“For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” -Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn
The French Revolution was influenced by the American revolution, which was an outgrowth of the English civil war. We can probably stretch this back to the Renaissance.
Definitely. And the humanistic rationalism of the Rennaisance was itself an overreaction in defiance of the "Faith Alone" nature of the Reformation. The last time that societies consistently shifted to the right wing was prior to the Reformation. Eg. Consider the Holy Roman Empire from 1000 AD to 1400 AD, became more of what we would consider 'Right Wing.' It consolidated power in traditional hierarchies, became more religious as a culture, etc.
@@rolandderoncesvalles6142 Indeed. And I'm a staunch Protestant. A Calvinist, in fact. So I know most neoreactionaries will look at me dirty. But I don't care. I'll be honest and recognize the roots of leftism as being centered in bastardized Protestantism (starting with the Whigs). And I'm bound and determined to make sure my future children know the dangers of viewing Christianity as a force for creating material Heaven on earth (a la Wilson's Social Gospel). I will teach my children that people are NOT equal, that there will ALWAYS be poor, unfortunate, or marginalized people, that THEY may be among them, but that it's okay. That eternity and the Great Commission matter more than life's infinite injustices (real, percieved, or imagined) or unequal material conditions. I'll make sure they read and understand Ecclesiastes, realize that even if they do everything right, nothing in this life is as reliable as a scientific experiment. That we shouldn't try to scientifically quantify God or His will, that it's okay that life isn't fair or perfect. That the soul matters. This life doesn't.
For an English-speaking "Dark Enlightenment" dude, all the problems date to the English Civil War; for Aleksandr Dugin, it date to the late Middle/Early Modern Period transition in Western Europe.
Just read The Anti-Globalist Manifesto. It's better anyway. And read the old works of The Handbook of Traditional Living by Raido, and The Handbook for Rightwing Youth by Evola, for traditional ideas that preceded the new reading or work.
"The current Zeitgeist of the Western Man is consumerism/egalitarianism. If we were to wish away internationalism, the West would re-assemble right back into the same thing". My god...we really are like Zarathustra.
Glad to see the refutation of the “all we have to do is get rid of the left” mindset. Too many people don’t seem to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. The masses aren’t simply being told to be consumers, they’ve been shaped into such a form, and, sadly, many are beyond repair.
I think the next major step is recognizing that many humans would prefer to be lazy and live placid lives if that option is given to them. Since slavery is immoral, what has been created is a willing slave class.
Arkana Certainly. What term could describe a perpetual welfare recipient better than “ballot slave.” The physical exertion and legal immobility may be less than the serviles of ages past, but, functionally speaking, they echo the same actions, obey the master to retain protections.
But this brings up the problem of "the blank slate". If we aren't a blank slate, like communism etc presupposes, that just need to have the correct thinking written on them, but instead genes play a role in how we think, then why wouldn't people revert back to a more traditional lifestyle, the moment cultural pressure, and the inertia that it brings with it, on them being "progressive" disappears?
@@lamename2010 because to a degree our genetics have been changed by this process, or at least the development of them throughout our lives has. People's hormone levels have been noted to be different now than from before. I mean heck, we can't expect people who started trans ops in the delusions of the modern world to be able to become proper people in continuity with humanity past, even those who were deluded by their parents and other institutions and now regret it, they are irreversibly changed biologically. Maybe it would take a few generations separated from modernity for it to not even have an effect, but it can't happen instantly with the people we have now.
Lenin not only lived in Paris france, but also in Pornic. Interestingly, Pornic is very near the vendée region where the people of France, which overwhelmingly disagreed with the revolution (the bourgeois and parisian nature of the revolution is a subject you would like to explore, i believe). The entire region was genocided by the central power, kids were thrown alive in ovens, troups would parade in towns with babies on their bayonets, an actual process of human skin tanneries existed (contrary to some other claims those human skin pants still exist today). Suffice to say Lenin is reputed to have learned a lot about Vendée and its repression, using it as an example and a future model. Interrestingly similar atrocities would surface after WW2, but only with testimonies and findings from the soviet occupied zones. One wonders at how coincidental would that be. Pardon my broken english.
@@reilysmith5187 Vendée vengé, Lénin inventor of totalirianism by sechéer and Courtois. Mind you they don't approach it that way, I just put 2 and 2 together, needs to be dug into.
When I was a kid in history class, we watched a documentary on the French Revolution. When I saw even the whitewashed version of what happened from the History Channel, I knew I could never have sympathy with the Left. Only a Godless Heathen could sympathize with such barbarism.
The whole equality, fraternity, liberty enlightenment beliefs and how it bled into all forms of modern government is something i have been saying for a long time and have never heard anyone even try to articulate it. This is a great video. I, at least, feel like im not the only soul screaming truth into the void.
The people who push liberalism endlessly and democracy, just so happen to own the means of democracy. the mass media and cultural shaping technologies. Those who most adamantly believe in the blank slate, believe they know best what must go on the slate. A coincidence?
They do not believe in the blank slate, but they do wield it as a useful fiction because it becomes a weapon to wield against those those that have the potential to be exceptional.
This essay is a great foundation for the statement and argument: "liberalism in America has been cracked in 2" and divided between the Inner (Democratic) and Outer (Republican) parties.
I don't think it is so much of a blackpill. I just think we need to abandon the notion of "if we just implement X system when we get in power everything will be fixed". That is pragmatically never going to work. If we just keep the successful tactic of the left of keeping trajectory and momentum, but for us go rightward, then as long as we are gradually improving then we are not lost.
@@wolframsteindl2712 I disagree with moldbug. Not only on this, but in general. Yes it is true that systems and groups get worse over time, but that is only in general and it varys in degree and time table.
This whole thing is actually more white pill than black pill. Yes it doesn’t just take “getting rid of the left” to change the direction of culture. But in dealt to change the direction of the culture, as impressionable as they are, is to change the regime, that way when the cathedral is replaced people’s beliefs will be changed almost just as fast. Everything is essentially dictated by the cathedral.
