In Australia you can spell it Paddy or Patty or whatever. But not Patti, then you either a lady or a male hairdresser.
"Consent" as a foundation also lays the path for justifying evil. Remember that all the lockdowns and other such mandates were supported by people on the basis that the mere potential to fall ill "violated their consent." And then there's the constant online arguments of whether "the child can consent" and why. Moving the issue from "it's evil" to "it's nonconsensual" opens the door for people to ask materialist consequentialist questions about what really counts as consent and who can and can't and why those reasons are valid or not. It should never have gone beyond "it's evil and I'll kill you if I find you doing it."
@@sigiligus Turbo-based.
Been absolutely loving the Lotus Eaters in the past few months - a perspective of not merely being "not ashamed" of one's nation and heritage but consider it to be "good, actually."
Good discussion here.
They just need to progress beyond the pit of whinging. They are terribly British and unfortunately Britishness is tied in with serfdom. They need to call forth the spirit of their rebellious ancestors. The same spirit that drove their cousins to propel English thought into something much greater.
I doubt if the Lotus Eaters will ever ACT upon their beliefs.
Carl’s CS Lewis arc continues. Soon you’ll hear him doing works in the vein of “Mere Christianity”
Things are falling apart. The centre cannot hold. Carl's take on Mere Christianity will be unleashed upon the world
That would be wonderful
Join me in praying for him.
"They thought they were doing the right thing"
How many times have we heard that after a million graves?
Every time. It's the only way to motivate a mob. No one goes to war thinking they're evil.
Your critique is dull and lacks depth.
@@jackalcoyote8777 Your only critiques are about "depth". Do you know any other words?
@@jackalcoyote8777dumb take
1900: "Without God, man will revert to his bestial nature."
1950: "Whilst I don't necessarily believe in God, we must comport ourselves by Christian morales."
2000: "God is antiquated and illiberal."
2023: "WHERE THEM KIDDIES AT!?!?"
Slippery slope is not a fallacy; it's the rule.
"if Jesus's main message can be reduced in a primitive way, it can be reduced this way, nature is not our mother, nature is our sister"
To be fair, the ”where them kiddies at”-people are primarely congregated in the Anglosphere. Perhaps I’m wrong, but some parts of Eastern Europe aren’t as plagued by the sloppery slip while being as secular
Nah, antitheism caused me to question progressivism, original sin is the source.
You need to go back further...
Ancient Greece: "Women represent the destructiveness of nature, which we see as evil (nature), and they are a threat to civilized society. They are emotional and irrational, and it is the role of the civilized man (in his virtuous, civilized and superior nature) to control and restrict them for the benefit of mankind (because despite their destructive and evil nature they are ultimately needed for the continuation of the species)."
Late 1800s: "Let's give women power in society, surely nothing bad will happen!"
Women then proceeded to fuck everything up for the last 100 years, turning society into a degenerate shadow of it's former self where good is evil and evil is good.
When women get what they ask for, everyone suffers.
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with abandoning a patriarchal societal structure.
Technology may advance thanks to the foundation men have built for society, but society is quickly collapsing on a social, legal and cultural level.
Great discussion. I was surprised how much Carl actually gets it. It probably would have been easier for him to double down on being a lib but he seems like an honest truth seeker. Much more than you can say for many with followings his size.
I've followed him for years and he's genuinely on the higher end of honest speakers that do stuff like this
@@mattyice852yeah but he's real slow to admit things once he already knows what's going on.
He is smart and he does know but the problem is that he's trying to tell the truth without breaking the rules, which by definition adds some percent of dishonesty.
He has ten kids to feed coupled with the insane British government s speech laws.
@@suzukisixk7 I think that speaking around issues that are constantly getting people banned, sometimes arrested etc, is smart. You can often pick up what someone means. I'm sure he tests the winds sometimes too before coming out with stuff. It's probably one of the reasons he's one of the only people turning this into a pretty decent media company. Bleeding heart radically honest spergery has gotten a lot of people in bad positions, which is where you DONT want your people to be. But I understand what you mean. Hope you have a good weekend.
@@mattyice852 He used to not just speak around certain issues, but push back against things that were true but unsafe to really agree with. It's close to Peterson with his outspoken commitment to the truth but then the revealed refusal to do so on specific topics, despite Solzhenitsyn being a great hero of his.
Sargon, for his part, used to push back against those who would like him to cover the racial component of many of the things going on more accurately, and to take it more seriously. He has started to do this better now, as the fire keeps rising.
All things considered it's been a nice thing to see, but I can't help but wonder if this is where we should've been at 10 years ago, when it was already quite obvious what existential threat they were aiming to be. A lot of time was wasted lol-cowing the issues. On the other hand, maybe it couldn't really have gone much of another way.
