Under this people "truth" comes from power. Then if the king says that he is not nude so it is. And we, who believe our own lying eyes, must have hidden bad intentions for saying otherwise.
Socrates "Follow the argument wherever it leads you." Absolutely and totally anathema to what these cultists do, i.e. BEGIN with a theory, which is an UNexamined presupposition and then bend reality to fit the fucking theory.
Lindsay is one of the most important voices of this weird and baffling era of neo-Marxist madness. His podcasts are extremly important and should be shared widely.
Dude... I listen to you educating us about all of this insanity and I think I'm going crazy. I can't imagine what you are going through while preparing this stuff... Stay strong please, and take care of yourself. Don't overdo it, a person can only accept so much nonsense in one take...
The idea that the philosophical rejection of reason, which is so central to woke ideology, actually undermines itself, so that we need not take these people seriously, is important. Thank you for this.
They also label themselves as racists and I'm willing to take them at their word, meaning I will treat them like the social pariah they admit to being.
James is the best at explaining the state of our society right now. The problem is this isn't just a few people, it's now the entire government. Even if they aren't full woke they are tolerant of it and believe in the notion of suppressing all classic liberal and conservative talk. We've already lost and the only way we are getting it back is by something that majorly disrupts or ends all of society. Other wise we are China by 2030. At least James went down swinging.
That's the key identifier of postmodern concepts; Rationality is relative to culture? OK, but that statement itself is made within a culture, so why should I care what that person has to say? All ideas are determined by economics? OK, then that makes that idea itself the result of economics, therefore I have no reason to listen to it. Etc, etc.
We do at this moment. These people are in top positions in this Biden administration. The secretary of defense, the head of the doj, among others. We're seeing the entire group of Americans that voted for Donald Trump be called extremists. Sec of defense believe they must be purged. So its important to take these absolute psychopathic, arrogant, hateful people seriously. Be aware. Be careful what you say and type now on social media. Yea this is the United States right now. Just have faith, because their ideology is being exposed and is failing everyday. Nyc is going to be first of major Marxist elite stronghold cities to fall, then the rest will fall. The Brooklyn candidate for mayor should win, even though im sure the dishonest officials will try to prevent it. The mass crime in the other cities will be next. People of all political opinion will want a reasonable person to deal with these woke problems. And if all goes well, god willing, the top will be either forced to go against the woke because it is costing them political power( I see this being likely), or our citizens will demand they resign.
@Kwistenbiebel200 We have already lost. It was to late in 2016 when the choices were Hilary or Trump. There is a chance the people get tired of this and vote it out but when they make anyone who goes against them out of be a criminal that will be hard. I hope I'm wrong but I think it's going to have to collapse otherwise we rip up the constitution and become a state like China by 2030.
Let's be real Anyone who says "there is no objective reality" shouldn't be afraid to walk across a freeway, since the giant metal cars hitting their fragile mortal bodies is all a mere perception If they admit that's none sense, then that's it, they admit there is a reasonable standard
The claim is actually more subtle than that. They aren't running in front of busses because they do believe they would end up "dead". Their claim is that "getting run over by a bus and ending up killed" is just a story you are telling yourself to explain the world to yourself, but all of the conceptualization you bring to that explanation comes only from your subjectivity, and reality has nothing to do with it. You might call it "commit suicide" or you might call it "get murdered by capitalism" or you might call it "failure to properly understand Theory" or you might call it "an accident" or you might call it "escaping from the nightmare that is living in America" or you might call it "evolution weeding out the gene pool" or you might say "damn you for doing analysis when you should be crying somebody is dead damn it". You think you can, at the very least, order these possible categories to put the phenomena in, in terms of better or worse, useful or useless, perhaps some even true or false. The belief is that humans only do that by imposing pre-existing values upon the phenomena, and thus, if you are interpreting "wrong" it's because you have the "wrong" values, because that's what "facts" (ie. interpretations of experience) actually are grounded by, not reality. The claim isn't so much that there is no external existence, but that there is no external identity. To relate it to Kant as Prof. Hicks does, imagine a Kantianism where The Categories are not fixed, but vary by individual or society. That would make what reality "Is" in terms of how we describe it to ourselves, individually or socially constructed. That's why "If that's true, why not just jump in front of a bus" won't work. They know they can't interpret physically reality out of existence. It's the MEANING of physical reality they think they can interpret out of (or into) existence.
Foucault was a moral and specifically sexual deviant. And not even an original one. He was not just amoral, but anti-moral. But he understood language and how it could be used to influence people who had far less confidence about their own linguistic and ideological stability and were easily swayed by novelty. He and Rousseau, were hell with any grace, would be in an eternal struggle about who is on top and what that “means”.
Whenever they pull out their “phobia-ist” attacks, I just simply say either of the 3 That is a slur not an argument (white privilege, white fragility) Or What you assert arbitrarily, I dismiss arbitrarily. (Woke accusations, systemic oppression) Or It isn’t phobia, it is disgust, your arbitrary assertion of phobia is just a confession through projection that deep down you are fearful to come to terms with your disgusting behavior (irrational homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia) Puts them on the defensive as you lay out the truth. Since they cannot demonstrate their point they are powerless. Tactic has never let me down The key thing is to just get the woke on the defensive. They are all offense and no defense. Mercilessly seek definitions, they cannot provide them; they have never really faced real resistance so they aren’t used to articulating their ideas outside of slogans. Once you do that you win every time.
Both my siblings were ambushing me when I dared to say systemic oppression in the United States was not true and that it came from a cultural marxism ideology, etc... my brother full on yelled at me and said “you’ve just been hanging out with your white boy too much” -- referring to my husband. you can imagine how i reacted. full on hung up on him, just broke my heart that this stuff can radicalize your own family members to such a point that they can say things like that. keep in mind that if anything my husband is more liberal than i am... which makes what my brother said so hilarious besides heartbreaking and racist.
@@vickrdable I understand, my oldest sister is fully woke. I can't believe the anger and rage. That must be a terrible way to live. If I had that much anger and rage, I would burn out in short order.
As a carpenter I’ve always lived by the axiom of think twice cut once ! Fast decisions without considered rationality can cause many problems ..especially in the realms of political belief & unforeseen consequences.
Measure twice and cut once, is the old saying, and for carpentry, building, remodeling, it’s very wise advice, as real world experience shows. I like how you worded it though: thinking twice is even better advice for damn near everything.
...which is why i don't trust this guy. {1} I don't think the "rejection of reason" is anything new. It dates from Schliermacher in the 18th century and came to prominence during the Atomic Bomb Age (see Burroughs [poetry], Barth [the novel], "Dr. Strangelove" [cinema] "Green Acres' [teevee]. The whole American Experiment had become an exercise in contagious irrationality since 1959-1964 up to now and isn't going to just go away. {2} The idea that postmodernism is "ipso facto contra rationis" is not true. This outlook took root because of its empirical veridicality and reasonable insight, not in spite of them. The bottom line is that the foundation of modern western ('Enlightenment') culture cannot be rationally sustained. And physics itself displays that reality itself is not rational in a way directly amenable to our minds. {3} I admire Lindsay's initial practical joke(s), but it isn't clear to me he's really grappled with the meaning of some of the real assertions postmodernism has made: he's always talking AROUND things rather than going directly AT them.
Exactly. Old adage says The road to hell is paved with (uniformed/illthought-out) good intentions. The intent isn't evil, but the outcome is when considered objective thought isn't applied first. We don't decide to make bad decisions. We decide to neglect reason and act in a way that demonstrates the decision/action was bad in hindsight.
I seriously cannot believe so few people watch these videos... this stuff is extremely important to understanding the hell we are going into. Thank you for doing all this James and anyone else working with New Discourses. We need to spread this channel around.
James, this talk is so dense with information. Keep going off on sidetracks in my own mind why I find the ideas disconcerting. By the time I get back on track you've gone on to 3 more ideas. Gonna have to listen again in pieces and take notes. I will say doesn't seem these guys ever applied the same level of critique to their own assumptions as they did to the assumptions of others.
I interviewed with the woke HR department at a college for a tutor position a couple years ago. Do people even want to work for them? I'm wondering if that might be the reason no one is being hired lately... between not measuring up to their wokeness or because the applicant just walks away not wanting the job.
"Our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel-and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that’s what soma is." - Brave New World
I wish these paragraphs were available to share on social media. I think people who won’t listen to an hour long podcast would be shocked to hear about this.