@@ColCoal Historically, whenever there was a shift towards the right, it was always done instantly and in large junks, like with the Biedermeier period, fascism, post-war conservatism, etc.; and then what followed were long periods of slow incrementalism towards the left. I cannot think of a single example in history where there was gradual incrementalism towards the right.
@@wolframsteindl2712 1. Even if that were true, that would mean we would just need the courage to be the first to do it. 2. The fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Roman Empire.
Once broad, numerous professional classes arise that able to voluntarily reach much higher productivity than usual, productivity which is much higher by being unimpeded than not, the brakes are off - you have a tremendous pressure for power to shift in favor of them. Liberalism and democracy are just the most efficient economic and political narratives for that to happen. Of course, democracy hasn't managed create anything in the way of a civilization except for a perpetual civil war, so, from there, power seeks the local maximum efficiency of the managerial pseudo-democracies of today. As technological advances raise and polarize the base requirements for someone to be a net contributor to society, the effective professional middle class, who collectively hold the bulk of power, grows into a minority smaller and smaller, and its interests diverge from those of a growing client class. There's no incentive to maintain democ...uhm, "populist" pretenses anymore. You just need a convincing narrative to develop for the transitional shift into an oligarchic plutocracy. Maybe this is the fallout from corona-chan, maybe this is apocalyptic environmentalism, maybe this is China taking over the US, or maybe this is something else, but the incentives are too strongly aligned - an excuse will be found and stamped by Science (tm), which already takes precedence over popular opinion. This seems deceptively similar, but is in reality distinct from a rogue state going into a maladaptive path due to individual elite interests diverging from ideological group interests and causing a collapse into itself (Soviets). The elite power grabs of today are not acting to its own collective detriment, they're acting to its benefit. I'm no materialist, but I don't think any ideology can circumvent or establish itself against these overwhelming tendencies. Any meme that has serious intentions of seizing influence has to find a way to conform to the mold of that incentive field. Idealistic value politics and their associated catalogs of labels that don't pander to human preferences that are revealed rather than stated are bound to fail. Trying to salvage values is important to one's own life and his direct surroundings, but a broad change of direction for the world seems unlikely.
I’m pretty much a hard classical liberal, but I’m here to get outside my bubble a bit and explore new ways of thinking. I largely agree with most of the criticisms here of modern liberal democracy, but what exactly is being offered as a viable alternative? Is there a video I may watch that sums it up?
It is not Egalitarian to think that people can evolve,as it is in Man's nature to aspire to go towards Perennial values(even if just in a subconscience/instinctual way),if we got rid of Internationalism,people would slowly but surely revert to the way they are hardwired biologically and spiritually(differently of course,Europe at heart was always more Aristocratic then the US for instance,I don't see Monarchy ever being established in America)you underestimate Human Nature(Blank Slate fallacy),also in just the 3 years since the release of this vid,ever since Oct 7th 2023,we've been witnessing Americanism ie-International Liberal Democracy being challenged both in the US and outside of it,things that were unthinkable to ever question just 4 years ago are no longer sacred cows,who knows what will be in another 10 or 15 years?History and Human Nature aren't as static as you present them to be,and lastly,even without all of the above,this system is just not sustainable in the long run anymore,just look at the type of people this society produces ie-Zoomers most of them will end up poor,unqualified for any profession,unmarried with no children and with a weak personality incompatible with the harshness of the system(the competitiveness of liberalism)that created them,it'll just crumble from within,with time.
"Charlemagne" is incorrect when he says the new governments of the 20th century moved only as far left as necessary to attain totalitarian powers. For example, the Communist Party did not further secure its power by persecuting the Church and promoting atheist propaganda instead of allying itself with the clergy, murdering or starving en masse its most productive farmers, and collectivizing its agriculture which further reduced agricultural productivity and food security. All of these policies made its rule less secure, not more secure, so the Communists definitely implemented more hard left policies than they needed to secure their control over society.
It makes more sense when you look at it as policies of revenge. The diaspora that implemented communism definitely has an axe to grind against against the church and the native populations they sought to subvert. You're correct, it made their rule less secure but hey, you don't get the boot 109 times because you play the game well. Their hubris is always their undoing.
Can we be sure that the culpability is in only these ideologies? What if it's just people being incompetent or corrupt and thus creating the conditions for such ideologies to thrive? Resentments going unaddressed and being left to fester. That is the crime of the ancien regimes. They failed to meet the specific challenges of their time so egregiously that there isn't much apology that can even be made for them. Consistent ruling class? How about a competent one that understands its responsibility.
the culpability is in the d*vil you and those ideologies serve. It is easy to defend what is right, you pre-emptively declaring there is no defense just speaks on you and nothing else.
The fact that a part of the ruling classes of the ancient regimes was corrupt, irresponsible, selfish and undeserving of their social status (which is certainly and sadly true ) does not justify the abuses of the revolution. It makes them more comprehensible, but two wrongs never make a right. We should make a distinction between a system in itself and the people who are part of that system.
@@JPX7NGD By just attacking the, you're acting like the same revolutionaries you say you hate. i don't fully agree with him, but if I want to debate with him, at least I do it civilly. So, changing the subject. I do believe that if there is a revolution, be it for best of for worse, there was a reason, you can't just tell the people ¨Hey, let's behead the king¨, if they don't hate the king already, remember that although the French revolution was leaded by educated people, the foot soldiers were common people, much like communist revolutions. So, I agree with him in that the system must have been corrupt enough for people to hate it and overthrow it, and let's face it, every political system, regardless of its leaning *will* have a corrupt period, the difference is, in old style governments this corruption would eventually end, in democracy it's harder, it can happen, but since the leading ¨cultured¨ members of the system know how to convince the populace, which is still largely politically illiterate even if most of them have easy access to information, then the cycle is incredibly hard to break. But I don't think that it was the system that failed (Remember the Pax Romana), but the members of it, and the revolutionaries, on this point in time, had the ideological and material tools to actually take the chance and make the passing sentiment of resentment into the catalyst for their ambition to take over the monarchy and become the new corrupt ruling elite themselves, but this time, there would be no easy end to it, since they can just repeat the process between them saying ¨the left is the devil¨, or ¨The right is the devil¨, take over without losing manpower due to carnage (Because heh democracy good) through voting instead of an armed takeover (civil war is bad for business). I hope op can debate me civilly, I woul love to hear his ideas on this.
