Having seen both you and Academic Agent arguing for something to this effect, it's become evident that all of these RW dissatisfactions, disillusionments, and vague types of solutions are beginning to gravitate together, and coalesce in to a more defined idea, if not a cohesive plan of action. However, this is entirely an intellectual form in its current stage, and it's doubtful that the "lowest common denominator" of populist voooooters will ever warm up to the idea of not giving the Cathedral its legitimacy with their participation, no matter how disillusioned they become.
Populism means nothing if none of the people are unwilling to stomach violence. Violence is the genuine weakness of bureaucratic. That's why the eternal boogey man of our bureaucratic state is its most recent memory of populist violence being used to take institutional power, fascism. The reason Cesar's populism won and Trump's populism lost is because Cesar actually crossed the Rubicon.
8:25 "What shall we say? The editors of newspapers have no check and yet have power to make and unmake characters at their will, to create or unmake constitutions, to erect and demolish administrations - When a few scribblers, all foreigners, whose origins history and characters nobody knows, have more influence than president, the senate, the people's own representatives, and all the judges of the land?" - John Adams, in a letter to a dutch intellectual
1. Men in general are opting out of higher education. I have even heard of women beginning to drop out of universities. It is either anti-male which explains why men don't want to go there, or the degrees no longer hold any value and it creates lack of faith in it. If people are also having less children, then this institution is also losing a lot of its power over society. Academics will be viewed with distrust in the future. 2. Legacy Media (mainstream) is predominantly viewed by boomers. The younger generations tend to consume alternative media. We have been privy to watch left wing medias, such as Buzzfeed, Salon, Vice and Gawker file for bankruptcy. Organizations like the New York Times, are both laying off staff and asking more donations. Wikipedia is asking for donations. That is not a sign of strength. 3. Television Media is mostly a boomer relic. Younger people do not watch television as much as the older generations did. Which is why I am starting to see organizations, like Nielsen, regularly trying to find out what kind of tv shows do people consume. You are seeing a lot of tv shows that are considered very popular, losing most of its audience after a few seasons. This will most likley reflect better once the boomer generation steps aside. 4. There is a visible distrust in mainstream politicians. While there are still people regularly voting for mainstream candidates, you are starting to see the appeal of populist candidates. Which is more likely to appeal to the youth than mainstream candidates. Both the left and the right are not appealing enough for the youth. This will most likely reflect better once the boomer generation steps aside. 5. The appeal of the left is through victimhood. The problem with victimhood is that eventually you will empower your victims enough to not feel as marginalized. Then you will have little to offer these people. The left is diluting itself to become as abstract and as encompassing as possible. It does not hold one core value, it holds several that are very contradicting. Eventually it will lose appeal unless it reforms. 6. The left is antinatalistic. If the right is becoming less trusting of the establishment media, academia, and politicians, then it is not going to appeal to the right. The right will distrust anything the left wing institutions say and will shield its community from left wing propaganda. The right tends to have more children than the left, especially the religious right. Which anti-natalism mixed with secularism is not a good strategy in the long run. The left is not going to be appealing to people with families. 7. The left is not focusing on economic issues. It is focusing on social issues that. The right can attract more people right now if it focuses on the economic side of things. People don't need to be united by beliefs. They just need to see that the right offers people a more affordable lifestyle than the left. The left is not appealing to families.
Hey, thank you for your video, it was really interesting, despite the fact I read moldbug years ago. The solution does make a lot of sense. You mentioned Christianity, but if you read Tertullian’s Apology, you will see the status of the Christians and their society back in the days - separate themselves, have an alternative to the bad state of the Roman society, grow it because of active talking to people and eventually became the de facto religion and the emperor had not a lot of options but to declare it official in the empire. And to be honest it doesn’t really matter about the power at all, the power will come, we just need to be patient and know that we are right, do our stuff, live the way that we think is right. Even now when I think about it it’s exactly what the Amish society is doing it their way, but on smaller scale. What do you think?