@@laurasalo6160 White supremacy is a minor issue. Systemic racism, white privilege, and whiteness are all myths the left has created to divide people, so they can acquire more, and more power, and control what people can think, or say.
Y'know, is James writing a book, or planning to write more books since Cynical Theories? The New Discourses work is just fantastic, but you've got to lament the relatively small audience for something so critical.
still, it is a growing audience. Share it on FaceBook etc. I find him uniquely suited in recommendations to lefty friends of mine who would otherwise just reeeeee out and label the arguments "far-right". WIth James, it's harder to do, even if he justifiably calls out the left by name.
@@pashadyne For my part, I'm not worried about how much people a book would reach. I just think that much of what James is talking about in these podcasts do deserve to be registered in book form, with proper citations, references and so on. _Cynical Theories_ is great, but has a focus. James has been widening the scope of the analysis and this just seems right for a new book. It doesn't have to come too soon, either. I prefer something well done than rushed. Still, I hope he gets the message that there are people interested in reading such a book, if he decides to write it.
Cultivating thoughts takes time. We are lucky and blessed that he shares as he goes. Some of the cultural problem is the immediacy people want that’s a result of devices satisfying curiosity at demand. I experience developing thought in a different space, and have people comment wanting to race to the full thesis when creative thought is incremental.
@@D00kerT the conclusion of this talk was pretty solidly conservative though. The definition of Conservatism being the conserving of the status quo with only modest incremental steps towards modification for reasons liberal principle. He's pretty solidly against any socialism. I get the impression he's Classical English Liberal rather than Social Liberal. He'll concede the state has a role in providing public utilities, but adopting principles based upon visions for a pre-scripted future not so much.
At the end of the day is to know who you are and stick to it no matter what. I know who I am & I know whose I am. My identity is in Christ. I'm more Christian than I am Black, female, my education, economic status, or etc...
What I find fascinating is how Christian theology ALSO tells you to be skeptical of your own "passions". The new testament is full of letters teaching the new Church, through reason and the teaching of Christ, as well as the old testament.
I was wondering; for those people who have a bad reaction to the prosperity capitalism brings, who are sick and tired of shallowness and meaninglessness of it all -- for those people (there are quite a few of them) isn't there a way to just become more spiritual? From reading spiritual books to meditating to becoming a monk or a nun. Better light a candle than curse the darkness. Without any violence or nastiness or destruction. All perfectly legal. There is more to democracy than capitalism. Much more. Why is nobody even mentioning this option? What would Marcuse say about it? The only way to reject it that I see is to say, "But I want a revolution! I want blood and violence and destruction! I want to meddle into other people's affairs and force them to do what I think is right." Which is outright crazy.
Your idea is beautiful and it falls under the category of "building something." If the woke left actually wanted to create something great, they would build and people from all camps would join because everyone wants to be part of a something successful even if they aren't ideologically married to it. Everyone needs solid ground to stand on. Please keep promoting these building ideas that bring people together.
In most German exclusive words, at least. For many words from other languages (including Latin, a lot of German words have their roots there), it's pronounced more like "very", for example "Veranda", "Variabel" or "Verifizieren". "Fair" wouldn't be a good comparison, it's more like 'f' combined with the verb "to err". The "noonft" wouldn't sound right either, the 'nun' sound from "conundrum" might be closer, but nowhere near right either. "shtand" wouldn't really work either, the 'sh' and 'd' fits, but the 'an' part of it would sound completely wrong. Can't think of an English word that would be a close approximation, maybe the name "Anna", the 'a' in "Anne" would sound like an 'e' in German. In short, approximations like that are very lacking and can vary a lot (dialects), so it's better to just hear it for yourself.
@David Harmon Depends on the word. 'W' in German is usually pronounced somewhat like the English 'V', but 'V' in German is not pronounced like 'W' in English. It's either pronounced like 'F' or 'V' in English.
@David Harmon I only know standard German, which is the generally accepted version, no idea about ancient German. There are dialects, but I wouldn't be aware of any where you'd not pronounce 'V' the same.
Critical theory rests on a profound disgust for ordinary people. They are the gulls who’ve been taken in by commercialism. Any contentment they feel is a consequence of their lack of awareness which allows “the system” to manipulate them. Stripped of all dignity, stripped of individual agency, they are merely tools for the use of whichever system can get control of them. Marcuse wants to be that system.
Yes, but let me update that a bit. It's resting on humiliation. This is a communist propaganda technique. When forced to retell obvious lies, these people abandon their agency. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
What's been striking to me is how a certain segment of the population has uglified themselves -- piercings, hair color, tattoos, body modifications, etc. I've seen some beautiful girls uglify themselves and I'm trying to figure out where it comes from. It's heartbreaking. Is this also a result of this "Wokeness" and rejection of reasonableness, Western ideals, etc?
That's a way that some people think of to combat supposedly unjust and arbitrary conceptions of beauty. Subvert the ideal and assert that you have actually become more beautiful. It makes sense if you believe that standards of beauty were invented by people to arbitrarily oppress people, as opposed to the truth, which is that beauty is an archetypal pattern distilled by billions of years of evolution to help us identify objective fitness in potential mates, it's something that the very structure of the universe pushes living things toward pursuing and manifesting. At least that's my take, either way intentional subversion of beauty is obviously an abomination and everyone can feel it in down to their soul even if they don't know why.
Its the rejection of objective feminine beauty. They believe men objectify them so they take on an aposematic appearance. Poison dart frog. It also serves the purpose of making them stand apart from normal people and gives them a way of identifying each other, as well as a feeling of acceptance from the woke mob. Its like a dress code of sorts.
Gotta tell ya james...pretty sick of getting this 100 year old dusty shaft....great video as always. 🍻 One of the few voices out there helping people sort through all this nonsense.
If I'm not mistaken, in Russian, "e" is pronounced "ye", which is where the sound comes from in his name. I've seen it spelled Dostoevsky, however when it was translated to English, perhaps it was spelled how it sounded to assist with pronunciation, and thereby name recognition, and so they spelled it Dostoyevsky. I believe this is why it appears in both spellings.
@@laurasalo6160 I did Russian DUOLINGO, it taught me Russian is hard and that I am a long way from understanding it and doing proper grammar, even in phonetically changing it to English. But listening to Hard Bass and reading Russian literature helps. If you read Solsjinitzin and Tolstoy too, you'll learn a lot about War, Ideology and human nature in general 🙏
Please debate Vaush on CRT, he just made a video about you, and I know you would destroy him on this. Might I suggest Modern Day Debates as a third party host.
Honestly I’m not sure what would be gained by that. I just started watching that video and one of the first things he said was that it’s not correct that CRT says the most important thing is your race. Then he launches into an example of CRT, and he immediately demonstrates the idea that race is, as he had just denied, the most important thing. He’s not capable of understanding this stuff. If James wants to, then of course that’s fine, but on a practical level I don’t know what exactly would be gained other than a sort of gaudy show for people.
Vaush is so cringy I can’t even listen to him. He is the perfect example of the kind of person who needs to be taken down a few pegs. I’d love to see what James could do.
@@WarComet Actual Justice Warrior (Sean) crushed him, but he's the exception. As annoying as Vaush is, he has polemical skills. Jim has everything necessary to make Vaush look like the exact Twitch streamer he is.
I second this, take him on, carefully show everyone else the flaws he and his dearests will never understand and expose them to the world. We will share it.
Hair appreciate hearing about the history and origin of the woke approach. It is clear that this type of thinking has been with us for quite some time.
Dr. Steven Hicks has many interviews and lectures here on RUclips. You just have to give it the time to listen folks. Combine it with this channel's efforts and you will get a glut of information.
I have a very left wing Daughter who is now 26. If I would have not made her get a job, pay rent, pay her bills, and by her own car, she would be a woke revolutionary now. She’s still very liberal, but also has perspective and responsibility.She’s has not voted since 2020 and I don’t expect her to vote in 2024
Let me get this straight...I have false consciousness imposed on me by an oppressive society, so I should allow another consciousness of how society should become, be imposed on me by a new oppressive society? I think I will reasonably choose a non-critical consciousness and continue down the path of happiness and flourishing.
While I appreciate the excellent analysis of this broken philosophy I have only two looming questions: 1) What is the most directly analogous historical example where this horrible set of ideas was nullified and defeated without the complete destruction of the civilization it infested? 2) If there is no such example then how do we become the first?