They were in the back of my mind the whole video, especially since Adam Weishaupt's Order of the Illuminati was very active in organizing revolutionary movements in France prior to the French Revolution, and the structure and ritual of the order was based on his experiences as a Jesuit and a Mason. Many of the Founding Fathers were either Masons or Deists too.
I like this gentleman, but I fear he puts too much stress on political ideologies acting upon people as opposed to people acting upon political ideologies. There are individuals behind the curtain pulling the strings - there always have been and there always will be - and they must, for the sake of self-preservation, bind themselves to one another with oaths of secrecy. Herewith a quotation from the historian Guido Preparata's excellent work 'Conjuring Hitler' where he talks about the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC); 'So-called ‘democracy’ is a sham - the ballot a travesty. In modern bureaucratized systems, whose birth dates from the mid-nineteenth century, the feudal organization has been carried to the next level, so to speak. A chief objective of what Thucydides referred to in his epoch as synomosiai (literally ‘the exchangers of oaths’), that is, the out-of-sight fraternities acting behind the ruling clans, has been to make the process of the extraction of rents from the population (a ‘free income’ in the form of rents, financial charges and like thefts) as unfathomable and impenetrable as possible.'
The quote about socialists belongs to Gregor Strasser (another Nazi politician). You should check the quotes beforehand or they will be used against you.
You could start, perhaps, by challenging the absence of agency in this gentleman's analysis of the French Revolution. He states; 'Whilst the English Civil War and the American Revolutions certainly foreshadowed the violence that liberalism was capable of producing, the French Revolution was truly where liberalism evolved from the idea of fairness in government and freedom in economics to a more radical set of ideas that were the seeds of the ultimate destruction of liberalism, and those are liberte, fraternite and egalite.' The great Mrs Nesta Helen Webster tore this superficial analysis to pieces a hundred years ago in 'World Revolution' (1921) page 32 refers; 'Hitherto, the isolated revolutions that had taken place throughout the history of the world can clearly be recognized as spontaneous movements brought about by oppression or by a political faction enjoying some measure of popular support and therefore endeavouring to satisfy the demands of the people. But in the French Revolution, we see for the first time that plan in operation which has been carried on right up to the present moment - the systematic attempt to create grievances in order to exploit them.' Who formed and enacted the plan and did so again in 1917? They left us a clue - scrawled on the wall of the cellar in which the Romanovs were tortured to death; “Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht / Von seinen Kuechter umgebracht” (Balthazar was, on the same night, killed by his slaves).
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 Please do. 101 years have now passed since its publication, yet the significance of its insights continue to evade even highly intelligent, well-read commentators such as Charlemagne.
The last few minutes are something I was always sure of. I was always sure that the who "Bugman" smear was a rather cheap one. If bugmanism is about a fascination with things that are efficient, is anybody enthusiastic about buying something that hogs fuel or electricity?
Good the video, the only thing I disagree with is the comments on Napoleon. France was already at war when he came to power, and the majority of the wars after that were declared on him, not the other way around.
4:06 slavery: the last taboo, the condemnation of which requires no evidence or reason. That is, we're open to questioning everything here ... but not the evil of slavery. It's so self-evident! Gee... why couldn't everyone else for thousands of years see it the way we do?
Yeah, slavery isn't evil for the slave owner. Slavery was only truly abolished in the West after it's economic usefulness greatly diminished. If our present day economy still required slavery for free people to maintain their standard of living, they would embrace all sorts of philosophical rationalizations for why slavery is actually morally right.
Slavery had different forms an example of this is Turko Mongol slavery where if one became a slave for a rich Turk than there was a huge chance that he would recieve hige sums of wealth and power after the death of owner.
@@johnqpublic3766 hehe, thought you might say that. I doubt you’ve even properly listened to Third Positionists, though. They talk about art, beauty, morality, values and so on very often. Much more than they talk about economic matters. Perhaps you’re mistaking them for libertarians, if that’s possible.
Very interesting, and very dense. One thing I don't understand is why you think the people of today would not benefit from another from of government. Why do you think the changes you mentioned would lead back to the status quo? If we grant that such a regression is possible, what would lead us to think it was more likely than not? And what is the mechanism by which living under an older form would potentially replenish our depleted spirit?
I think these guys, Charlemagne, Distributist, Moldbug... would prefer a return to a Monarchal style government. A bit more nationalist, with a leader invested in the success of the nation over the long run... But i am still workign to absorb their ideas a bit better.
@@RecoveringMidwit yes, Moldbug made the point that corporations have a monarchial style of governance, where CEOs have more discretionary power over the entire organization than a President or Prime Minister has. But you don't need to agree with all of their prescriptions to gain valuable insight from them about how the world works, and how the narratives spread by the governing class are developed. This too is an alternative right wing outlook.