Your analysis of the bureaucracy omits one of its most populous constituencies: the managers and owners of corporate entities. A bureaucracy is not defined by its dependency on public moneys (like government agencies are) but by its hierarchical forms of life and decision-making structure. If you can make a box-checking job out of it, chances are it's part of a bureaucratic endeavor. Instead of targeting the intellectual basis of any resistance to idiocy (educational leisure time and its guarantor, the university), let us discuss the enemy we unanimously know we hate, which is being controlled against our will. By being managed.
I think this is the first time since 4 years that I've actually listened to someone criticizing John Doyle and actually agreeing with them. I would imagine that I would similarly agree to any criticism you would have for characters from the daily wire cast. Candace Owens and Jordan Peterson included. Because I've always thought that even though those characters had very clear flaws to be pointed out for some reason the RUclips channels that criticized them were just incompetent.
Thank you, Funny that you mention that, I am writing the next script that focuses on why Jordan has become cringe and then what is the thing makes something cringe or cool. And you are right that political RUclips is generally trash and that my only hope as a small channel is to win through quality.
@@courtssense Sweet, I subbed to you now, I hope you make more great scripts into videos like this. And yeah, I'm actually a bit sad that DJBP got cringe for me, at least I do appreciate his podcasts with different people, those do have some level of interest for me unlike the others. But even with that I think Jordan is still unwilling to really reach out far enough to understand younger people. You would think someone with his skill and resources would put more effort into that but for now he seems closed off. As for political RUclips, honestly out of everyone, people who have tried to criticize Jordan Peterson have actually been so bad at it in my opinion that they are ended up helping Jordan instead. You're already on the right track by trying to prepare a script claiming that Jordan is getting boring cringe and weirdly unattractive if you're trying to listen to him, but so many other people are just so heavily biased they instantly go and try to force people to think Jordan Peterson is some super heavy right wing conservative with hidden agendas and the only thing more cringe than Peterson is the people trying to criticize him from that aspect. Honestly if they just stop talking about him, Jordan would naturally fall out of favor because of his flaws.
The solution you describe is too much adapted to the US political system, where a winner-takes-all-principle basically only allows for 2 parties. In Germany and other European states, it is much more rational to support a party, if it is kind of properly right wing enough than in the US. Reasons: A) It is hard to convince people to participate in organised non-action, no matter the topic. We are movers not standers. B) You cannot make right wing parties lose by convincing 10% of the population to not vote in Europe. That would be enough to ensure consistent Repuplican defeat but it would still not destroy the possibility of coalitions and speculations for eventual Government involvement in the European system. So VERY hard to convince enough people. C) Since Europe mostly has this multi party coalition system it would be especially simple for the cathedral to create ever new pseudo right wing or social democratic parties, so that responsibility never rests in one hand alone. D) There are very clear advantages of having a kind of properly right wing enough party in Europe even if no actual political power is conquered at first. These parties by now serve as employers to many truly right minded young people, as cristallisation point for ideas, meetings and controversies and they do have a realistic chance of winning on a state level, where the creation of some small institutional save havens is at least thinkable since it would only involve maybe dozens or hundreds of bureaucrats instead of hundred of thousands like for the university system.
Indeed, I think that you are right that I really was not looking beyond the Americas when addressing strategy. In a multi-party system, it would be almost impossible to pull such a move off. However, I remain convinced that Western Europe and especially ze German politics are an extension of the American progressive movement and if the left is not defeated in the US (or if the US does not collapse as a world hegemon), it cannot be defeated in Europe. For example, if things get really bad and the AfD is elected with a majority, there is no reason to think that Weidel will not be the next Meloni. Also thanks for the comment, it is sort of surreal since I have followed your channel for the past 5 years.