Edit: I say push back, but the only thing that really comes to mind is the insistent emphasis on culture over race, or perhaps better put more generally: on something that can be undone, reverted, or improved, over something that's more innate or impossible to undo. But to call that push back is unfair, it's closer to a lagging admission as Suzuki Six said. But for his intelligence that lag is almost impossible to believe to be genuine.
If Sargon were a gatekeeper who moved with the ground lost to the target audience, he might behave similarly. On the other hand, if Sargon, like many of us, was brought up on a diet of liberal priors and instincts that are hard to uproot, he might behave like this as well.
They fed and unchained Leviathan thinking it would serve them. Now they’re surprised they’re on the menu.
Right. In the end it consumes everything. It's primordial (chaos) and it was the first thing God had to do away with.
I love the transition that Carl has gone through in the last 6 years. It mirrors my own, from thinking my country could be atomized atheist that can self govern to a more "well we have to have the same set of values for that to work, and the best way to get to that point is via religion, even if you don't believe in it."
I don't believe in God, but, I haven't missed a week in church since 2021
ironically that is totally post modern
A post-post-modern believer....?
Are you honest with the other parishioners about that? I am on the fringes of a religious community now but I'm sorta waiting for the shoe to drop.
Starship Troopers has the most correct assessment of voting, one that liberalism misses entirely. If l oppose some piece of tyrannical legislation but I live in a country where 51% of the populace agrees with it for reasons that are completely beyond my control, does that mean I consented to it? Obviously not, so their committment to _DEMOCRACY_ relies on very malleable definition of "consent."
The same is true of a constitutional republic. If two thirds of state governments approve of a tyrannical constitutional amendment...
You did argree to it by being a citzen of democracy you accept that not everything goes your way.
@@braydoxastora5584 How did I agree? Did I sign a contract?
@@duffthimblespork if were talking starship troopers then literally yes. as well as an oath
Re-enchanting the world through religion/spirituality is extremely necessary. I say this as an ex militant atheist.
If I may offer some advice on how to re-enchant a rationalist’s worldview, one first needs to attack their base presupposition that irrationality is always a bad thing. I can not emphasize how much these people hate irrationality and unfortunately religion is one of the things they most associate with irrationality. As for how to convince them, here are two methods I have found effective:
1- Art/Creativity is Irrational
You can explain that art is valuable and requires creativity. Creativity is inherently irrational, spontaneous and random. Even though it is irrational it produces a desirable outcome: Art.
2-Talking to Pets is Irrational
Many people will talk to their pet to bond with the animal despite it not understanding language. This behavior is illogical yet we do it anyways for emotional reasons, not logical ones. It matters not; despite it being an irrational behavior it makes both the owner and the pet happy
I wonder how many people are able to feel this magical spiritual stuff. Maybe shrooms and other mind altering substances need to be allowed.
They're not irrational, just too difficult to grasp by the average mind of a modern man.
There is logic and order in aesthetics, but it's usually at best apprehended intuitively by artists - not properly comprehended as it was in the best days of high philosophy and high theology of the West.
In my opinion the normies aren't that important to convince to believe in the supernatural, to avoid complete societal collapse - what we need is a complete purge in mass media of any and all degeneracy, including all pornography + any consoomerist propaganda (nearly full ban on corporate marketing and advertizing).
I would disagree about ''art'' or even creativity being irrational. I guess you would need to define creativity. I guess it is ''irrational'' as it isn't necessary to existence in some very fundamental way as searching for water and food, building shelter is.
I would argue that it being valued by us means it is necessary in some ways as it often tries to express some observation about reality, which in that case, for it to be understandable and coherent requires rational thinking to build a project. This observation may point at a problem or even some contradiction in our ways of life, it may try to help us deal with some aspects of reality.
I wouldn't categories unconscious thoughts as irrational either.
Irrationality to me is for example, someone doing something that they know will lead to a bad outcome. It is irrational for someone that wants to lose weight to eat mcdonalds everyday. Irrationality is a faulty judgment, something that is contradictory or simply wrong in nature.
Such ''art'' pieces, as i have seen many in my classes, are simply garbage. They are incoherent and meaningless and shouldn't be called art.
Are you sure they hate irrationality? Critical Law Studies- wokeness' womb itself- challenges rationality and loves being unreasonable.
I would add that an appreciation of the irrational is something useful for investing in the stock-market
Glad Carl can admit that Christianity is essential for free and prosperous society. Praying that he will come to also see the intellectual robustness of Christian epistemology. It’s not just a silly fairy tale that gets good results. It’s the truth and that’s why it gets good results.
Reading Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius X would humble many
I'm sorry, but God not existing is a core weakness in Christianiity. If we go back to being a Christian civilization, then in enough time the scientifically literate will come to the same conclusion again. A free and technologically advanced Christian society will inevitably produce Atheists, because most people judge the existence of things based on material reality, and Christians cannot argue God's existence based on material reality.