Cause entire system down to every bit of media and academia is designed to support liberalism. In order to fix the society we'd have to cleanse the entire nation of liberalism
@@TheWayoftheSith the thing is that "patriotism" can be multi-level. You can be a world patriot and local patriot but nationalism is always about the nation
You need to ditch the trichotomy, it's incoherent. Libertarianism and free markets aren't on the right, they're firmly on the left. The incoherence of the trichotomy muddles what would otherwise be a great video, and a very needed one in DR circles. It's not a question of liberty being connected to aristocracy, equality to clergy and fraternity to masses. All three of those notions you talk about (liberty, fraternity, equality) are actually aristocratic. It's the King Arthur legends. Aristocrats as freemen, sitting at a round table, a brotherhood of knights. The fundamental shift is in expanding such notions beyond the nobility to the rest of society. In usurping the traditional order, the third estate had to embrace the role of the traditional elite. Problem being they were never sufficient for it because they were of a lesser nature. The lower cannot replace the higher. Analogous to Satan and Man trying to usurp God's throne. So what liberalism actually is, is nothing else but a universalization of nobility. Mass politics, mass militarization, etc. follow from that because statecraft and martial matters are traditional aristocratic occupations. Again, analogous to random protestant preachers who play-pretend they are popes. Nobility, or noble nature, both of spiritual (clergy) and temporal (aristocracy) kind, being universalized opens the doors for lesser natures to state and church power, thus degrading them as a consequence of not being fit to fulfil the roles they arrogantly assumed in their delusion. Btw., you're wrong about equality being the driving force behind communism. It's actually freedom. Equality is just a means for all people to attain freedom. It all stems from a rejection of higher authority, ultimately God. Communism is actually a libertine and an individualistic ideology that seeks to divorce Man from all of his relational axes because they determine him. It's deeply anti-social and kinda solipsistic, tha't why it seeks to destroy religion, state, blood, family, etc., divorce him from everything organic that connects him to the greater whole.
Both traditional and modern politics are flawed. Ancient regimes were not always stable and flourishing as represented in reactionary circles: just look at all the wars (for succession, for imposing a religion, for conquering a disputed territory and so on). Re: communism, it wants to destroy the state only in theory. In a communist state the state is supreme and it wants to abolish or control every other societal institution. Communism is about freedom, yes, but in a twisted way, not in a genuine one. Their freedom is the freedom to do as they please, disregarding the nature of man. It's the so called positive freedom. The driving force of communism is also equality, they want to level everything at the lowest common denominator. They get mad at differences between people. Fascism is obviously different, but it also wants complete domination of society by regulating every aspect of it. I think we still don't have an explanation of everything, because for every good theory I read, there's always some argument against it.
Just one question. The idea of 'the lower cannot replace the higher' - what about peasants with great intellectual potential and inbred lords who lead their troops into certain death out of idiocy/arrogance etc. This is what fuels the likes of communism. People can see that the (so-called) meritocracy of the feudal system is not 100 percent genuine. Sometimes the peasants are stupid only because they have purposefully been put down
Great take. Thank you for pointing out that libertarianism and free markets are left-wing; this is hard to drill into the heads of many on the dissident right.
Every time I watch one of your videos RUclips immediately gives me a Jordan Peterson video on autoplay. Additionally when I search "Charlemagne" RUclips will show me videos of yours that I already watched, but not your Channel itself
The society that emerges when the people follow the natural order recognized by that particularly society, free of suppression and oppression of its natural tendencies, and allowed to build itself based on what knows is real and true rather than going against nature, or against God, if you like.
But so did many societies back then. America can be called anti egalitarian from its very founding until a few decades after WW2. Where gays, women's, amerinidians, and blacks weren't allowed equal rights.
Your robotic delivery is very distracting to an otherwise interesting video. I also felt like you tried too hard to name this video "A Genealogy of Liberalism", rather than something more accurate like "A review of the influence of continental liberalism in the western world since the French Revolution".
“The crisis of values” - yes! These “third position” pseudo Nozis will NEVER talk about the state of the novel, the symphony or the Mass. All you get is political economy, all day and all the time.
National Socialism is state sponsored oligarchy’s, but where super normal profits must be divested to benefit the nation. It’s limited competition, dictated by government contracts, but it is privately run, just government dictated, it doesn’t allow for profits to leave the country or to be invested in non productive national activity. It’s very different to U.K. style Nationalisation, which is just Socialist/Communist Command economics.
“For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” -Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn
The French Revolution was influenced by the American revolution, which was an outgrowth of the English civil war. We can probably stretch this back to the Renaissance.
Definitely. And the humanistic rationalism of the Rennaisance was itself an overreaction in defiance of the "Faith Alone" nature of the Reformation.
The last time that societies consistently shifted to the right wing was prior to the Reformation. Eg. Consider the Holy Roman Empire from 1000 AD to 1400 AD, became more of what we would consider 'Right Wing.' It consolidated power in traditional hierarchies, became more religious as a culture, etc.
@@rolandderoncesvalles6142
Indeed. And I'm a staunch Protestant. A Calvinist, in fact. So I know most neoreactionaries will look at me dirty. But I don't care. I'll be honest and recognize the roots of leftism as being centered in bastardized Protestantism (starting with the Whigs).
And I'm bound and determined to make sure my future children know the dangers of viewing Christianity as a force for creating material Heaven on earth (a la Wilson's Social Gospel). I will teach my children that people are NOT equal, that there will ALWAYS be poor, unfortunate, or marginalized people, that THEY may be among them, but that it's okay. That eternity and the Great Commission matter more than life's infinite injustices (real, percieved, or imagined) or unequal material conditions. I'll make sure they read and understand Ecclesiastes, realize that even if they do everything right, nothing in this life is as reliable as a scientific experiment. That we shouldn't try to scientifically quantify God or His will, that it's okay that life isn't fair or perfect.
That the soul matters. This life doesn't.
All problems date back to the invention of the wheel.
For an English-speaking "Dark Enlightenment" dude, all the problems date to the English Civil War; for Aleksandr Dugin, it date to the late Middle/Early Modern Period transition in Western Europe.
This is a great essay. Does it exist in written form? I am genuinely envious. I feel like I need to up my game to keep up.
@JustWatch124 schnitzel
Embrace monarchism fool lol
Just read The Anti-Globalist Manifesto. It's better anyway. And read the old works of The Handbook of Traditional Living by Raido, and The Handbook for Rightwing Youth by Evola, for traditional ideas that preceded the new reading or work.