Brilliant questions. I too have been thinking the same…..I would say a hard lesson by hard times that create strong men again. While at the same time the hard times don’t ruin our economy or break the camels back. Easier said than done though. The weak have to be weeded out by natural causes not artificially. We have been removed from nature for too long
This is one of the best podcasts - and most important ones - I have heard to date. Neo-Marxism needs to be vanquished in our society, thank you for this vid!
This is partially great, bc yeah it's a problem that they reject reason and that they see things in the terms of emotional exprience without any ability to check those expirences with reason and therefore figure out flaws
It's reductive in the for example with the MeToo thing, the general thing of lived expirence (those cases not being persecuted) does matter severly. It's just that in adressing you do still need reason. What's why things like demanding clear cut rules (yes means yes, making sexual relationships between someone who has power over someone else by for example being there employeer illigal etc are good because those make hard lines you can actually police)
@@wellsshady I am someone who's pretty comittmend to not beliving any idology and just agree with whatever makes sense from it. I wouldn't say I agree with much from them, but I am a feminist for example
my fitbit counter of the mental gymnastics that occured witnessing the concepts discussed is enough for my once, only, and all possible future lifetimes
Even granting that no single individual fulfils all the tenets of a "reasonable person," this does not mean that it doesn't exist as a standard. Think of it as a statistical average of somewhat reasonable, but also flawed people, so that the random flaws more or less cancel each other, while the mild persistent reasobleness gets reinforced and dominates the average. "Most reasonable people," then, simply refers to people who aren't too far from this average, not to a colection of perfect beings. There's nothing particularly inconsistent or special about this.
Are you including yourself in that circuit of logic? More deconstructive nonsense that serves no purpose and only confuses matters. You say things like this, then expect that we'll all cede to this wisdom?
Reason is the bridge between minds and experiences that allow us to negotiate with each other using real measurable metrics. Without that, there's nothing to talk about, only confused angry screaming at each other. That's what they want because they're the masters of confused angry screaming.
That intuitive aspect in life filled with passion and impulsiveness are quite easy to mislead, inflame, and incite into the wrong path. Reason is the brake that slow it down before life hits the curb or falls off the cliff.
You mentioned thinking fast and slow. I'm not sure if you know much about heuristics and cognitive shortcuts--but its an interesting field that really, I think, adds insight to this divide between the rational and the intuitive. My hypothesis behind all of this is that Religion is an ideological heuristic--something that gives us simple reaction patterns that are intuitive in terms of following them, and allow us to ensure our in-group status and generally predict/describe social outcomes (If you're in a very Christian town, then following their social codes will generally lead to not only group acceptance but also to predict how they might see events). In effect, religion is a cognitive shortcut that reduces the work-load of having to fit in and be part of the in-group. By following the dominant cultural ideology (Religion) you can intuitively fit in. Here is the problem, in my opinion. Heuristics, by definition are not fully accurate. They simply are more right than wrong. In addition, the precepts of any ideology will be less and less predictive over-time as the environment changes and the original precepts remain stagnant. (Often times the ideology itself changes the environment). This ensures an ideology will eventually be wrong--the intuitive rules we use to be able to not think, will eventually keep failing to predict reality (Even if they successfully still allow us to illustrate that we're part of the in group). I believe when this happens, when an ideology consistently begins failing to predict outcomes, it has two options--update its precepts to account for the shift in environment (Often by maintaining the same base ideals but splintering into subgroups--not unlike marxism vs woke) OR if its culturally dominant, it can use its adherents immense social power to censor criticism (So even if the ideas become more and more flagrantly wrong, the adherents can simply demand its right. IE 2+2=5). For example, Marxism in the U.S. was not culturally dominant. And so when Marxism failed to predict the massive increase in wealth and affluence of the 'lower class', it was forced to recede. By contrast Marxism became culturally dominant in Russia and its adherents used enormous censorship powers to maintain it. In the U.S. though, Marxism had to splinter and update its precepts to fit in the modern environment; and so woke was born (Or cultural marxism). This form of Marxism accounted for the affluence of the middle/lower class, but still brought all the fundamental precepts of Marxism to bear still. I think what we're seeing now though is the whole "woke" religion was wrong about equality. They constantly predicted if X thing is done, then Y inequality will get better. But that never really happened. In some cases, things have gotten 'worse'. However, unlike Marxism in the past--wokism is culturally dominant. So we're seeing them employ censorship and other social leverage to curtail criticism and allow their dogma to be wrong, but still remain in place. IE to actively attack rational criticism. They will make 2+2=5 because they want to keep their religion, and religions can't be wrong..(And just like other places where religions continually were wrong and broke more and more with reality over time--the censorship will become more and more violent and authoritarian, with the religion constantly blaming its own adherents for not following the precepts corrections. In other words, the reason why "god" is angry (inequality continues) is because you're sinning! (Racism!)...Even if we can't objectively name the sin, its there! (Thought crime). Its why eventually all religions who have cleaved from reality delve into thought crimes.)
If you find humanity unprepared for liberation, your concept of liberation is likely incorrect and you need to go back and realign your premises with reality.
A reasonable idea is one which has immediate constructive utility. It's free to use and free to share. Reason cushions the fall of the unreasonable person. Reason is the guy Power calls when he's gone and blown a dagnab fuse.
Yeah, but outside of the realm of thought [which is inherently supreme] there is still the realm of contingency, and in that, there maybe unforeseen consequences of actions, even in a cacophony of actions that will mostly fail, some may succeed [which is why thought is still inherently superior, as being].
New to your podcasts and enjoying them. Call me simplistic but when I realize _how deep_ the morass of human philosophy is I can’t help but think of the ancient Hebrew principle: “ It does not belong to man who is walking to direct his steps..”
17:20 LIVED EXPIRIENCE is interesting considering if you submit your own lived experience if it goes against their dialog then it's just "your anecdotal evidence..." particularly if you don't tick enough boxes in oppressed identity.
I went to grad school (History) at Berkeley in the 70s. Postmodernism interested a lot of students and I learned some of the vocabulary. I also read that the French thinkers behind the mess were growing out of fashion at home - and only dull Americans still bought it. So I ignored it. Berkeley was still flying high in that period and some really splendid history came out of the department (ditto for political science where I also hung out) although Vietnam did cause a lot of stress. One trend I missed - and I shouldn't - was the great appreciation for the proto-Marxist ideas of Univ. Wisconsin historian William Appleman Williams. Pretty soon the field of US diplomatic history (now largely vanished) was dominated by the "Cold War Revisionists" (Walter LaFeber - a Williams student - was a leader). So at America's great universities grad students were telling anyone that was interested that it was Harry Truman, not Joseph Stalin, that caused the Cold War. The argument had little to do with Truman-Stalin and much with Vietnam. After 1991 when the ex-Soviet archives opened up, the truth came up and the matter was dropped. You can imagine what those grad students ended up doing for the rest of their career. The Cold War debate didn't lay low the study of history in the US alone - that took a lot of work on the part of a large number of people and institutions to bring history into line with the Modern Languages departments, but it was a fine example of "early woke" and also illustrates why so few of America's historians in university employ are working to bring some sanity in the present "war against the past." (There are exceptions - but note how many are emeritus or well along in their careers.)
That's one of the frustrating things about postmodernism; there are no standards for anything. It's tempting to remove definitions and limits on reality, but then you wind up disoriented and agnostic about everything when you take it to its logical conclusion. Just watch the Foucault/Chomsky debate: Foucault tries to deny Chomsky's definitions of human. Foucault also tries to claim in Madness and Civilization that everyone is insane because our desires (especially the sexual ones) have no basis in sanity or reasoning.