Great analysis and agree with the conclusions. A point on Yarvin's "Cathedral". He identifies three types of institution from where bureaucrats exercise power; the civil service, the media and academia. But if we turn to Sam Francis (after Burnham) we're introduced to three generally broader centres of power that govern in our societies; the civil service (again), non-governmental organisations (including academia and the media), and economic institutions (business - the modern corporation, in other words). Francis and Burnham use the term "manager", instead of "bureaucrat", to describe the individuals holding power but I think they amount to the same thing. The inclusion of private corporations in the left leaning hegemonic structure is valid when it is taken into consideration that the manager (the true power broker) operating in a modern corporation is the same animal as that operating in government and other institutions. Indeed, on a day to day basis they often work together cohesively. This fact makes it even clearer how much the left is entrenched in power, and a point of major importance that was made in the piece, was that the bureaucrat/manager is protected, within and by the structure, from populist pressure. All of this underlines how long the road will be to see change. Although I agree that change will not happen now, change remains inevitable. Simply because, like the Soviets, the system will collapse under its own weight. We must be ready to step in at that point.
@@courtssense For info, Francis's last book, "Leviathan and its Enemies" was completed in 1995 and published posthumously, I think in 2005. I think it is fair to say he saw it as an update to James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution", published in the 1940s. Leviathan is something of a repetitive read (in my opinion) but it is worth the time. One aspect of it is that it is the last piece of work of this kind written before the Internet became all pervasive in our lives. I don't recall the internet, or its scions, being mentioned once in it. This makes it special in my eyes. Modern but not polluted by what we experience today. For me personally the year of its completion also marks the point where my own career as a public service manager began and continued until recently. I know the truth about what Francis is saying about this class of people
Grüße vom Geschatteten. Seine Durchlaucht war der Ansicht dieser Kanal sei einer gebotenen Repräsentation unserer Politseite würdig. Ich abonniere normalerweise nicht ohne mich auf einen Kanal eingesessen zu haben, aber hier sei es einer Überlegung wert.
@@courtssense you aren’t following your own logic. You claim we shouldn’t vote for trump because it’ll make the opposition stronger. Overturning roe vs wade made the left stronger because it’s motivated them to fight harder and given them an emotional issue to take up; nearly everyone votes on emotion. Roe vs wade should have been overturned only after power had been secured- and since you claim (and I agree) the right has not held power since 32, overturning it a few years ago was one of the dumbest strategic moves possible.
Did Franko not overcome such challenges in Spain? Those institutions you listed were likely on the side of the left. Can a right wing populist movement in America not achieve something similar?
My friend, have you looked at Spain? There is not a single trace of the falange to be seen, this is because his institutions collapsed with his death, and they all became libs. Even in the 60s, when Franco was still in power, the new generation was listening to the Beatles and wearing jeans. This makes evident that American institutions had more power over the Spanish than the Spanish institutions themselves.
Good question. I would go for post-conservative or reactionary because they are pretty vague, but I would like to think that I believe is original. I started this channel because frankly, I do not know anyone that agrees with more than 60% of my beliefs, and I am sick of it. So the whole idea of the channel/substack is to propagate some of my own ideas and find people who think alike so that I might not be the only one. What label would you use for yourself?
As far as political power goes I think you're correct, it's too far gone to take it back through any means, only option left is to let it fail then build something better from the ashes. Not sure why this is framed as a critique, just the trump support ? Everything positive john has said about him is true, along with the fact he's stated "he's not the answer to all our problems"..... This whole video reminds me of Doyle and Austin Peterson's conservative VS libertarianism interview, when they started discussing adopting tenants of communism to defeat communism(ww1/2) but you're fighting it domestically now and to have that "told ya, didn't work" moment would require the complete destruction of the country. You may be arguing that is the only way, but this feels too much like a rationalisation of inaction. Great listen regardless, earned my sub, cheers.
You are right, they do not. The pressure would not come from the people, but from their own unfulfilled expectations. They would have all the responsibility in building a utopia and they would 100% fail.