"The current Zeitgeist of the Western Man is consumerism/egalitarianism. If we were to wish away internationalism, the West would re-assemble right back into the same thing".
My god...we really are like Zarathustra.
what do you mean we are like Zarathustra?
Glad to see the refutation of the “all we have to do is get rid of the left” mindset.
Too many people don’t seem to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. The masses aren’t simply being told to be consumers, they’ve been shaped into such a form, and, sadly, many are beyond repair.
I think the next major step is recognizing that many humans would prefer to be lazy and live placid lives if that option is given to them. Since slavery is immoral, what has been created is a willing slave class.
Arkana Certainly. What term could describe a perpetual welfare recipient better than “ballot slave.”
The physical exertion and legal immobility may be less than the serviles of ages past, but, functionally speaking, they echo the same actions, obey the master to retain protections.
100% agreed.
But this brings up the problem of "the blank slate". If we aren't a blank slate, like communism etc presupposes, that just need to have the correct thinking written on them, but instead genes play a role in how we think, then why wouldn't people revert back to a more traditional lifestyle, the moment cultural pressure, and the inertia that it brings with it, on them being "progressive" disappears?
@@lamename2010 because to a degree our genetics have been changed by this process, or at least the development of them throughout our lives has. People's hormone levels have been noted to be different now than from before. I mean heck, we can't expect people who started trans ops in the delusions of the modern world to be able to become proper people in continuity with humanity past, even those who were deluded by their parents and other institutions and now regret it, they are irreversibly changed biologically. Maybe it would take a few generations separated from modernity for it to not even have an effect, but it can't happen instantly with the people we have now.
These videos are so criminally underrated. I find myself returning again and again to revise and reabsorb
All of this talk of revolution, liberalism, and Hitler is too much. I just wanna grill for God's sake!
Not to mention proper turf maintenance, the tall fescue isn’t going to tame itself.
Grilling is consumerism
@@fearlessleader343 what exactly do we have to eat then? What is not consumerism?
@@mehderharar5927 Everything is consumerism. Just be an ascetic subsisting off of dead leaves. Based Jainism
All of this talk of revolution, liberalism, and Hitler is too much. I just wanna COOM for ALEX LINK's sake!
Very interesting. I like your voice and machine-like cadence. Easy to listen to and learn!
Lenin not only lived in Paris france, but also in Pornic. Interestingly, Pornic is very near the vendée region where the people of France, which overwhelmingly disagreed with the revolution (the bourgeois and parisian nature of the revolution is a subject you would like to explore, i believe). The entire region was genocided by the central power, kids were thrown alive in ovens, troups would parade in towns with babies on their bayonets, an actual process of human skin tanneries existed (contrary to some other claims those human skin pants still exist today). Suffice to say Lenin is reputed to have learned a lot about Vendée and its repression, using it as an example and a future model. Interrestingly similar atrocities would surface after WW2, but only with testimonies and findings from the soviet occupied zones. One wonders at how coincidental would that be.
Pardon my broken english.
Wow, do you have a link or some sources for further reading?
@@reilysmith5187 Vendée vengé, Lénin inventor of totalirianism by sechéer and Courtois. Mind you they don't approach it that way, I just put 2 and 2 together, needs to be dug into.
When I was a kid in history class, we watched a documentary on the French Revolution. When I saw even the whitewashed version of what happened from the History Channel, I knew I could never have sympathy with the Left. Only a Godless Heathen could sympathize with such barbarism.
The whole equality, fraternity, liberty enlightenment beliefs and how it bled into all forms of modern government is something i have been saying for a long time and have never heard anyone even try to articulate it. This is a great video. I, at least, feel like im not the only soul screaming truth into the void.
The people who push liberalism endlessly and democracy, just so happen to own the means of democracy. the mass media and cultural shaping technologies. Those who most adamantly believe in the blank slate, believe they know best what must go on the slate. A coincidence?
Nothing is coincidental in politics
They do not believe in the blank slate, but they do wield it as a useful fiction because it becomes a weapon to wield against those those that have the potential to be exceptional.
This essay is a great foundation for the statement and argument: "liberalism in America has been cracked in 2" and divided between the Inner (Democratic) and Outer (Republican) parties.
that Oswald Mosley picture is badass
By far one of the most enjoyable videos I have seen in a while. Thank you
I have been awaiting this video for a long time
I think this conflict is never ending, as it's just inherent to human nature and how societies/power structures construct themselves over time.
I got way too excited when I saw this episode, your channel is such a hidden Gem
Finally a new video! That's a much appreciated and an important one. Brilliant take.
Thanks and God Bless!
Great content. I agree that most western people's spirit has been destroyed. We truly are in an Evolian way "the men among the ruins".
BuT whAt AbOuT Thomas Sowell
- Liberal, probably.
What do you mean?
He is liberal
I don't think it is so much of a blackpill. I just think we need to abandon the notion of "if we just implement X system when we get in power everything will be fixed". That is pragmatically never going to work. If we just keep the successful tactic of the left of keeping trajectory and momentum, but for us go rightward, then as long as we are gradually improving then we are not lost.
Cthulhu always swims left. You cannot implement incrementalism towards the right.
@@wolframsteindl2712 I disagree with moldbug. Not only on this, but in general. Yes it is true that systems and groups get worse over time, but that is only in general and it varys in degree and time table.
This whole thing is actually more white pill than black pill. Yes it doesn’t just take “getting rid of the left” to change the direction of culture. But in dealt to change the direction of the culture, as impressionable as they are, is to change the regime, that way when the cathedral is replaced people’s beliefs will be changed almost just as fast. Everything is essentially dictated by the cathedral.
@@ColCoal Historically, whenever there was a shift towards the right, it was always done instantly and in large junks, like with the Biedermeier period, fascism, post-war conservatism, etc.; and then what followed were long periods of slow incrementalism towards the left.
I cannot think of a single example in history where there was gradual incrementalism towards the right.