There is this book in the history of philosophy. I think that it's called "The Republic" or something like that; and in this book there is this guy named Thrasymachus; and this dude... I used to have a student that couldn't say Thrasymachus. So he called him "the dude". Well, this dude he gets very excited about the idea that your moral judgement is corrupted by the governing power to such an extent that your sense of justice is determined by whatever happens to be in the interest of that power. 🙃
The problem with reducing everything to a power dynamic is that if you take the idea seriously that there is no truth or reason, only self-serving power, then there is no morality and no cause to treat anybody well or fairly. If history is just a zero-sum power struggle, then it doesn't follow at all that the powerful should create any space for the weak. If anything, the powerful should exploit and oppress the weak as much as possible, so that the weak can never become strong and oppress those who are currently strong. In such a world, it's not the Nazis or the Confederate states who got it wrong, it's the liberals. Because the liberals naively felt guilt, which is just a mirage, because there is no objective truth or goodness, only power, and the liberals keep sharing power, which inevitably means weakening themselves without earning any gratitude from the weak. This illiberalism cannot be the guiding philosophy of an advanced society. Racial supremacy, manifest destiny, etc are dangerous enough in a pre-industrial society, but in a post industrial society, they invite genocide, and a post nuclear world they invite nuclear holocaust.
I wonder what Marcuse would say about model airplane hobbyists, flight simulator hobbyists, etc? Do they actually not like building model airplanes or virtually flying a plane? Is the advertising targeted towards them malevolent and evil, designed to program them to think they are interested in airplanes? Once you drill down on this horseshit just a little it becomes indefensible and - as with all of these types of ideas - unfalsifiable.
They are kinda correct about social consensus. Why else would so many people go along with the woke madness? Most people are just trying to not be socially ostracized.
Thanks for another great nudist courses video! Seriously though, these explorations of the philosophical underpinning of wokeness are very illuminating. Keep it up James!
One think I have noticed is that our behavior is basically exactly the same as it was in the beginning, there has been no change in us in thousands of years, so the idea that we should be miserable is exactly what we mostly are even with convenience. We are always thinking up so called new ideas that are not the least bit new, especially the guy who has decided the rest of us are wrong because we are not following him, that is such an old idea.
It's the ultimate end form of narcissism. To create an entire philosophy and framework of thought where people who are thinking for themselves and seeking their own happiness, are automatically wrong about everything, they _cannot_ be anything but wrong. Only the enlightened few of the left can lead them to true happiness. And everything is based on Marcuse's absurd claim that actually he knows the truth and everyone else is wrong.
They will not allow happiness by design. The entire machine is set up so everyone on both sides is left incapable of standing for ANYTHING. Each person will be rendered helpless and incapable. Everyone will be saddled with a load they cannot shake and this includes those who AGREE with the woke.
So I started listening to this and I admit... for me it's hard to follow. I'm not a philosopher and I'm really only familiar of these views from listening to James and Helen and Peter, but I will say that I'm also reading their book Cynical Theories while listening to this. This talk is making a lot more sense after reading the first chapter or 2 of the book.
Because they speak with the dazzling authority of PhDs and use a lot of big words and lengthy, convoluted paragraphs that obfuscate the foolishness of what they're saying. If they laid their theories out plainly, in the speech of the laymen, people could pick them apart more easily.
The panic attack analogy here made me think, maybe I hate all this shit so much because I've been dealing with anxiety issues since long before it was trendy to say so, and I've spent so much of my life trying to re-train myself that the world is not as scary and bad as my anxious brain tells me it is. And now you have all these people busting in shouting that the world actually is terrible and everyone should be upset all the time because they feel that way, like someone insisting they're having a heart attack when it's really a panic attack.
I agree. I've struggled with depression and anxiety since childhood and it's taken a lot of hard work, therapy, and self-discipline to make the progress that's allowed me to become a functioning adult...and then here comes this movement telling people not to work to overcome adversity but to wallow in it and let it define them. They actually _encourage_ all the kinds of unhealthy distorted thinking that cognitive behavioral therapy aims to change. Wokeness exploits and exacerbates existing mental health issues in its adherents, and I could never be a part of that.
I want to know WHERE ARE, WHERE WERE, THE INTELECTUALS INFORMING US ABOUT THIS ALL THIS YEARS. The people who should have told us about progressivism views were silent.
For those who have a problem with his pronounciation: It’s called Ver-stand and Ver-nunft. And the last one, Vernunft is conditioned trough Schulung (ab exercitato intellectu) and therefore is endangered by ideological teachers. As It is adjacent to reason, it is not always epistemological. To read further you can start with Nikolaus von Kues - exercitatum et reformatum intellectum
Marcuse was OSS, CIA. Why don't you discuss the CIA Congress of Cultural Freedom & Foucault, Derrida or Gene Sharpe style Color Revolutions and the DIA? It would be interesting if you could discuss these matters with Caleb Maupin.
It's interesting how there is so much evidence that the CIA has always been evil and so little evidence that they have actually contributed to our countries defense in any meaningful way, and if they have it is vastly outweighed by the social engineering they have been involved with inside our country.
Thank you James .. this provides me with a clear idea on how they think the way they do. I didn't understand everything but I did somethings. Great work in bringing this to us.
Now I understand the sayings;
*"The King has no Clothes,"*
*"The man who speaks TRUTH is hated above all others"*
-Plato on the execution of Socrates.
“When somebody says ‘be reasonable’ they’re not saying ‘act white’.”
THIS.
Under this people "truth" comes from power.
Then if the king says that he is not nude so it is.
And we, who believe our own lying eyes, must have hidden bad intentions for saying otherwise.
_note: Socrates was given an avenue to escape from his prison cell, but willing chose to allow his death_
Let him with ears to hear, listen good
Socrates "Follow the argument wherever it leads you." Absolutely and totally anathema to what these cultists do, i.e. BEGIN with a theory, which is an UNexamined presupposition and then bend reality to fit the fucking theory.
Plato was big on the "reality is not real" thing.
Lindsay is one of the most important voices of this weird and baffling era of neo-Marxist madness. His podcasts are extremly important and should be shared widely.
James Lindsey : Anti-Communist / Counter Revolutionary
I and my husband do share them on Facebook as much as we can. We’re barely 30. Making society normal again requires younger people to grow 🏀 ⚽️
@@anacorreia8058 *Excellent Ana, good for you!*
I was born in a Marxist society...It is a cult..Marxism is a cult..run by the same group of people all throughout the globe.
Madness is puting it nicely
Dude... I listen to you educating us about all of this insanity and I think I'm going crazy. I can't imagine what you are going through while preparing this stuff... Stay strong please, and take care of yourself. Don't overdo it, a person can only accept so much nonsense in one take...
Well said!!!
Well said.
The idea that the philosophical rejection of reason, which is so central to woke ideology, actually undermines itself, so that we need not take these people seriously, is important. Thank you for this.
They also label themselves as racists and I'm willing to take them at their word, meaning I will treat them like the social pariah they admit to being.
James is the best at explaining the state of our society right now. The problem is this isn't just a few people, it's now the entire government. Even if they aren't full woke they are tolerant of it and believe in the notion of suppressing all classic liberal and conservative talk. We've already lost and the only way we are getting it back is by something that majorly disrupts or ends all of society. Other wise we are China by 2030. At least James went down swinging.
That's the key identifier of postmodern concepts; Rationality is relative to culture? OK, but that statement itself is made within a culture, so why should I care what that person has to say? All ideas are determined by economics? OK, then that makes that idea itself the result of economics, therefore I have no reason to listen to it. Etc, etc.
We do at this moment. These people are in top positions in this Biden administration. The secretary of defense, the head of the doj, among others. We're seeing the entire group of Americans that voted for Donald Trump be called extremists. Sec of defense believe they must be purged. So its important to take these absolute psychopathic, arrogant, hateful people seriously. Be aware. Be careful what you say and type now on social media. Yea this is the United States right now. Just have faith, because their ideology is being exposed and is failing everyday. Nyc is going to be first of major Marxist elite stronghold cities to fall, then the rest will fall. The Brooklyn candidate for mayor should win, even though im sure the dishonest officials will try to prevent it. The mass crime in the other cities will be next. People of all political opinion will want a reasonable person to deal with these woke problems. And if all goes well, god willing, the top will be either forced to go against the woke because it is costing them political power( I see this being likely), or our citizens will demand they resign.
@Kwistenbiebel200 We have already lost. It was to late in 2016 when the choices were Hilary or Trump. There is a chance the people get tired of this and vote it out but when they make anyone who goes against them out of be a criminal that will be hard. I hope I'm wrong but I think it's going to have to collapse otherwise we rip up the constitution and become a state like China by 2030.
Let's be real
Anyone who says "there is no objective reality" shouldn't be afraid to walk across a freeway, since the giant metal cars hitting their fragile mortal bodies is all a mere perception
If they admit that's none sense, then that's it, they admit there is a reasonable standard
Just wrote that down :D
@@voldehorst187 yeah that is the perfect reply to someone who argues against objective reality. Well put OP.