What is the most haunted place in Britten. That will shake him up. More atheists need to meet a demon or too. That is what wakes people up. Paul even promotes it. Toss the aethiusts to Satan and they'll come back to Jesus. Works everytime...if they don't die.
@@TempoLOOKING Every religion has demons though. Indians have the same haunted places, only they go to Hinduism not Christianity.
All religions are intellectually bankrupt fantasies.
Its frustrating that Carl hasn't dropped the fedora quite yet
In due time, in due time. 4 years ago it would have been unthinkable for him to write about "the universal acid of liberalism." I truly believe that as he delves deeper into the value of sentiment and faith he will eventually find his way to God.
Carl sounding like a Trad Cath Post Liberal. When’s he gonna jump on the bandwagon and be our modern day Tolkien/Barfield
You already tried that and this current catastrophe is the result of it......
@@blue18404what? Modernism was kicked off by the Protestant Reformation which started tons of religious war and then established liberalism to keep the peace. It’s certainly not the Catholics fault. If Christendom remained none of this would have happened
@@blue18404Shhh the answer is anything but actual going to war with the faith.
@@Cpruett explain...
RIP UncleTed. He warned us, and the state didn’t like that.
I think it was the mail bombs they didn't like. I can still get his books with one day Prime shipping
@@Nightdiver20 Idk, they didn’t seem to mind when bill Ayers was putting them in courthouses and the White House.. Maybe he said there are only two genders..
@@baddudecornpop7328 Well, looking at today's alphabet agencies, they were probably in on it. Uncle Ted just didn't have the right friends
Rip ted
"There is no freedom, only duty and dependence." - Auron
18:30 That’s my critique of Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance argument as well; he presupposes that society is an arbitrary positivist construct, and not an inevitable Natural Order inherent to our physical existence. All possible configurations are not valid; there’s only one right answer really.
Demonic possession is real.
Sure hope you aren't really a doctor....
@@suzukisixk7 Type in real exorcist in RUclips with an open mind. My parish priest was an Exorcist. A man who served in the British army at the Kwai river. He was a pillar of the community and perfectly sane. The stories he told.
@@doctorbritain9632 right after I watch some ghost hunters.
@Gnar No
@@suzukisixk7 I often think that ridicule of something that you have no knowledge of is one of the worst human traits.
I don't get how anybody can seriously propose conservatism as any sort of moderating or limiting force within liberalism, considering the abject failure of conservatism to do just that in the previous hundred years.
Contrary to what Carl is implying, conservatives aren't so weak simply because they don't make their arguments "hard enough". They were weak because deep in their heart of hearts conservatives ARE liberals, and as liberals, they were unable to withstand the arguments of the civil rights revolution - and what was the logical next step of the liberal project - without contradicting themselves and their own liberal priors.
Insofar as conservatives did harbor illiberal beliefs, it was because they held Christianity as a parallel moral structure. They were illiberal in spite of their liberalism not because of it. The unavoidable outcome of this inherent double-think was that conservatives were made to made to feel a deeply painful sense of guilt, embarrassment, and cognitive dissonance every time progressives pushed the liberal envelope a little further, as they were forced to twist the illiberal beliefs they still had in a doomed attempt to make them fit the liberal moral frame.
Liberal vs Conservative muddies the waters too much because both categories are so awash in propaganda (mainly of the liberal variety)
A better way to frame the issue is warriors vs merchants. Once the merchants get control, they suppress the warriors (war is bad for business) until it reaches a point where the barbarian hordes just roll in and squash the merchants.
Those barbarian hordes eventually become merchants themselves over time and the cycle repeats.
The merchant class holds more power over time because conquest costs money, so the warrior class (when it’s in power) can’t suppress merchants to the same extent that the merchant class (when it’s in power) can suppress the warriors.
@@Mike37551 I wouldn't consider a significant portion of what qualifies as modern Conservatives to be warriors. McCain and Eyepatch McCain, sure, but Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz would not have been warriors under any social order.
There are barely any warriors now because there hasn’t been a full-mobilization war in almost a century. Judging by its behavior, I think it’s fair to assume most/all of the cold warriors have retired or been purged from the deep state. Don’t think there’s a ton of rabid anti-communists in the CIA anymore.
This goes to the point of so many “conservative” politicians really being slightly less liberal liberals, or just flat out grifters.
The idea of speak softly and carry a big stick has been replaced by the idea of squawk and shriek incessantly and fight minor wars with 16 oz gloves and one hand tied behind our back.
@@50centpb7
My man, that was such a sharp analysis, your both two posts. 🥰 The "parallel moral structure" and "cognitive dissonance" which together leads to weakness towards liberals, it explains everything.
That is it! You have absolutely identified the core problem.