@@wolframsteindl2712 1. Even if that were true, that would mean we would just need the courage to be the first to do it.
2. The fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Roman Empire.
An incredibly substantial video, quite dense, I watched it twice. Thank you and keep up with the good work.
Once broad, numerous professional classes arise that able to voluntarily reach much higher productivity than usual, productivity which is much higher by being unimpeded than not, the brakes are off - you have a tremendous pressure for power to shift in favor of them. Liberalism and democracy are just the most efficient economic and political narratives for that to happen. Of course, democracy hasn't managed create anything in the way of a civilization except for a perpetual civil war, so, from there, power seeks the local maximum efficiency of the managerial pseudo-democracies of today.
As technological advances raise and polarize the base requirements for someone to be a net contributor to society, the effective professional middle class, who collectively hold the bulk of power, grows into a minority smaller and smaller, and its interests diverge from those of a growing client class. There's no incentive to maintain democ...uhm, "populist" pretenses anymore. You just need a convincing narrative to develop for the transitional shift into an oligarchic plutocracy. Maybe this is the fallout from corona-chan, maybe this is apocalyptic environmentalism, maybe this is China taking over the US, or maybe this is something else, but the incentives are too strongly aligned - an excuse will be found and stamped by Science (tm), which already takes precedence over popular opinion.
This seems deceptively similar, but is in reality distinct from a rogue state going into a maladaptive path due to individual elite interests diverging from ideological group interests and causing a collapse into itself (Soviets). The elite power grabs of today are not acting to its own collective detriment, they're acting to its benefit.
I'm no materialist, but I don't think any ideology can circumvent or establish itself against these overwhelming tendencies. Any meme that has serious intentions of seizing influence has to find a way to conform to the mold of that incentive field. Idealistic value politics and their associated catalogs of labels that don't pander to human preferences that are revealed rather than stated are bound to fail. Trying to salvage values is important to one's own life and his direct surroundings, but a broad change of direction for the world seems unlikely.
I somewhat agree with the first paragraph.
was not ready for that bugman blackpill at the end
Another great deep dive into the liberal world I hope you come as big as other pillar of right wing RUclips more, people need to see this
This video is quite based on political theory incorrect assumptions.
What? Egalitarian means among other things equality in front of law and the principle of equal treatment by public institutions.
Among other things.
That is unnatural
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 que?
@@vladanlausevic1733 ??
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 Did you fail freshman year Spanish or something?
19:17 Excellent point! And great video! Will you review Men Among The Ruins?
i hope so!
Could you please send me a link to the source of the political trichotomy at 2:05 in your video? It is a brilliantly accurate visual representation.
I’m pretty much a hard classical liberal, but I’m here to get outside my bubble a bit and explore new ways of thinking. I largely agree with most of the criticisms here of modern liberal democracy, but what exactly is being offered as a viable alternative? Is there a video I may watch that sums it up?
ruclips.net/video/RHia8k8Bi7c/видео.html
This man’s whole channel his elite theory book and all are pretty good
You've got a long way to go... keep going down the rabbit hole.
It is not Egalitarian to think that people can evolve,as it is in Man's nature to aspire to go towards Perennial values(even if just in a subconscience/instinctual way),if we got rid of Internationalism,people would slowly but surely revert to the way they are hardwired biologically and spiritually(differently of course,Europe at heart was always more Aristocratic then the US for instance,I don't see Monarchy ever being established in America)you underestimate Human Nature(Blank Slate fallacy),also in just the 3 years since the release of this vid,ever since Oct 7th 2023,we've been witnessing Americanism ie-International Liberal Democracy being challenged both in the US and outside of it,things that were unthinkable to ever question just 4 years ago are no longer sacred cows,who knows what will be in another 10 or 15 years?History and Human Nature aren't as static as you present them to be,and lastly,even without all of the above,this system is just not sustainable in the long run anymore,just look at the type of people this society produces ie-Zoomers most of them will end up poor,unqualified for any profession,unmarried with no children and with a weak personality incompatible with the harshness of the system(the competitiveness of liberalism)that created them,it'll just crumble from within,with time.
Just wanted to say your video's are fantastic and very interesting listening....
Great video as always
Many thanks for these videos!
Every bad idea is French. Had me there
"Charlemagne" is incorrect when he says the new governments of the 20th century moved only as far left as necessary to attain totalitarian powers. For example, the Communist Party did not further secure its power by persecuting the Church and promoting atheist propaganda instead of allying itself with the clergy, murdering or starving en masse its most productive farmers, and collectivizing its agriculture which further reduced agricultural productivity and food security. All of these policies made its rule less secure, not more secure, so the Communists definitely implemented more hard left policies than they needed to secure their control over society.
It makes more sense when you look at it as policies of revenge. The diaspora that implemented communism definitely has an axe to grind against against the church and the native populations they sought to subvert.
You're correct, it made their rule less secure but hey, you don't get the boot 109 times because you play the game well. Their hubris is always their undoing.
I liked these videos. I'm a fan of bloody shovel. Our stream is long overdue ;)
Can we be sure that the culpability is in only these ideologies?
What if it's just people being incompetent or corrupt and thus creating the conditions for such ideologies to thrive? Resentments going unaddressed and being left to fester. That is the crime of the ancien regimes. They failed to meet the specific challenges of their time so egregiously that there isn't much apology that can even be made for them.
Consistent ruling class? How about a competent one that understands its responsibility.
the culpability is in the d*vil you and those ideologies serve. It is easy to defend what is right, you pre-emptively declaring there is no defense just speaks on you and nothing else.
The fact that a part of the ruling classes of the ancient regimes was corrupt, irresponsible, selfish and undeserving of their social status (which is certainly and sadly true ) does not justify the abuses of the revolution. It makes them more comprehensible, but two wrongs never make a right.
We should make a distinction between a system in itself and the people who are part of that system.
@@JPX7NGD By just attacking the, you're acting like the same revolutionaries you say you hate.
i don't fully agree with him, but if I want to debate with him, at least I do it civilly.