The claim is actually more subtle than that. They aren't running in front of busses because they do believe they would end up "dead". Their claim is that "getting run over by a bus and ending up killed" is just a story you are telling yourself to explain the world to yourself, but all of the conceptualization you bring to that explanation comes only from your subjectivity, and reality has nothing to do with it. You might call it "commit suicide" or you might call it "get murdered by capitalism" or you might call it "failure to properly understand Theory" or you might call it "an accident" or you might call it "escaping from the nightmare that is living in America" or you might call it "evolution weeding out the gene pool" or you might say "damn you for doing analysis when you should be crying somebody is dead damn it".
You think you can, at the very least, order these possible categories to put the phenomena in, in terms of better or worse, useful or useless, perhaps some even true or false. The belief is that humans only do that by imposing pre-existing values upon the phenomena, and thus, if you are interpreting "wrong" it's because you have the "wrong" values, because that's what "facts" (ie. interpretations of experience) actually are grounded by, not reality.
The claim isn't so much that there is no external existence, but that there is no external identity. To relate it to Kant as Prof. Hicks does, imagine a Kantianism where The Categories are not fixed, but vary by individual or society. That would make what reality "Is" in terms of how we describe it to ourselves, individually or socially constructed.
That's why "If that's true, why not just jump in front of a bus" won't work. They know they can't interpret physically reality out of existence. It's the MEANING of physical reality they think they can interpret out of (or into) existence.
@@jeffreyscott4997 that's a good rebuttal or clarification you have there, thanks for adding to the topic.
Relativisms biggest enemy is relativism.
Dear James, you are a hero. Thank you for helping us all! Can't wait to see what I learn from another one of your videos!
Foucault was a moral and specifically sexual deviant. And not even an original one. He was not just amoral, but anti-moral. But he understood language and how it could be used to influence people who had far less confidence about their own linguistic and ideological stability and were easily swayed by novelty. He and Rousseau, were hell with any grace, would be in an eternal struggle about who is on top and what that “means”.
James, KEEP TALKING. Those of us out here living real life thank you.
Whenever they pull out their “phobia-ist” attacks, I just simply say either of the 3
That is a slur not an argument (white privilege, white fragility)
Or
What you assert arbitrarily, I dismiss arbitrarily. (Woke accusations, systemic oppression)
Or
It isn’t phobia, it is disgust, your arbitrary assertion of phobia is just a confession through projection that deep down you are fearful to come to terms with your disgusting behavior (irrational homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia)
Puts them on the defensive as you lay out the truth. Since they cannot demonstrate their point they are powerless. Tactic has never let me down
The key thing is to just get the woke on the defensive. They are all offense and no defense. Mercilessly seek definitions, they cannot provide them; they have never really faced real resistance so they aren’t used to articulating their ideas outside of slogans. Once you do that you win every time.
Both my siblings were ambushing me when I dared to say systemic oppression in the United States was not true and that it came from a cultural marxism ideology, etc... my brother full on yelled at me and said “you’ve just been hanging out with your white boy too much” -- referring to my husband. you can imagine how i reacted. full on hung up on him, just broke my heart that this stuff can radicalize your own family members to such a point that they can say things like that. keep in mind that if anything my husband is more liberal than i am... which makes what my brother said so hilarious besides heartbreaking and racist.
@@vickrdable Yes it is absolutely disgusting
@@vickrdable I understand, my oldest sister is fully woke. I can't believe the anger and rage. That must be a terrible way to live. If I had that much anger and rage, I would burn out in short order.
You are ridiculous if you think anything you said tracks or represents reality
@@vickrdable it's funny that you are the radicalized one. Radicalized to avoid facing any culpability
As a carpenter I’ve always lived by the axiom of think twice cut once ! Fast decisions without considered rationality can cause many problems ..especially in the realms of political belief & unforeseen consequences.
Measure twice and cut once, is the old saying, and for carpentry, building, remodeling, it’s very wise advice, as real world experience shows. I like how you worded it though: thinking twice is even better advice for damn near everything.
...which is why i don't trust this guy.
{1} I don't think the "rejection of reason" is anything new. It dates from Schliermacher in the 18th century and came to prominence during the Atomic Bomb Age (see Burroughs [poetry], Barth [the novel], "Dr. Strangelove" [cinema] "Green Acres' [teevee].
The whole American Experiment had become an exercise in contagious irrationality since 1959-1964 up to now and isn't going to just go away.
{2} The idea that postmodernism is "ipso facto contra rationis" is not true.
This outlook took root because of its empirical veridicality and reasonable insight, not in spite of them. The bottom line is that the foundation of modern western
('Enlightenment') culture cannot be rationally sustained.
And physics itself displays that reality itself is not rational in a way directly amenable to our minds.
{3} I admire Lindsay's initial practical joke(s), but it isn't clear to me he's really grappled with the meaning of some of the real assertions postmodernism has made: he's always talking AROUND things rather than going directly AT them.
Exactly. Old adage says
The road to hell is paved with (uniformed/illthought-out) good intentions. The intent isn't evil, but the outcome is when considered objective thought isn't applied first. We don't decide to make bad decisions. We decide to neglect reason and act in a way that demonstrates the decision/action was bad in hindsight.
I seriously cannot believe so few people watch these videos... this stuff is extremely important to understanding the hell we are going into. Thank you for doing all this James and anyone else working with New Discourses.
We need to spread this channel around.
James, this talk is so dense with information. Keep going off on sidetracks in my own mind why I find the ideas disconcerting. By the time I get back on track you've gone on to 3 more ideas. Gonna have to listen again in pieces and take notes. I will say doesn't seem these guys ever applied the same level of critique to their own assumptions as they did to the assumptions of others.
Texcat, I've gone thru the same head shake. At least James can make me say, " Hey, I'm not the crazy one!"
This is one of your best podcasts yet. A very important point that needs to be spread widely!
Fascinating overview of a very depressing and worrying situation. But I was heartened by the closing remarks. Totally agree.
I interviewed with the woke HR department at a college for a tutor position a couple years ago. Do people even want to work for them? I'm wondering if that might be the reason no one is being hired lately... between not measuring up to their wokeness or because the applicant just walks away not wanting the job.
Good point. I've arranged my life and livelihood so as to minimize my contact with these 'woke' imps.
"Our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel-and you can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get.
And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that’s what soma is."
- Brave New World
Marcuse has constructed his own false-consciousness
I wish these paragraphs were available to share on social media. I think people who won’t listen to an hour long podcast would be shocked to hear about this.
Do the woke realize that the philosophical arguments they use against science, can also be applied to philosophy?
Consistency is white supremacy too, haven't you heard ;)
@@laurasalo6160 White supremacy is a minor issue. Systemic racism, white privilege, and whiteness are all myths the left has created to divide people, so they can acquire more, and more power, and control what people can think, or say.
Damn, missed this going live by 1.5 hours. Keep it up James. Your work is invaluable.
Y'know, is James writing a book, or planning to write more books since Cynical Theories? The New Discourses work is just fantastic, but you've got to lament the relatively small audience for something so critical.
@Trevor Chase I really hope he does that, at some point.
still, it is a growing audience. Share it on FaceBook etc. I find him uniquely suited in recommendations to lefty friends of mine who would otherwise just reeeeee out and label the arguments "far-right". WIth James, it's harder to do, even if he justifiably calls out the left by name.
@@pashadyne For my part, I'm not worried about how much people a book would reach. I just think that much of what James is talking about in these podcasts do deserve to be registered in book form, with proper citations, references and so on. _Cynical Theories_ is great, but has a focus. James has been widening the scope of the analysis and this just seems right for a new book. It doesn't have to come too soon, either. I prefer something well done than rushed. Still, I hope he gets the message that there are people interested in reading such a book, if he decides to write it.
Cultivating thoughts takes time. We are lucky and blessed that he shares as he goes. Some of the cultural problem is the immediacy people want that’s a result of devices satisfying curiosity at demand. I experience developing thought in a different space, and have people comment wanting to race to the full thesis when creative thought is incremental.
@@D00kerT the conclusion of this talk was pretty solidly conservative though.
The definition of Conservatism being the conserving of the status quo with only modest incremental steps towards modification for reasons liberal principle.
He's pretty solidly against any socialism.