The economic drive to constantly grow dissolve societies and the ideology emerges after the fact
Or you might put it in a certain way, when your view of the universe is a cold mechanical one then you yourself eventually become a cold and mechanical being. As one takes after their parent. They are in the image of their father…and their father is The Machine.🤖
Really good. You pushed back on all the right points. Great stuff from both of you.
Great intercourse. I would love to see more discussion on honor, sacredness, and grace.
Very nice seeing Carl
Love Carl, he was absolutely instrumental in my political formation. But I must admit that it is a bit frustrating hearing him always on the cusp of an epiphany to just back away time and time again.
He fears what must be done as many that see the edge do.
I am proud of Carl for refusuing to pick a religion.
Seeing the benefits of faith is not the same as having faith.
I acknowledge that religion can be a great guidance for a society, because most people are inherently illogical and their minds are naturally stunted. That doesn't apply to everyone though. We are not all equal, not even close. Some are more human than others.
The leftists ironically need religion more than anyone, because they're exactly the kind of people i'm talking about.
@@alberain Why is that something to be proud of?
@@alberainEveryone has a religion. Only difference is some don't have the strength of character to admit it.
*The meeting of two great minds.*
🧠⚡🧠
*More please!*
Theres plenty we could do. But I don't want to Fed post
No no, you heard them all we can do is build parallel institutions because the choas that corrupted the previous ones we built certainly won't do it again.........
Honestly, this is why Christians will continue to be persecuted. Like the Woke the celebrate being the victims...
Carl has a habit, I think, of attributing too much explanatory power to ideology and presuppositions. With most liberals that I have interacted with, it seems far more like that ideology is a thin veneer over the ego. Scientific materialism and liberalism allow you to feel like the smartest guy in the room, whereas the religious perspective is humbling. You aren’t the center of the universe, nor the font of wisdom.
True.
As someone that has never been religious but do appreciate its role and the power it has to keep morals in place, i have never found that scientific materialism is an ego boost. Anyone that doesn't have faith should realize that nihilism is the simple truth of the universe and that neither you, nor anything that you do, matter to anyone or anything.
It's a thought that crippled me for a long time until i came to accept it but one thing it didn't give me is a feeling of self importance, quite the opposite. I had to read the greek Stoicist to really see how that was always a problem for people, and has some have said : I cannot run away from death, but i can get rid of my fear of it.
@@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang No, eddie, you're still religious because you keep to the idea that you are a man, equal in dignity and worth, to the rest of man which you deemed, in your nihilism, as meaningless.
@@kwazooplayingguardsman5615 I mean, the word religious is fairly vague.
Merriam webster defines it as : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. I meant it as being part of religion.
You could basically say that it is impossible to not be religious. I can frame my view of reality has an acknowledge ultimate reality and so can quite literally anyone. You just have to believe that your view of reality is the closest one to the truth which in some sense, it is as no one can witness life other than with their own eyes and senses.
Continuing with this notion, who am i to say to someone that believes they have seen God act in their life, that they are foolish. It may be that they did, even if it is only their own interpretation of the events.
Some call that phenomenon just luck, other call it destiny, other like me just causality. Luck is only what we call our inability to fully understand every movement of reality that leads to a point. If someone wish to personify this fact of reality, some may view it as foolish. I see it as giving a bit of mysticism and hope as this reality is quite gruesome.
I think you just described hipsters in the former example.
I believe building your life on family is building on sand. We can't help but desire eternity and perfection, but human beings will break under that expectation.
sargon begins his radical traditionalist journey
End of the day the reason every system fails is man does not want to acknowledge Christ is King. Any attempt we have to replace Truth with a facsimile the results will be disastrous.
being smart academically won't win a war
Until your scientists build a weapon of terrifying power.
It will if it improves your logistics and means you start building your navy before anyone else
I'm really enjoying this civilized discussion. Thank you.
30:20 Funny how Carl thought Auron was catholic, which would be logical considering his integralist views. The Church awaits you Auron !
The Pope is utterly compromised by liberalism. I invite you to cry about it.
That Benjamin thinks he’s being generous to Christians to think of them in the same category as Muslims is telling, both about the horrific Islamization of Britain and the peculiarity of his historically and theologically limited learning.
Well said.
Yeah he is unable to shake his internet atheism completely.
Both idolators ✡️
You can't prove that Christianity is any more correct than Islam. God not actually existing is Christianity's primary weakness, and the reason it will always fall to liberalism in the long term.
The problem with Muslims is that they deny the Divinity of Christ; their ethics are fairly similar to those of traditional Christian societies. Attacks on Muslim values and modes of living were always veiled attacks on religious values and religious modes of living in general. There are legitimate criticisms of Islam, but none that have been raised in the public sphere in the past 50 years are even remotely valid.
Great talk!
8 years ago, he fancied himself a defender of liberalism from the illiberal left. Today, he is proudly illiberal himself.