So, changing the subject. I do believe that if there is a revolution, be it for best of for worse, there was a reason, you can't just tell the people ¨Hey, let's behead the king¨, if they don't hate the king already, remember that although the French revolution was leaded by educated people, the foot soldiers were common people, much like communist revolutions.
So, I agree with him in that the system must have been corrupt enough for people to hate it and overthrow it, and let's face it, every political system, regardless of its leaning *will* have a corrupt period, the difference is, in old style governments this corruption would eventually end, in democracy it's harder, it can happen, but since the leading ¨cultured¨ members of the system know how to convince the populace, which is still largely politically illiterate even if most of them have easy access to information, then the cycle is incredibly hard to break.
But I don't think that it was the system that failed (Remember the Pax Romana), but the members of it, and the revolutionaries, on this point in time, had the ideological and material tools to actually take the chance and make the passing sentiment of resentment into the catalyst for their ambition to take over the monarchy and become the new corrupt ruling elite themselves, but this time, there would be no easy end to it, since they can just repeat the process between them saying ¨the left is the devil¨, or ¨The right is the devil¨, take over without losing manpower due to carnage (Because heh democracy good) through voting instead of an armed takeover (civil war is bad for business).
I hope op can debate me civilly, I woul love to hear his ideas on this.
Arthas, "This Entire city must be purged"
Nice Dragoš Kalajić paintings!
"care for the nation" ? In which way, by which values and policies?
Anyone have that one Political triangle chart he shows in this?
There is a good version here electowiki.org/wiki/Three_Telos_Model
Could you talk about Freemasonry in your next video?
They were in the back of my mind the whole video, especially since Adam Weishaupt's Order of the Illuminati was very active in organizing revolutionary movements in France prior to the French Revolution, and the structure and ritual of the order was based on his experiences as a Jesuit and a Mason. Many of the Founding Fathers were either Masons or Deists too.
I like this gentleman, but I fear he puts too much stress on political ideologies acting upon people as opposed to people acting upon political ideologies. There are individuals behind the curtain pulling the strings - there always have been and there always will be - and they must, for the sake of self-preservation, bind themselves to one another with oaths of secrecy. Herewith a quotation from the historian Guido Preparata's excellent work 'Conjuring Hitler' where he talks about the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC);
'So-called ‘democracy’ is a sham - the ballot a travesty. In modern bureaucratized systems, whose birth dates from the mid-nineteenth century, the feudal organization has been carried to the next level, so to speak. A chief objective of what Thucydides referred to in his epoch as synomosiai (literally ‘the exchangers of oaths’), that is, the out-of-sight fraternities acting behind the ruling clans, has been to make the process of the extraction of rents from the population (a ‘free income’ in the form of rents, financial charges and like thefts) as unfathomable and impenetrable as possible.'
God youre brilliant. Thank you
The quote about socialists belongs to Gregor Strasser (another Nazi politician). You should check the quotes beforehand or they will be used against you.
He is not a nazi
There are some things in this video I must disagree with, I might have to make a response video
Silence femoid
You could start, perhaps, by challenging the absence of agency in this gentleman's analysis of the French Revolution. He states;
'Whilst the English Civil War and the American Revolutions certainly foreshadowed the violence that liberalism was capable of producing, the French Revolution was truly where liberalism evolved from the idea of fairness in government and freedom in economics to a more radical set of ideas that were the seeds of the ultimate destruction of liberalism, and those are liberte, fraternite and egalite.'
The great Mrs Nesta Helen Webster tore this superficial analysis to pieces a hundred years ago in 'World Revolution' (1921) page 32 refers;
'Hitherto, the isolated revolutions that had taken place throughout the history of the world can clearly be recognized as spontaneous movements brought about by oppression or by a political faction enjoying some measure of popular support and therefore endeavouring to satisfy the demands of the people. But in the French Revolution, we see for the first time that plan in operation which has been carried on right up to the present moment - the systematic attempt to create grievances in order to exploit them.'
Who formed and enacted the plan and did so again in 1917? They left us a clue - scrawled on the wall of the cellar in which the Romanovs were tortured to death;
“Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht / Von seinen Kuechter umgebracht”
(Balthazar was, on the same night, killed by his slaves).
@@thequintonsatyricon i may take a glance at that book
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 Please do. 101 years have now passed since its publication, yet the significance of its insights continue to evade even highly intelligent, well-read commentators such as Charlemagne.
@@thequintonsatyricon I will, and what is the inclination of the author? Liberal?
Very good video!
This your very best video. Excellent explanation to your thesis.
The last few minutes are something I was always sure of. I was always sure that the who "Bugman" smear was a rather cheap one. If bugmanism is about a fascination with things that are efficient, is anybody enthusiastic about buying something that hogs fuel or electricity?
Good the video, the only thing I disagree with is the comments on Napoleon. France was already at war when he came to power, and the majority of the wars after that were declared on him, not the other way around.
What are your thoughts on National service?
Service guarantees citizenship
4:06 slavery: the last taboo, the condemnation of which requires no evidence or reason. That is, we're open to questioning everything here ... but not the evil of slavery. It's so self-evident! Gee... why couldn't everyone else for thousands of years see it the way we do?
Or the Holocaust, for that matter
Yeah, slavery isn't evil for the slave owner. Slavery was only truly abolished in the West after it's economic usefulness greatly diminished. If our present day economy still required slavery for free people to maintain their standard of living, they would embrace all sorts of philosophical rationalizations for why slavery is actually morally right.
@@randyjones3050 i don't think it is morally wrong, as long as the slave is well-fed and well treated
@@MALICEM12 it is different
Slavery had different forms an example of this is Turko Mongol slavery where if one became a slave for a rich Turk than there was a huge chance that he would recieve hige sums of wealth and power after the death of owner.
Left = universalism
Right = tribalism, essentialism
Center = individualism
@Antonio David for me techno is extreme centrism
@@pierren___ Yeah. The real right wing believe in clannishness.