I get the impression he's Classical English Liberal rather than Social Liberal.
He'll concede the state has a role in providing public utilities, but adopting principles based upon visions for a pre-scripted future not so much.
Woke doesn’t reject reason and reality. It invites people to it.
At the end of the day is to know who you are and stick to it no matter what. I know who I am & I know whose I am. My identity is in Christ. I'm more Christian than I am Black, female, my education, economic status, or etc...
And a Christian will always defend the powerless if they are indeed in Christ.
@@Claire5020GEN Christian nations do a much better job of defending gays and woman than non-Christian nations.
God, in whose Image we were created, is the source of our true identity. No need to seek it or to build a politics around it.
It's the Sophists all over again!
Yup, and it's just a bit more sophisticated than the flat Earth theory
What I find fascinating is how Christian theology ALSO tells you to be skeptical of your own "passions". The new testament is full of letters teaching the new Church, through reason and the teaching of Christ, as well as the old testament.
Christianity is also big on individualism, which Communism can't stand.
@Guy Fawkes55 Care to elaborate? I'd love more on this if you got it.
@Guy Fawkes55 I love it, thank you. Communism is all about the group.
"Authenticity, if you can fake that, you have it made!". PT Barnum
I was wondering; for those people who have a bad reaction to the prosperity capitalism brings, who are sick and tired of shallowness and meaninglessness of it all -- for those people (there are quite a few of them) isn't there a way to just become more spiritual? From reading spiritual books to meditating to becoming a monk or a nun.
Better light a candle than curse the darkness.
Without any violence or nastiness or destruction. All perfectly legal.
There is more to democracy than capitalism. Much more.
Why is nobody even mentioning this option? What would Marcuse say about it?
The only way to reject it that I see is to say, "But I want a revolution! I want blood and violence and destruction! I want to meddle into other people's affairs and force them to do what I think is right." Which is outright crazy.
Your idea is beautiful and it falls under the category of "building something." If the woke left actually wanted to create something great, they would build and people from all camps would join because everyone wants to be part of a something successful even if they aren't ideologically married to it. Everyone needs solid ground to stand on. Please keep promoting these building ideas that bring people together.
Because you can't pay your bills with spirituality alone.
The first line of the description is exactly what we are missing. Kudos James, every time I bring up a video of yours I'm glad I did.
The German V is pronounced like the English F. _Verstand_ and _Vernunft_ are "fair-shtand" and "fair-noonft", (very) roughly
In most German exclusive words, at least. For many words from other languages (including Latin, a lot of German words have their roots there), it's pronounced more like "very", for example "Veranda", "Variabel" or "Verifizieren". "Fair" wouldn't be a good comparison, it's more like 'f' combined with the verb "to err". The "noonft" wouldn't sound right either, the 'nun' sound from "conundrum" might be closer, but nowhere near right either. "shtand" wouldn't really work either, the 'sh' and 'd' fits, but the 'an' part of it would sound completely wrong. Can't think of an English word that would be a close approximation, maybe the name "Anna", the 'a' in "Anne" would sound like an 'e' in German. In short, approximations like that are very lacking and can vary a lot (dialects), so it's better to just hear it for yourself.
@David Harmon Depends on the word. 'W' in German is usually pronounced somewhat like the English 'V', but 'V' in German is not pronounced like 'W' in English. It's either pronounced like 'F' or 'V' in English.
@David Harmon I only know standard German, which is the generally accepted version, no idea about ancient German. There are dialects, but I wouldn't be aware of any where you'd not pronounce 'V' the same.
@@IchCharacter Actually, the 'd' in "stand" is incorrect. It is a 't.'
Critical theory rests on a profound disgust for ordinary people. They are the gulls who’ve been taken in by commercialism. Any contentment they feel is a consequence of their lack of awareness which allows “the system” to manipulate them. Stripped of all dignity, stripped of individual agency, they are merely tools for the use of whichever system can get control of them. Marcuse wants to be that system.
Yes, but let me update that a bit. It's resting on humiliation. This is a communist propaganda technique. When forced to retell obvious lies, these people abandon their agency. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
What's been striking to me is how a certain segment of the population has uglified themselves -- piercings, hair color, tattoos, body modifications, etc. I've seen some beautiful girls uglify themselves and I'm trying to figure out where it comes from. It's heartbreaking.
Is this also a result of this "Wokeness" and rejection of reasonableness, Western ideals, etc?
Yes 100%
That's a way that some people think of to combat supposedly unjust and arbitrary conceptions of beauty. Subvert the ideal and assert that you have actually become more beautiful.
It makes sense if you believe that standards of beauty were invented by people to arbitrarily oppress people, as opposed to the truth, which is that beauty is an archetypal pattern distilled by billions of years of evolution to help us identify objective fitness in potential mates, it's something that the very structure of the universe pushes living things toward pursuing and manifesting.
At least that's my take, either way intentional subversion of beauty is obviously an abomination and everyone can feel it in down to their soul even if they don't know why.
Try nihilism
Its the rejection of objective feminine beauty. They believe men objectify them so they take on an aposematic appearance. Poison dart frog. It also serves the purpose of making them stand apart from normal people and gives them a way of identifying each other, as well as a feeling of acceptance from the woke mob. Its like a dress code of sorts.
Yes, they purposefully uplift the ugly and disdain the beautiful. I wonder if James has done any lectures on this phenomenon.
Another outstanding and uplifting discourse, James. We need you. Thank you. 🙏
It's so funny to me. "If you follow the leaders of your society you have no reason and are a slave. Now come join my society..."
Gotta tell ya james...pretty sick of getting this 100 year old dusty shaft....great video as always. 🍻 One of the few voices out there helping people sort through all this nonsense.
I am reading Dostojevskies Devils, the similarities with today are scary.
I read it 20 years ago. As you can imagine I haven't enjoyed watching it all play out again in front of me.
I just picked up Beyond Good and evil by Nietzsche and a few books from Dostoyevsky I'm excited to get in to
Oooh I think you just picked out my next read... since I'm already terrified and heartbroken for society and humanity, what hell eh!
If I'm not mistaken, in Russian, "e" is pronounced "ye", which is where the sound comes from in his name. I've seen it spelled Dostoevsky, however when it was translated to English, perhaps it was spelled how it sounded to assist with pronunciation, and thereby name recognition, and so they spelled it Dostoyevsky. I believe this is why it appears in both spellings.
@@laurasalo6160 I did Russian DUOLINGO, it taught me Russian is hard and that I am a long way from understanding it and doing proper grammar, even in phonetically changing it to English. But listening to Hard Bass and reading Russian literature helps. If you read Solsjinitzin and Tolstoy too, you'll learn a lot about War, Ideology and human nature in general 🙏
Never has the coming apocalypse been so amusing and entertaining, great work James, keep it UP!! 👍🍻
Yea its a laugh riot!🙄
Please debate Vaush on CRT, he just made a video about you, and I know you would destroy him on this. Might I suggest Modern Day Debates as a third party host.
Honestly I’m not sure what would be gained by that. I just started watching that video and one of the first things he said was that it’s not correct that CRT says the most important thing is your race. Then he launches into an example of CRT, and he immediately demonstrates the idea that race is, as he had just denied, the most important thing.
He’s not capable of understanding this stuff. If James wants to, then of course that’s fine, but on a practical level I don’t know what exactly would be gained other than a sort of gaudy show for people.
Vaush is so cringy I can’t even listen to him. He is the perfect example of the kind of person who needs to be taken down a few pegs. I’d love to see what James could do.
@@WarComet Actual Justice Warrior (Sean) crushed him, but he's the exception. As annoying as Vaush is, he has polemical skills. Jim has everything necessary to make Vaush look like the exact Twitch streamer he is.
Just looked this guy up due to your comment. James... PLEASE take the challenge.
I second this, take him on, carefully show everyone else the flaws he and his dearests will never understand and expose them to the world. We will share it.
Love ya James. And that soothing voice! Ah. It could almost calm my panic at the sinking of the Titanic.
Hair appreciate hearing about the history and origin of the woke approach. It is clear that this type of thinking has been with us for quite some time.
It all started with the first rebel, the first revolutionary, Lucifer.
Hey James! I love you brother. I thought i was going crazy. Your channel is the epitome of everything I needed!
If nothing else, the fact that it's impossible to share a dirty joke with the Woke makes them intolerable. Shaft indeed.