I've never seen a better encapsulation of the modern conservative movement.
I‘m proud of Carl!
Fascinating conversation. In reference to the reality of the bell curve meme these scripture verses are relevant. Whether 90 IQ or 140 the key to knowing God is humility.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29 KJV
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Fantastic Stream. With two of the best thinkers out there
Here's something to think about, has there ever been a nation built upon secularism? No, because it lacks to ability to motivate it's people.
No central themes or story to concretize a social structure to unify. In other words: culture
Jews are secular and they are highly motivated so that's one example.
@@nicholasfry4253 Pfffffffff-
Several communist nations tried it. Not that I'd say they were stunning successes, but they did try.
@@nicholasfry4253 we used a lot of religious motives to establish the state even though a lot of us weren't religious. The majority of Israelis were never exactly atheists either. Furthermore, the secular hope was originally in socialism. When that failed, first with the prague trials that ended support for close relations with the eastern bloc but then of course in the 1980's, the secularists turned to Oslo. The base idea was that by making a deal with the Palestinians that Israel would be normalized as a nation like any other and that they could be seen as normative members of the liberal internationalist left. That failed and on the college campuses today outside Israel we see a complete and clear rejection of that possibility. They will always be seen as Jews. Therefore, its rather clear that Israeli traditionalists got what they wanted and remain highly motivated by zionism. Secularists in Israel on the other hand are often quite disillusioned by what they thought zionism would achieve but didn't.
It's always great learning from you guys on this topic. I am trying to learn as much as I can as well. Thanks again!
Sargon: "There's probably no one root to it"
Yes, there is. It's Jews!
Santanic Jews or Gnostic Jews.
@@TempoLOOKING Both, they are first and foremost on their own ethnic team before anything else.
@@Ebeneezer_van_Pelt ....why. is it worth it. They know what will happen. That is why you don't fuck the succubus or any demonic entity's. Now dragons are fine as they might eat you, but you still have your soul. It does matter as Gnosticism is a lie that is baked into modern society. Do they deserve to be dammed. Luciferins were tricked into believing in universal damnation by said gnostics. It doesn't help either that the left broke up any form of universal consestives from the church. Good example is works vs faith and salvation. Big turn off for a mostly gnostic society today. Not defending them. Also does eating demon sound gross to you? I know God will purify the monsters....but do humans have to eat it? You know when God kills the kaos beasts before sending the Satanists to the lake of fire for the second death. I know that God put all the animals for humanity to used....but sounds like canableisum.
Merchants that need to be thrown out of the temple.
No lie, no irony. What is this about? Is this real? Is anyone laying this case out without endless irony? Where did this come from, and why is there always one conservative saying it?
Finally, is sounding like BLM a concern at all for you?
Has Carl read the Last Superstition by Ed Feser? Feser goes into discussion about how the mechanistic view of the world was mainstreamed because of the scientific revolution which had it goal to conquer human nature but it actually doesn’t work. A lot of contemporary philosophers that are studying this are becoming Platonists and Aristoteleans
Feser is awesome. Funny too. Great book.
@@Kwisatz-Chaderach IMO the best contemporary philosopher on the planet. Which is why virtually no one knows about him.
@@dribblesg2 yeah I hope he becomes more popular. I mean I guess trooning out becoming popular will hopefully make people wake up a bit because they will be asking what a human actually is
Sounds good. Thanks for the recommendation.
I'm just disappointed that I was born in between the golden ages...
Same here. It’s such a boring time to be alive.
This comment thread is the dumbest I’ve ever seen.
A) it is the most exciting time to be alive. We literally get to see the internet awaken the sleeping world to finally see how stupid and gross the elites are. B) more and more ppl are coming to the realization that God and Christianity are critical to have morality in society (God’s Great Awakening). C) the only way the second golden age will arrive is if the current generations do something about it. There is no guarantee on when the golden age arrives. If we as the current living generations do something about it, we can make sure the golden age comes sooner. We can be the generations that make history happen.
The demoralization that the current generation allows the establishment to propagandize onto them is maddening. Why do you allow the establishment to dictate the view of the world for you? Why do you play their game?
Think outside the box. Stop thinking within the establishment paradigm. Their whole point is to demoralize you into submission.
I was with Carl for a while on only progressive liberalism being the problem & classic liberalism being fine, but now I'm of the mind it all has to go. Classic liberalism taken to it's logical conclusion always leads to progressive liberalism & let's not pretend classic liberalism isn't an entropic force either!
All political philosophies taken to their logical conclusions will manifest some kind of disaster. Constrained Liberalism works, so long as we retain a healthy fear of God
Ok, so have you compared it, to nations that did not try classical liberalism? East Asia, South America, Central America, South Europe, North Africa, East Europe, India or the middle east? Who among these, handled communism better than North Europe?