Very interesting video. I'm not sure convincing majority of right wingers to withdraw from federal elections is feasible and sustainable since the backlash to policies made in those times would be higher, compared to a situation where you have a sense of democratic legislation at least. I'm not American though and I'm not sure how US voters usually react... I'm wondering if that is more feasible than new ideas blooming in the current inteligentsia, due to popular pressure or simple things getting way worse. Computational methods and AI might help open new horizens of policymaking. On a separate note, you used the f word a couple of time, although I have no issues with it personally but I think it might affect your channel's reach. I'm not sure how youtube algorithms work but since speech to text is very competent and computationally cheap, I woudn't be surprised to find out that videos containing explicit language might be handicapped in feed ranking. my 2 cents though, you do you :) thanks for making this video. subscribed
I have not considered the thing with saying the f word. I'll look into it. And indeed, I really do not think that this strategy is realistic. Thank you.
Generally, the Democratic party's decisions in policy and their ramifications, repeatedly provoke enough of a right-wing outrage that they make a concentrated effort to push back. Case in point, the election of '45. The problem is that this only ever reinforces the legitimacy of the cause of the prog-left, and by extension the institutions that carry out its will, as OP already explained.
Withdrawal from elections will just lead to the creation of spoiler parties to diffuse the tensions. Shrinking to local politics is also reliant on the good will of the federal centre to respect the state rights, etc. I agree with everything in your video, but the strategy isn't going to work. The options to plausibly deny the responsibility are still many in this scenario. I suspect that you don't believe it will work either and proposed this strategy to kickstart a conversation about better solutions. Besides, there should be an opposite moral framework to which the intelligentsia will be seduced to. Otherwise, they will sit among the ruins and say "it's still better than the right". And I mean specifically the "intelligentsia morality", because we can see that the right-wing morality still works rather well for the masses which vote accordingly, but falls on deaf ears for intelligentsia. Nietzsche might be useful here, since he elevates the freethinker and philosopher above the rest. I know it sounds exhausted, but the culture might be the most fruitful field over the others. There are enough things to be ridiculed nowadays, enough of forgotten virtues wnd beauty to be reintroduced into the cultural conversation.
Well, true that I am not arguing for them, that might be another video. The idea of the video is more a question of why this is, and why conservative ideas are losing and you are right that I expect that progressive ideas will fail, but only time will tell...
I also think that your views around the bureaucrats are too cynical and deeply contrary to the idea of human liberty and agency but I don't want to be too critical. Let me just say that it is no wonder that US university professors despise conservativism because in the US in particular conservativism has been deeply connected with suppression of academic freedoms, undermining scientific education of children and deep misunderstanding of why academic pursuits are good for. Simply said, it has been always the conservatives that were banning teaching basic theories of natural sciences such as biology and physics in school, let alone social sciences! When you create such a connection you really can't expect any other result and the only way you can change it is by violent intrusion and dictatorial power (the universities in post-communist countries are violently anti-communist for very similar reasons - even after 40 years of it the "ideologically correct" professors had to be introduced into them using violence because the world view of communist dictatorships in Central Europe was antithetical to creating good scientists - mostly due to nepotism - thus a good scientist was ideologically unreliable and an ideologically reliable person was a total idiot that had to be put into the system by hand. When the dictatorships failed such an ideologically reliable person had no chance to compete while all the competent people were those whose research was previously impeded by the bullying of the communist system even when they didn't suffer much higher levels of oppression from it thus they had very negative attitude towards it).
@@montagreloaded7586 I thought it was pretty obvious, it's because it's wrong and misleading. Shit isn't coming from the Church, which is what you think of when you refer to a "Cathedral". Shit has infiltrated the Church no doubt, but it isn't coming from her.
These are some intelligent observations. I'll keep an eye out for future videos.
Appreciate it, I've been a long time fan.
As a liberal Republican I greatly admire your channel
Also thank you, I can only recommend it!
Having seen both you and Academic Agent arguing for something to this effect, it's become evident that all of these RW dissatisfactions, disillusionments, and vague types of solutions are beginning to gravitate together, and coalesce in to a more defined idea, if not a cohesive plan of action.
However, this is entirely an intellectual form in its current stage, and it's doubtful that the "lowest common denominator" of populist voooooters will ever warm up to the idea of not giving the Cathedral its legitimacy with their participation, no matter how disillusioned they become.
14:47 THANK YOU! I've been calling Progressives Whigs for a year now. FINALLY.