Amen.
🙏
YES! Deep truth speaks through humor and the woke NEVER laugh.
Thanks , James
If you like your current system, then it is just proof that your system is broken. Galaxy brain Marcuse there.
Intellectually essential material for understanding the "woke" predicament we find ourselves in.
"Bless em'!" Classic.
Dr. Steven Hicks has many interviews and lectures here on RUclips. You just have to give it the time to listen folks. Combine it with this channel's efforts and you will get a glut of information.
I have a very left wing Daughter who is now 26. If I would have not made her get a job, pay rent, pay her bills, and by her own car, she would be a woke revolutionary now. She’s still very liberal, but also has perspective and responsibility.She’s has not voted since 2020 and I don’t expect her to vote in 2024
I have been calling this The Age of Pretend.
Yup...or...The Age Of Knees On...The Ground.
;)
Let me get this straight...I have false consciousness imposed on me by an oppressive society, so I should allow another consciousness of how society should become, be imposed on me by a new oppressive society? I think I will reasonably choose a non-critical consciousness and continue down the path of happiness and flourishing.
Thank you James! Another great listen. Checking in from East TN as well.
The problem is this is taught to a bunch of people who don’t understand it and then they perpetuate it out of ignorance
I’m not religious, but I’ve come to believe the Devil is real.
There are so many masks out there right now.
The devil is real and so is blood sacrifice and sexual rituals. They mock Jesus for a reason. Wake up
Great photo! Captures it perfectly.
While I appreciate the excellent analysis of this broken philosophy I have only two looming questions:
1) What is the most directly analogous historical example where this horrible set of ideas was nullified and defeated without the complete destruction of the civilization it infested?
2) If there is no such example then how do we become the first?
gnosticism , this is the essense of any such of a "phylosophy"
and it is not something new
Good questions
The most directly analogous woke what mate? Are you sure??
Brilliant questions. I too have been thinking the same…..I would say a hard lesson by hard times that create strong men again. While at the same time the hard times don’t ruin our economy or break the camels back. Easier said than done though. The weak have to be weeded out by natural causes not artificially. We have been removed from nature for too long
This is one of the best podcasts - and most important ones - I have heard to date. Neo-Marxism needs to be vanquished in our society, thank you for this vid!
This is partially great, bc yeah it's a problem that they reject reason and that they see things in the terms of emotional exprience without any ability to check those expirences with reason and therefore figure out flaws
It's reductive in the for example with the MeToo thing, the general thing of lived expirence (those cases not being persecuted) does matter severly. It's just that in adressing you do still need reason. What's why things like demanding clear cut rules (yes means yes, making sexual relationships between someone who has power over someone else by for example being there employeer illigal etc are good because those make hard lines you can actually police)
You sound like someone who's already bought into all this and is playing the reasonable card, I hope this podcast helps you one day
@@wellsshady I am someone who's pretty comittmend to not beliving any idology and just agree with whatever makes sense from it. I wouldn't say I agree with much from them, but I am a feminist for example
my fitbit counter of the mental gymnastics that occured witnessing the concepts discussed is enough for my once, only, and all possible future lifetimes
I believe that most reasonable people, upon a reasoned investigation, will agree that there is no such thing as a reasonable person.
Even granting that no single individual fulfils all the tenets of a "reasonable person," this does not mean that it doesn't exist as a standard. Think of it as a statistical average of somewhat reasonable, but also flawed people, so that the random flaws more or less cancel each other, while the mild persistent reasobleness gets reinforced and dominates the average. "Most reasonable people," then, simply refers to people who aren't too far from this average, not to a colection of perfect beings. There's nothing particularly inconsistent or special about this.
Are you including yourself in that circuit of logic? More deconstructive nonsense that serves no purpose and only confuses matters. You say things like this, then expect that we'll all cede to this wisdom?
The most important set of lectures on RUclips right now
Thank you James
In terms of the legitimization by consensus concept, I think you should talk about this in terms of Popper V. Kuhn.
VERDICT: Excellent PodCast. BEYOND ALL REASONABLE doubt.
Reason is the bridge between minds and experiences that allow us to negotiate with each other using real measurable metrics. Without that, there's nothing to talk about, only confused angry screaming at each other. That's what they want because they're the masters of confused angry screaming.
That intuitive aspect in life filled with passion and impulsiveness are quite easy to mislead, inflame, and incite into the wrong path. Reason is the brake that slow it down before life hits the curb or falls off the cliff.
Could you list the writers you were quoting and what pieces you were quoting from in the description box please?
You mentioned thinking fast and slow. I'm not sure if you know much about heuristics and cognitive shortcuts--but its an interesting field that really, I think, adds insight to this divide between the rational and the intuitive. My hypothesis behind all of this is that Religion is an ideological heuristic--something that gives us simple reaction patterns that are intuitive in terms of following them, and allow us to ensure our in-group status and generally predict/describe social outcomes (If you're in a very Christian town, then following their social codes will generally lead to not only group acceptance but also to predict how they might see events). In effect, religion is a cognitive shortcut that reduces the work-load of having to fit in and be part of the in-group. By following the dominant cultural ideology (Religion) you can intuitively fit in.
Here is the problem, in my opinion. Heuristics, by definition are not fully accurate. They simply are more right than wrong. In addition, the precepts of any ideology will be less and less predictive over-time as the environment changes and the original precepts remain stagnant. (Often times the ideology itself changes the environment). This ensures an ideology will eventually be wrong--the intuitive rules we use to be able to not think, will eventually keep failing to predict reality (Even if they successfully still allow us to illustrate that we're part of the in group). I believe when this happens, when an ideology consistently begins failing to predict outcomes, it has two options--update its precepts to account for the shift in environment (Often by maintaining the same base ideals but splintering into subgroups--not unlike marxism vs woke) OR if its culturally dominant, it can use its adherents immense social power to censor criticism (So even if the ideas become more and more flagrantly wrong, the adherents can simply demand its right. IE 2+2=5).
For example, Marxism in the U.S. was not culturally dominant. And so when Marxism failed to predict the massive increase in wealth and affluence of the 'lower class', it was forced to recede. By contrast Marxism became culturally dominant in Russia and its adherents used enormous censorship powers to maintain it. In the U.S. though, Marxism had to splinter and update its precepts to fit in the modern environment; and so woke was born (Or cultural marxism). This form of Marxism accounted for the affluence of the middle/lower class, but still brought all the fundamental precepts of Marxism to bear still.
I think what we're seeing now though is the whole "woke" religion was wrong about equality. They constantly predicted if X thing is done, then Y inequality will get better. But that never really happened. In some cases, things have gotten 'worse'. However, unlike Marxism in the past--wokism is culturally dominant. So we're seeing them employ censorship and other social leverage to curtail criticism and allow their dogma to be wrong, but still remain in place. IE to actively attack rational criticism.
They will make 2+2=5 because they want to keep their religion, and religions can't be wrong..(And just like other places where religions continually were wrong and broke more and more with reality over time--the censorship will become more and more violent and authoritarian, with the religion constantly blaming its own adherents for not following the precepts corrections. In other words, the reason why "god" is angry (inequality continues) is because you're sinning! (Racism!)...Even if we can't objectively name the sin, its there! (Thought crime). Its why eventually all religions who have cleaved from reality delve into thought crimes.)
If you find humanity unprepared for liberation, your concept of liberation is likely incorrect and you need to go back and realign your premises with reality.
I agree with Schopenhauer, who called the Hegelei nonsense.
I think we could talk about an entire family here. That is, in the sense of family > genus > species
Brilliant Set of Ideas which explains the sources of the madness. Human nature is one core of the problem.
A reasonable idea is one which has immediate constructive utility. It's free to use and free to share. Reason cushions the fall of the unreasonable person. Reason is the guy Power calls when he's gone and blown a dagnab fuse.
Yeah, but outside of the realm of thought [which is inherently supreme] there is still the realm of contingency, and in that, there maybe unforeseen consequences of actions, even in a cacophony of actions that will mostly fail, some may succeed [which is why thought is still inherently superior, as being].
Great Jackie Gleason imitation
New to your podcasts and enjoying them. Call me simplistic but when I realize _how deep_ the morass of human philosophy is I can’t help but think of the ancient Hebrew principle: “ It does not belong to man who is walking to direct his steps..”
One of your best yet
You should study the Lysenko affair in Russia. It is much more complicated than you imagine.