Or are we going to pretend places like South America, not liberal, very religious, do not have a problem with voting in communist parties?
Stop being a leftie, who compare what you dislike with Utopia. Use real world examples.
First of, what the fuck to you mean by tory boy? Do you think the tories are classical liberals?
That, clearly show, you have no idea what a classical liberal is.
Second, what are you comparing the west too?
Oh, right, your made up version of the world, so your utopia.
Just flat out false that A always leads to B. Do some more thinking, nothing is necessary. It's all contingent.
By this logic, we can't even advocate for conservativism either, cuz it will "inevitably" lead to liberalism, or whatever other thing you don't like. You don't get to look at how history turned out, and declare it will always turn out that way.
I reached this conclusion as well...
Now I'm Catholic again.
Great show, Auron. Any chance of having Paul Kingsnorth on? He's a very intelligent and interesting man who has converted to Christianity and has some really good takes, especially in regards to AI/Transhumanism.
What Carl’s missing here is that the people who’ve fallen for atheism are not, in fact the clever ones too smart to realize what’s good for the plebs, but rather the ones not quite clever enough to make it out the far end of the bell curve. Atheism is the midwit position.
Why.
I completely agree. You're saying what the RUclipsr says, so you get likes. But why is that true? The masses need their opiate? It has to be deeper than that, right?
Such people are smart enough to digest the propaganda, but not smart enough to see through it
Categorically refering to the ”midwit position” to support your argument is a midwit position. But you are right that many outspoken atheists aren’t very clever
So being correct makes one a midwit...?
If you've ever wondered why you're so unintelligent, now you know.
Don't confuse atheism with whatever religion the left subscribes to. They have a fanatical faith which worships the destructiveness of female nature, nothing else.
Theism is for people like you, the mentally stunted who cannot cope with their human desire to understand everything.
It is indeed a plebeian mentality, if that's how you want to put it.
The men who wrote your religious books where likely atheists themselves, who knew that blind faith is the only lasting way to control society for the better. Fear of the unknown both countered, and adapted.
Good discussion lads. Very heartening to see this sort of collaboration.
It's really important for this type of common ground to be discovered and explored
So interesting, so wholesome hearing about passing on a hobby
Summarizing , so far, ( half way through the conversation) the marriage of liberal to conservative is what I believe Carl Jung talked about when he used the term integration. For instance: The free thinking artist with great talent and focus needs the help of a conservative mindset to help them to be seen by more than their friends and family. If its a good "marriage" then it helps both parties. Integrate your own masculine with your feminine and you are likely to be fairly well balanced and easier to get along with. We need each other for the truth to be seen, heard and felt. (This is why I use the artist as an example) Without the money man (conservative) there is no great invention that can reach the masses. And just for the record, this is not rocket science. For all recorded history we have seen this to be true. It is always the intellect that is last to recognize the obvious. Why? Because we think too much and DO too little. Build a house before we become a philosophers and we'll all be much better off. Thanks for the talk gents.
Isn’t a marriage between conservatism and liberals what we’ve seen from the conservative movement in the last century?
@@50centpb7 Yes, but it's not a good marriage. And "good" is the operative word. I'm sure I could come up with a better analogy for integration. Perhaps it should be said that we need the divine integration, coming from the Great Mystery, God or just something bigger than yourself. That said, all of us seem better off reaching for that which we sense is good but we may not know why except that it has been good for a long time, like raising kids with a few rules that they have to follow so that we don't end up hating our kids. As for the best of both worlds, as far as I can tell, all the most beautiful works of art were conceived through extreme devotion to the inspired moment that managed to last and last despite the less than ideal surroundings. Suffering was built into the day. The elation one got through the results was a little slice of heaven. Balance. Disciple (conservative) with talent and free flow (libertal) marry one another to complete a great work of art. I believe that for this conversation, it's an internal marriage. For the world at large, the rules first then the freedom to imagine. The artist of the 60s used to say, "man, there are no rules!" And they were wrong. Just look at the quality of work. Much of it is horrendous to look at and it's not exactly just a matter of taste. The depth is not there. When God is part of the equation it shines through good art and it just so happens, in my opinion, that God is highly creative and very disciplined.
Carl: "I want to enjoy the benefits of a Christian society but I refuse to do the work necessary to make that society possible"
Christians: ...
The benefit of a written constitution is that it provides inertia or friction or an anchor. A democratic mob can swing anyway it wants, but a constitution provides institutions, standards, and guidance that will oppose the mob, that will slow it down, that will mitigate its extremity.
The acid of Liberalism is simple mathematics.
If man is Universal then your personal preferences must also be so. Therefore, you can impose yourself on others as the universal good.
Further, anyone who disagrees with you is acting contrary to the benefit (as you see it) of humanity.
In the Social Contract Rousseau distinguished between natural liberty, civic liberty and moral liberty, and argued that the latter is higher and cultivated out of the order of the pact.