Populism means nothing if none of the people are unwilling to stomach violence. Violence is the genuine weakness of bureaucratic. That's why the eternal boogey man of our bureaucratic state is its most recent memory of populist violence being used to take institutional power, fascism. The reason Cesar's populism won and Trump's populism lost is because Cesar actually crossed the Rubicon.
As a conservative Monarchist I greatly admire your channel
Thank you, let's see where it ends up
i concur
So, to win in the long term we need to loose in the short term.
A similar position of the early Christians.
Except you won't win in the long run either.
8:25 "What shall we say? The editors of newspapers have no check and yet have power to make and unmake characters at their will, to create or unmake constitutions, to erect and demolish administrations - When a few scribblers, all foreigners, whose origins history and characters nobody knows, have more influence than president, the senate, the people's own representatives, and all the judges of the land?"
- John Adams, in a letter to a dutch intellectual
1. Men in general are opting out of higher education. I have even heard of women beginning to drop out of universities. It is either anti-male which explains why men don't want to go there, or the degrees no longer hold any value and it creates lack of faith in it. If people are also having less children, then this institution is also losing a lot of its power over society. Academics will be viewed with distrust in the future.
2. Legacy Media (mainstream) is predominantly viewed by boomers. The younger generations tend to consume alternative media. We have been privy to watch left wing medias, such as Buzzfeed, Salon, Vice and Gawker file for bankruptcy. Organizations like the New York Times, are both laying off staff and asking more donations. Wikipedia is asking for donations. That is not a sign of strength.
3. Television Media is mostly a boomer relic. Younger people do not watch television as much as the older generations did. Which is why I am starting to see organizations, like Nielsen, regularly trying to find out what kind of tv shows do people consume. You are seeing a lot of tv shows that are considered very popular, losing most of its audience after a few seasons. This will most likley reflect better once the boomer generation steps aside.
4. There is a visible distrust in mainstream politicians. While there are still people regularly voting for mainstream candidates, you are starting to see the appeal of populist candidates. Which is more likely to appeal to the youth than mainstream candidates. Both the left and the right are not appealing enough for the youth. This will most likely reflect better once the boomer generation steps aside.
5. The appeal of the left is through victimhood. The problem with victimhood is that eventually you will empower your victims enough to not feel as marginalized. Then you will have little to offer these people. The left is diluting itself to become as abstract and as encompassing as possible. It does not hold one core value, it holds several that are very contradicting. Eventually it will lose appeal unless it reforms.
6. The left is antinatalistic. If the right is becoming less trusting of the establishment media, academia, and politicians, then it is not going to appeal to the right. The right will distrust anything the left wing institutions say and will shield its community from left wing propaganda. The right tends to have more children than the left, especially the religious right. Which anti-natalism mixed with secularism is not a good strategy in the long run. The left is not going to be appealing to people with families.
7. The left is not focusing on economic issues. It is focusing on social issues that. The right can attract more people right now if it focuses on the economic side of things. People don't need to be united by beliefs. They just need to see that the right offers people a more affordable lifestyle than the left. The left is not appealing to families.
Yeah... I'm definitely going to get in touch next year.
Hey, thank you for your video, it was really interesting, despite the fact I read moldbug years ago. The solution does make a lot of sense. You mentioned Christianity, but if you read Tertullian’s Apology, you will see the status of the Christians and their society back in the days - separate themselves, have an alternative to the bad state of the Roman society, grow it because of active talking to people and eventually became the de facto religion and the emperor had not a lot of options but to declare it official in the empire. And to be honest it doesn’t really matter about the power at all, the power will come, we just need to be patient and know that we are right, do our stuff, live the way that we think is right. Even now when I think about it it’s exactly what the Amish society is doing it their way, but on smaller scale. What do you think?