That was a good lecture. I want to memorize it, but I’ll probably just give it a second listen.
17:20 LIVED EXPIRIENCE is interesting considering if you submit your own lived experience if it goes against their dialog then it's just "your anecdotal evidence..." particularly if you don't tick enough boxes in oppressed identity.
I went to grad school (History) at Berkeley in the 70s. Postmodernism interested a lot of students and I learned some of the vocabulary. I also read that the French thinkers behind the mess were growing out of fashion at home - and only dull Americans still bought it. So I ignored it. Berkeley was still flying high in that period and some really splendid history came out of the department (ditto for political science where I also hung out) although Vietnam did cause a lot of stress. One trend I missed - and I shouldn't - was the great appreciation for the proto-Marxist ideas of Univ. Wisconsin historian William Appleman Williams. Pretty soon the field of US diplomatic history (now largely vanished) was dominated by the "Cold War Revisionists" (Walter LaFeber - a Williams student - was a leader). So at America's great universities grad students were telling anyone that was interested that it was Harry Truman, not Joseph Stalin, that caused the Cold War. The argument had little to do with Truman-Stalin and much with Vietnam. After 1991 when the ex-Soviet archives opened up, the truth came up and the matter was dropped. You can imagine what those grad students ended up doing for the rest of their career. The Cold War debate didn't lay low the study of history in the US alone - that took a lot of work on the part of a large number of people and institutions to bring history into line with the Modern Languages departments, but it was a fine example of "early woke" and also illustrates why so few of America's historians in university employ are working to bring some sanity in the present "war against the past." (There are exceptions - but note how many are emeritus or well along in their careers.)
People who believe in intersectionality aren't qualified to even run a gas pump.
Scam technique: dazzle em with complexity, Is rife in these texts.
That's one of the frustrating things about postmodernism; there are no standards for anything. It's tempting to remove definitions and limits on reality, but then you wind up disoriented and agnostic about everything when you take it to its logical conclusion. Just watch the Foucault/Chomsky debate: Foucault tries to deny Chomsky's definitions of human. Foucault also tries to claim in Madness and Civilization that everyone is insane because our desires (especially the sexual ones) have no basis in sanity or reasoning.
There is this book in the history of philosophy. I think that it's called "The Republic" or something like that; and in this book there is this guy named Thrasymachus; and this dude... I used to have a student that couldn't say Thrasymachus. So he called him "the dude". Well, this dude he gets very excited about the idea that your moral judgement is corrupted by the governing power to such an extent that your sense of justice is determined by whatever happens to be in the interest of that power. 🙃
Show me why its not
You need to read “The Republic”.🙂
The problem with reducing everything to a power dynamic is that if you take the idea seriously that there is no truth or reason, only self-serving power, then there is no morality and no cause to treat anybody well or fairly.
If history is just a zero-sum power struggle, then it doesn't follow at all that the powerful should create any space for the weak. If anything, the powerful should exploit and oppress the weak as much as possible, so that the weak can never become strong and oppress those who are currently strong.
In such a world, it's not the Nazis or the Confederate states who got it wrong, it's the liberals. Because the liberals naively felt guilt, which is just a mirage, because there is no objective truth or goodness, only power, and the liberals keep sharing power, which inevitably means weakening themselves without earning any gratitude from the weak.
This illiberalism cannot be the guiding philosophy of an advanced society. Racial supremacy, manifest destiny, etc are dangerous enough in a pre-industrial society, but in a post industrial society, they invite genocide, and a post nuclear world they invite nuclear holocaust.
Very informative video James, thanks. By the way, the letter V in Vernunft is pronounced like an F.
No it's not.
@@jamesbarlow6423 ausgesprochen, NICHT geschrieben
No wonder my brain feels bruised every time I brush up against this delusional way of seeing the world !
Seems to me he is a man angry at the system because it's not his system. So its everyone else's duty to agree with him.
You are so wrong
Pretend to feel guilty, penitent, moral, and watch enemies hatch schemes to steal your success.
I wonder what Marcuse would say about model airplane hobbyists, flight simulator hobbyists, etc? Do they actually not like building model airplanes or virtually flying a plane? Is the advertising targeted towards them malevolent and evil, designed to program them to think they are interested in airplanes? Once you drill down on this horseshit just a little it becomes indefensible and - as with all of these types of ideas - unfalsifiable.
They are kinda correct about social consensus. Why else would so many people go along with the woke madness? Most people are just trying to not be socially ostracized.
Thanks for another great nudist courses video!
Seriously though, these explorations of the philosophical underpinning of wokeness are very illuminating. Keep it up James!
One think I have noticed is that our behavior is basically exactly the same as it was in the beginning, there has been no change in us in thousands of years, so the idea that we should be miserable is exactly what we mostly are even with convenience. We are always thinking up so called new ideas that are not the least bit new, especially the guy who has decided the rest of us are wrong because we are not following him, that is such an old idea.
It's the ultimate end form of narcissism. To create an entire philosophy and framework of thought where people who are thinking for themselves and seeking their own happiness, are automatically wrong about everything, they _cannot_ be anything but wrong. Only the enlightened few of the left can lead them to true happiness. And everything is based on Marcuse's absurd claim that actually he knows the truth and everyone else is wrong.
They will not allow happiness by design. The entire machine is set up so everyone on both sides is left incapable of standing for ANYTHING. Each person will be rendered helpless and incapable. Everyone will be saddled with a load they cannot shake and this includes those who AGREE with the woke.
So I started listening to this and I admit... for me it's hard to follow. I'm not a philosopher and I'm really only familiar of these views from listening to James and Helen and Peter, but I will say that I'm also reading their book Cynical Theories while listening to this. This talk is making a lot more sense after reading the first chapter or 2 of the book.
Have you read Return of the Primitive? (AKA The Anti-Industrial Revolution)
Whoh, it took James 1:20 to get to the point. I'm going to start only listening to the last 10 minutes from now on.
*Why is that so often the lunatics end up running the asylum?!!!*
Because they speak with the dazzling authority of PhDs and use a lot of big words and lengthy, convoluted paragraphs that obfuscate the foolishness of what they're saying. If they laid their theories out plainly, in the speech of the laymen, people could pick them apart more easily.
Because of democracy.
Abdication of responsibility by the sane.
This vividly exposes the postmodern mindset
The panic attack analogy here made me think, maybe I hate all this shit so much because I've been dealing with anxiety issues since long before it was trendy to say so, and I've spent so much of my life trying to re-train myself that the world is not as scary and bad as my anxious brain tells me it is. And now you have all these people busting in shouting that the world actually is terrible and everyone should be upset all the time because they feel that way, like someone insisting they're having a heart attack when it's really a panic attack.
I agree. I've struggled with depression and anxiety since childhood and it's taken a lot of hard work, therapy, and self-discipline to make the progress that's allowed me to become a functioning adult...and then here comes this movement telling people not to work to overcome adversity but to wallow in it and let it define them. They actually _encourage_ all the kinds of unhealthy distorted thinking that cognitive behavioral therapy aims to change. Wokeness exploits and exacerbates existing mental health issues in its adherents, and I could never be a part of that.
I want to know WHERE ARE, WHERE WERE, THE INTELECTUALS INFORMING US ABOUT THIS ALL THIS YEARS.
The people who should have told us about progressivism views were silent.
18th century european white thought: bad
19th century european white thought: good
Hahah
Hehe
For those who have a problem with his pronounciation: It’s called Ver-stand and Ver-nunft. And the last one, Vernunft is conditioned trough Schulung (ab exercitato intellectu) and therefore is endangered by ideological teachers. As It is adjacent to reason, it is not always epistemological. To read further you can start with Nikolaus von Kues - exercitatum et reformatum intellectum
Marcuse was OSS, CIA. Why don't you discuss the CIA Congress of Cultural Freedom & Foucault, Derrida or Gene Sharpe style Color Revolutions and the DIA?
It would be interesting if you could discuss these matters with Caleb Maupin.
It's interesting how there is so much evidence that the CIA has always been evil and so little evidence that they have actually contributed to our countries defense in any meaningful way, and if they have it is vastly outweighed by the social engineering they have been involved with inside our country.
@@jbbrolic Well said 👍
Thank you James .. this provides me with a clear idea on how they think the way they do. I didn't understand everything but I did somethings. Great work in bringing this to us.