I love your intro music, I listen for the full minute without skipping
It's encouraging to see Carl has grown this much
Aithiests ignorance on Gnosticism allowed this hell.
"There's no such thing as freedom, there's only duty and dependence"
Regarding 'merchant rule'... Even much of India was never directly/totally under British rule. There was a feudal patchwork. That said, multinational corporations tend to produce evil results.
This is one of the best and most potent philosophy videos.
I found the analysis that liberal analysis (pun? intended) becomes fully dissolving in the absence of a moral skeleton very poignant.
Comprehensive liberalism being so, well, comprehensive it eventually even develops a physical correlate (it being directed towards the very human body) is also rather intriguing. However, I don't think that is truly a trait of liberalism per se, but rather, any dynamic that breaks down to
[technological possibility] + [lack of a regard for the human form as sacred]
I would, for example, also think the exact same thing would happen under a deeply secularly conservative society without that sacredness dogma, if for no other reason than to enable a) radical cybernetic life extension and b) enhancements for pragmatic (rather than self-realization and other fanciful) reasons.
This dynamic is completely novel in the history of this species, and by the way still expanding both inside the liberal Western world, as well as the rest of the world (as well as still increasing in depth next to breadth).
This is why I am so blackpilled about the future of the species. If we don't have either a) a collapse such as Kaczynski advocated for, or b) some adoption of mentioned moral imperative of regarding the human form as sacred, then our species does not have a future. A post-human successor species maybe, but not our current species. It's hard to shake off the impression the ultimate future of the human species, if current trajectories hold, is for it to be reduced to essentially brains in vats -- after going through a period of brains "at least" still being housed in mobile cyborg platforms. The direct switch from biological bodies to stationary vat brains living in a virtual reality is of course regarded as inacceptable. But the cyborg body stage will eventually be axed.
In other words, the comical aspect of this that Carl mentions is quite literally because (according to scripture at least) God is intentionally making fools out of those who glory in their wisdom.
I don't understand the pessimism, yes things are bad, and the onlt way out is through. But the wind is no longer against us, the momentum is going in the right direction.
The winds have always been in our direction. God is waking up more and more people. It is a very exciting time to be alive.
Margaret Thatcher: "There's no such thing as society."
“Catholic. Southern Baptist. It’s all the same to me. You Christians who actually believe stuff.”
The tides depend on gravity. We know some of the effects of gravity, but I had not heard that anyone has discovered the nature of gravity.
Yes. Video over.
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, fuck yes it does...
For a quadroon, Sargon is based.
Education is not intelligence. Conflating the two is the same fallacy credentialists fall into.
Although Liberalism should get its fair share of criticism I think it’s often conflated with and subsequently blamed for instigating larger cultural tendencies coming out of modernity. This does not only include a paradigm of liberal assumptions but ALSO features centuries of secularisation, scientific progress, technical innovations, and non-liberal competing ideologies
Except it is liberal tendencies taken to their end logical point.
I agree. People that are just becoming aware of proper political philosophy have underestimated the impact of technology. “Liberal-modernity” - the combination of comprehensive Liberalism with the materialistic organization of society. They go hand in hand. People aren’t going to give up technology.
@@DrOktobermensch Correct. They go hand-in-hand. The external human world is always the manifestation of our internal state, and modernity, and all its isms, ideologies, economic systems, theories, perspectives on history, is precisely a mixed collection of liberal principles at their final expression, OR brief local reactions to those principles.
Yes.
Yes, ironically in the name of "empathy"
it doesn't just dissolve them; it destroys them.
An uncannily accurate depiction of modern progressive society is the movie Demolition Man. It was a very cheesy movie, but some of the themes are dead on (by accident of course). An overly progressive utopia where language is monitored by a moral code and AI filter at all times even in public, disempowered police, elite bureaucrats, and a large homeless population rotting in the Utopia underground, and a large section of that population treated as extremists. Also banned in society is meat, fossil fules, contact sports and even physical sex between a man and woman. Masculine behavior has been pushed to the fringes of society.
The answer is yes.
we are living in the prelude to starship troopers
The answer is no.
Liberalism was sold to us initially on a purely economic basis eg it is oppressive for little Jimmy end up a blacksmith like his father & grandfather & great grandfather before him. He has to break free & become an entrepreneur & invent new production processes & therefore we all come to benefit economically even if that's cost of the cohesiveness of Jimmy's community. Now it's all about 'self actualisation' so little Jimmy is being oppressed by his small community because he wants to be a trans porn actor so he can self actualise & to hell with wider society & of course no one not even Jimmy benefits.
you added the last part about jimmy's community. It was assumed that Jimmy would always find community because community was natural. Nobody gave deep thought on what it means to be in a community or how much we needed a tighter community. We are now realizing that people are often fairly needy upon some amount of community. Maybe not in all his dealings but very few can stand without it.