Your analysis of the bureaucracy omits one of its most populous constituencies: the managers and owners of corporate entities. A bureaucracy is not defined by its dependency on public moneys (like government agencies are) but by its hierarchical forms of life and decision-making structure. If you can make a box-checking job out of it, chances are it's part of a bureaucratic endeavor. Instead of targeting the intellectual basis of any resistance to idiocy (educational leisure time and its guarantor, the university), let us discuss the enemy we unanimously know we hate, which is being controlled against our will. By being managed.
I think this is the first time since 4 years that I've actually listened to someone criticizing John Doyle and actually agreeing with them.
I would imagine that I would similarly agree to any criticism you would have for characters from the daily wire cast. Candace Owens and Jordan Peterson included.
Because I've always thought that even though those characters had very clear flaws to be pointed out for some reason the RUclips channels that criticized them were just incompetent.
Thank you,
Funny that you mention that, I am writing the next script that focuses on why Jordan has become cringe and then what is the thing makes something cringe or cool.
And you are right that political RUclips is generally trash and that my only hope as a small channel is to win through quality.
@@courtssense Sweet, I subbed to you now, I hope you make more great scripts into videos like this.
And yeah, I'm actually a bit sad that DJBP got cringe for me, at least I do appreciate his podcasts with different people, those do have some level of interest for me unlike the others. But even with that I think Jordan is still unwilling to really reach out far enough to understand younger people.
You would think someone with his skill and resources would put more effort into that but for now he seems closed off.
As for political RUclips, honestly out of everyone, people who have tried to criticize Jordan Peterson have actually been so bad at it in my opinion that they are ended up helping Jordan instead.
You're already on the right track by trying to prepare a script claiming that Jordan is getting boring cringe and weirdly unattractive if you're trying to listen to him, but so many other people are just so heavily biased they instantly go and try to force people to think Jordan Peterson is some super heavy right wing conservative with hidden agendas and the only thing more cringe than Peterson is the people trying to criticize him from that aspect.
Honestly if they just stop talking about him, Jordan would naturally fall out of favor because of his flaws.
The solution you describe is too much adapted to the US political system, where a winner-takes-all-principle basically only allows for 2 parties. In Germany and other European states, it is much more rational to support a party, if it is kind of properly right wing enough than in the US. Reasons:
A) It is hard to convince people to participate in organised non-action, no matter the topic. We are movers not standers.
B) You cannot make right wing parties lose by convincing 10% of the population to not vote in Europe. That would be enough to ensure consistent Repuplican defeat but it would still not destroy the possibility of coalitions and speculations for eventual Government involvement in the European system. So VERY hard to convince enough people.
C) Since Europe mostly has this multi party coalition system it would be especially simple for the cathedral to create ever new pseudo right wing or social democratic parties, so that responsibility never rests in one hand alone.
D) There are very clear advantages of having a kind of properly right wing enough party in Europe even if no actual political power is conquered at first. These parties by now serve as employers to many truly right minded young people, as cristallisation point for ideas, meetings and controversies and they do have a realistic chance of winning on a state level, where the creation of some small institutional save havens is at least thinkable since it would only involve maybe dozens or hundreds of bureaucrats instead of hundred of thousands like for the university system.
Indeed, I think that you are right that I really was not looking beyond the Americas when addressing strategy. In a multi-party system, it would be almost impossible to pull such a move off.
However, I remain convinced that Western Europe and especially ze German politics are an extension of the American progressive movement and if the left is not defeated in the US (or if the US does not collapse as a world hegemon), it cannot be defeated in Europe.
For example, if things get really bad and the AfD is elected with a majority, there is no reason to think that Weidel will not be the next Meloni.
Also thanks for the comment, it is sort of surreal since I have followed your channel for the past 5 years.
incredible video, I think you nailed it but sadly this will never realistically happen
Great analysis and agree with the conclusions.
A point on Yarvin's "Cathedral". He identifies three types of institution from where bureaucrats exercise power; the civil service, the media and academia.
But if we turn to Sam Francis (after Burnham) we're introduced to three generally broader centres of power that govern in our societies; the civil service (again), non-governmental organisations (including academia and the media), and economic institutions (business - the modern corporation, in other words).
Francis and Burnham use the term "manager", instead of "bureaucrat", to describe the individuals holding power but I think they amount to the same thing.