We often base our societies by the examples of the extremes and people at the top because they're more likely to publish and proliferate their views. This means those types of people will represent an extreme of existence and is often one type of sustainable reality that works for them but it may disregard other sustainable life situations which others may need and may not thrive in the former case because not everybody is that extreme former case. Jimmy now follows down somebody else's path and find it doesn't work for them but is otherwise trapped. The original progenitor of the idea wasn't wrong for their own existence and the existence of the friends amongst them but to push it to everybody wasn't liberation but rather a social pitfall which doesn't work for Jimmy.
NO-ONE...is above the law!
I was convinced that liberalism destroys a society way before it was discussed in social media and sorts. Back in 2008 I have read a couple of anti-liberal works from the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. One major work was the one of a Spanish catholic priest, Felix Sarda y Salvany: Liberalismo es pecado from 1884(Liberalism is sin). That was among the very first literature, that opened my eyes for what is happening around us. As a catholic monarchist (which I also consider myself) he draw a clear line: Democracy-Liberalism-Socialism= a structureless, diabolical world, packed with elegant words and empty fake moralism.
59:48 You can’t un-melt the Elephant’s foot.
Lol (paraphrasing)
Auron: to be fair, I’m southern baptist
Carl: oh … whatever
Break down to build up again. The goal of every academy since Plato. New Soviet Man.
It's interesting in an academic sense to try and ponder the orb of when and who began pushing the notion that classical liberalism could work without the people living under it being Christian, but ultimately fruitless. Like finding patient zero for the Spanish Flu, at this point any utility of knowing who the originator(s) is/are is minimal.
However I don't think it's that Liberalism works only with a Christian population. It's more likely that liberalism works with a population that has a hypermajority of like-minded people of a culture with a certain set of traits that are generally found in a Christian population. A kind of liberalism seems to largely be working in Japan for example, which is by no means majority Christian, but does have a hypermajority of an ethnically Japanese population that's majority xenophobic (in a good way) against foreigners moving into the country solely to increase GDP in the short term.
Cultural consensus is a much larger factor than shared religion, though of course shared religion is a great way to generate cultural consensus.
Needless to say, diversity is the enemy of both potential outcomes existing
Japan is a deeply sick society in a lot of ways
I love how Japan and South Korea don't buy into immigration, no matter how low birth rates are.
@@skylinefever "screw that"
@@skylinefever better japan collapse and rebuild japan than japan collapse and rebuild something that it isn't japan.
@@skylinefever We'll have to see how long it lasts; both countries are already experiencing the beginning of demographic collapse. I agree that they should maintain their current immigration stance no matter what and that they should downsize the economy as the population decreases. But we all know that the general consensus of a politician's job in the modern world is to make sure "green line go up".
Good stuff, thanks.
What is English if not the inheritance of Teutoberg and the freedom of Germanic tribes from Rome?
When Germany abandoned it's parochial tribal laws in The Reception (of universal Roman law), it set it's culture against it's institutions with awful consequences.
But those tribal laws and customs The Seleness, is not Christian.
Yes
Carl you're looking very good and healthy
"Society going out of its way to play along the fantasies of an infinitesimal minority"
There is a term for that: aristocracy.
But instead of this neo-aristocracy being based on merit, ability or legacy of one's bloodline, it's based on one's degeneracy, subversiveness, marked inability to function meritoriously in society and/or one's detachment from reality. They're like a new brahmin caste in Western society whose sole purpose is to prove their disattachment to reality and society by being subversive degenerates.
If only church wasn't pondering to it too, quite a flaw when even the church goes woke out of desperation.
yeah Carl they have already tried the womb transplant in india. it went horrible as you can image, flesh rot is super scary especially when you did it to yourself.
I think everyone should violently defend themselves against liberalism
If religion is the way, then which religion? If Christianity is the way, then which form of Christianity? Will the next revelation provide a better form of Christianity?
They should not have come back from the washroom.
Auron MacIntyre, thank you. Please try to pronounce the references, authors, thinkers, books either you or you guest MORE CLEARLY and carefully.
The sound was not clear throughout so articulation is essential.
Tldr
Yes
Carl still looks good after we saw him all those years ago in “Salo: 120 days of Sodom” from 1975 if memory serves.
He certainly hasn’t age a bit since before the day of his birth
There's a difference between liberalism and leftism.
27:54 skeptic deep dig damn!
For real, it's the academic elites and their political lackies pushing this nonsense.
Does the justification for private property stem from the same philosophical roots as transgender-ism?
Aren't they both expressions of individualism/liberalism?
Will traditionalists be forced to give up economic individualism as they embrace cultural collectivism?
Nice Metallica shirt bro.🎸
Priest, Stryper and Maiden on the wall = instant credibility.