The inclusion of private corporations in the left leaning hegemonic structure is valid when it is taken into consideration that the manager (the true power broker) operating in a modern corporation is the same animal as that operating in government and other institutions. Indeed, on a day to day basis they often work together cohesively.
This fact makes it even clearer how much the left is entrenched in power, and a point of major importance that was made in the piece, was that the bureaucrat/manager is protected, within and by the structure, from populist pressure.
All of this underlines how long the road will be to see change.
Although I agree that change will not happen now, change remains inevitable. Simply because, like the Soviets, the system will collapse under its own weight. We must be ready to step in at that point.
Thank you for the comment and I will check out Francis when I have the time.
@@courtssense For info, Francis's last book, "Leviathan and its Enemies" was completed in 1995 and published posthumously, I think in 2005.
I think it is fair to say he saw it as an update to James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution", published in the 1940s.
Leviathan is something of a repetitive read (in my opinion) but it is worth the time.
One aspect of it is that it is the last piece of work of this kind written before the Internet became all pervasive in our lives. I don't recall the internet, or its scions, being mentioned once in it. This makes it special in my eyes. Modern but not polluted by what we experience today.
For me personally the year of its completion also marks the point where my own career as a public service manager began and continued until recently. I know the truth about what Francis is saying about this class of people
Grüße vom Geschatteten.
Seine Durchlaucht war der Ansicht dieser Kanal sei einer gebotenen Repräsentation unserer Politseite würdig.
Ich abonniere normalerweise nicht ohne mich auf einen Kanal eingesessen zu haben, aber hier sei es einer Überlegung wert.
Danke, mal sehen, was du denkst.
Overturning Rowe ran back the clock
I'm not to sure what it means in the large scale, but at least it might be a setback for the progressives.
@@courtssense you aren’t following your own logic. You claim we shouldn’t vote for trump because it’ll make the opposition stronger. Overturning roe vs wade made the left stronger because it’s motivated them to fight harder and given them an emotional issue to take up; nearly everyone votes on emotion. Roe vs wade should have been overturned only after power had been secured- and since you claim (and I agree) the right has not held power since 32, overturning it a few years ago was one of the dumbest strategic moves possible.
Keep up the good work
Your videos are so good, thank you
Appreciate it.
9:01 SCP-4006
Did Franko not overcome such challenges in Spain? Those institutions you listed were likely on the side of the left. Can a right wing populist movement in America not achieve something similar?
My friend, have you looked at Spain?
There is not a single trace of the falange to be seen, this is because his institutions collapsed with his death, and they all became libs. Even in the 60s, when Franco was still in power, the new generation was listening to the Beatles and wearing jeans. This makes evident that American institutions had more power over the Spanish than the Spanish institutions themselves.
If you had to have a label for your beliefs today, what would it be?
Good question. I would go for post-conservative or reactionary because they are pretty vague, but I would like to think that I believe is original.
I started this channel because frankly, I do not know anyone that agrees with more than 60% of my beliefs, and I am sick of it. So the whole idea of the channel/substack is to propagate some of my own ideas and find people who think alike so that I might not be the only one.
What label would you use for yourself?
As far as political power goes I think you're correct, it's too far gone to take it back through any means, only option left is to let it fail then build something better from the ashes. Not sure why this is framed as a critique, just the trump support ? Everything positive john has said about him is true, along with the fact he's stated "he's not the answer to all our problems"..... This whole video reminds me of Doyle and Austin Peterson's conservative VS libertarianism interview, when they started discussing adopting tenants of communism to defeat communism(ww1/2) but you're fighting it domestically now and to have that "told ya, didn't work" moment would require the complete destruction of the country. You may be arguing that is the only way, but this feels too much like a rationalisation of inaction. Great listen regardless, earned my sub, cheers.
You are assuming the intelligencia cares at all what the population think of them.
You are right, they do not.
The pressure would not come from the people, but from their own unfulfilled expectations.
They would have all the responsibility in building a utopia and they would 100% fail.
Very interesting video. I'm not sure convincing majority of right wingers to withdraw from federal elections is feasible and sustainable since the backlash to policies made in those times would be higher, compared to a situation where you have a sense of democratic legislation at least. I'm not American though and I'm not sure how US voters usually react...
I'm wondering if that is more feasible than new ideas blooming in the current inteligentsia, due to popular pressure or simple things getting way worse. Computational methods and AI might help open new horizens of policymaking.
On a separate note, you used the f word a couple of time, although I have no issues with it personally but I think it might affect your channel's reach. I'm not sure how youtube algorithms work but since speech to text is very competent and computationally cheap, I woudn't be surprised to find out that videos containing explicit language might be handicapped in feed ranking. my 2 cents though, you do you :)
thanks for making this video. subscribed
I have not considered the thing with saying the f word. I'll look into it.
And indeed, I really do not think that this strategy is realistic.
Thank you.
Generally, the Democratic party's decisions in policy and their ramifications, repeatedly provoke enough of a right-wing outrage that they make a concentrated effort to push back. Case in point, the election of '45.
The problem is that this only ever reinforces the legitimacy of the cause of the prog-left, and by extension the institutions that carry out its will, as OP already explained.
Withdrawal from elections will just lead to the creation of spoiler parties to diffuse the tensions. Shrinking to local politics is also reliant on the good will of the federal centre to respect the state rights, etc. I agree with everything in your video, but the strategy isn't going to work. The options to plausibly deny the responsibility are still many in this scenario. I suspect that you don't believe it will work either and proposed this strategy to kickstart a conversation about better solutions.
Besides, there should be an opposite moral framework to which the intelligentsia will be seduced to. Otherwise, they will sit among the ruins and say "it's still better than the right". And I mean specifically the "intelligentsia morality", because we can see that the right-wing morality still works rather well for the masses which vote accordingly, but falls on deaf ears for intelligentsia. Nietzsche might be useful here, since he elevates the freethinker and philosopher above the rest.
I know it sounds exhausted, but the culture might be the most fruitful field over the others. There are enough things to be ridiculed nowadays, enough of forgotten virtues wnd beauty to be reintroduced into the cultural conversation.
Not sure you’re really arguing for conservative ideas. You’re hoping for the failure of progressive ones.
Well, true that I am not arguing for them, that might be another video.
The idea of the video is more a question of why this is, and why conservative ideas are losing and you are right that I expect that progressive ideas will fail, but only time will tell...
I also think that your views around the bureaucrats are too cynical and deeply contrary to the idea of human liberty and agency but I don't want to be too critical. Let me just say that it is no wonder that US university professors despise conservativism because in the US in particular conservativism has been deeply connected with suppression of academic freedoms, undermining scientific education of children and deep misunderstanding of why academic pursuits are good for.
Simply said, it has been always the conservatives that were banning teaching basic theories of natural sciences such as biology and physics in school, let alone social sciences! When you create such a connection you really can't expect any other result and the only way you can change it is by violent intrusion and dictatorial power (the universities in post-communist countries are violently anti-communist for very similar reasons - even after 40 years of it the "ideologically correct" professors had to be introduced into them using violence because the world view of communist dictatorships in Central Europe was antithetical to creating good scientists - mostly due to nepotism - thus a good scientist was ideologically unreliable and an ideologically reliable person was a total idiot that had to be put into the system by hand. When the dictatorships failed such an ideologically reliable person had no chance to compete while all the competent people were those whose research was previously impeded by the bullying of the communist system even when they didn't suffer much higher levels of oppression from it thus they had very negative attitude towards it).
Quitting is a loser ideology. Lol
Its accelerationism with more steps, but I hope, even if I don't believe, that you will succeed.
"The Cathedral" is such a cringe idiom...
Why?
@@montagreloaded7586 I thought it was pretty obvious, it's because it's wrong and misleading. Shit isn't coming from the Church, which is what you think of when you refer to a "Cathedral". Shit has infiltrated the Church no doubt, but it isn't coming from her.