10:35 you used paintings from Dragos Kalajic...as a Serb I need to give this video a like :)
I dont think that these ppl are ur friends.. or to any slav for that matter
@@mostlydead3261 why do you say that? What is your ethnicity?
I wish Keith Woods and others would listen to this and take it to heart.
Keith Woods commented on this video half a year before you did and called it «excellent».
@@Vingul he obviously didn’t take it to heart…
@@johnqpublic3766 hehe, thought you might say that. I doubt you’ve even properly listened to Third Positionists, though. They talk about art, beauty, morality, values and so on very often. Much more than they talk about economic matters. Perhaps you’re mistaking them for libertarians, if that’s possible.
@Bob X didn’t giggle, you massive, massive homosexual.
@Bob X No.
salus populi suprema lex esto: the antidote to liberte egalite fraternite
Christianity is the only force we have left to shape men into creatures with a purpose beyond consumption.
What about paganism?
What's the source for pics in 10:30 onward?
such a great video
Very interesting, and very dense.
One thing I don't understand is why you think the people of today would not benefit from another from of government. Why do you think the changes you mentioned would lead back to the status quo? If we grant that such a regression is possible, what would lead us to think it was more likely than not? And what is the mechanism by which living under an older form would potentially replenish our depleted spirit?
I think these guys, Charlemagne, Distributist, Moldbug... would prefer a return to a Monarchal style government. A bit more nationalist, with a leader invested in the success of the nation over the long run... But i am still workign to absorb their ideas a bit better.
@@RecoveringMidwit yes, Moldbug made the point that corporations have a monarchial style of governance, where CEOs have more discretionary power over the entire organization than a President or Prime Minister has. But you don't need to agree with all of their prescriptions to gain valuable insight from them about how the world works, and how the narratives spread by the governing class are developed. This too is an alternative right wing outlook.
Cause entire system down to every bit of media and academia is designed to support liberalism. In order to fix the society we'd have to cleanse the entire nation of liberalism
Hayek was an early neo-liberal as well.
Who's the guy in upper right corner at 1:38 ?
"Elites of liberal-democracies". Basically you are promoting populism here and populism is = collectivism.
Nationalism = patriotism = collective identity, which is Collectivism of a sort.
@@TheWayoftheSith the thing is that "patriotism" can be multi-level. You can be a world patriot and local patriot but nationalism is always about the nation
You should debate Cultured Thug
@19:45 "Billions Must Die"
You need to ditch the trichotomy, it's incoherent. Libertarianism and free markets aren't on the right, they're firmly on the left. The incoherence of the trichotomy muddles what would otherwise be a great video, and a very needed one in DR circles. It's not a question of liberty being connected to aristocracy, equality to clergy and fraternity to masses. All three of those notions you talk about (liberty, fraternity, equality) are actually aristocratic. It's the King Arthur legends. Aristocrats as freemen, sitting at a round table, a brotherhood of knights. The fundamental shift is in expanding such notions beyond the nobility to the rest of society. In usurping the traditional order, the third estate had to embrace the role of the traditional elite. Problem being they were never sufficient for it because they were of a lesser nature. The lower cannot replace the higher. Analogous to Satan and Man trying to usurp God's throne. So what liberalism actually is, is nothing else but a universalization of nobility. Mass politics, mass militarization, etc. follow from that because statecraft and martial matters are traditional aristocratic occupations. Again, analogous to random protestant preachers who play-pretend they are popes. Nobility, or noble nature, both of spiritual (clergy) and temporal (aristocracy) kind, being universalized opens the doors for lesser natures to state and church power, thus degrading them as a consequence of not being fit to fulfil the roles they arrogantly assumed in their delusion.
Btw., you're wrong about equality being the driving force behind communism. It's actually freedom. Equality is just a means for all people to attain freedom. It all stems from a rejection of higher authority, ultimately God. Communism is actually a libertine and an individualistic ideology that seeks to divorce Man from all of his relational axes because they determine him. It's deeply anti-social and kinda solipsistic, tha't why it seeks to destroy religion, state, blood, family, etc., divorce him from everything organic that connects him to the greater whole.
Both traditional and modern politics are flawed. Ancient regimes were not always stable and flourishing as represented in reactionary circles: just look at all the wars (for succession, for imposing a religion, for conquering a disputed territory and so on).
Re: communism, it wants to destroy the state only in theory. In a communist state the state is supreme and it wants to abolish or control every other societal institution. Communism is about freedom, yes, but in a twisted way, not in a genuine one. Their freedom is the freedom to do as they please, disregarding the nature of man. It's the so called positive freedom. The driving force of communism is also equality, they want to level everything at the lowest common denominator. They get mad at differences between people.
Fascism is obviously different, but it also wants complete domination of society by regulating every aspect of it.
I think we still don't have an explanation of everything, because for every good theory I read, there's always some argument against it.
Interesting take. Sounds very Evola-esque
@@contekozlovski Also a good take
Just one question. The idea of 'the lower cannot replace the higher' - what about peasants with great intellectual potential and inbred lords who lead their troops into certain death out of idiocy/arrogance etc. This is what fuels the likes of communism. People can see that the (so-called) meritocracy of the feudal system is not 100 percent genuine. Sometimes the peasants are stupid only because they have purposefully been put down
Great take. Thank you for pointing out that libertarianism and free markets are left-wing; this is hard to drill into the heads of many on the dissident right.
Scruton supported right-wing collectivists as Orban and even promoted racist opinions. Scruton was not some freedom fighter nor an individualist.
He was not that conservative
Standardization =/= customisation.
Every time I watch one of your videos RUclips immediately gives me a Jordan Peterson video on autoplay.
Additionally when I search "Charlemagne" RUclips will show me videos of yours that I already watched, but not your Channel itself
Those sure are some thoughts that you have in your head.
What exactly is an organic society?
The society that emerges when the people follow the natural order recognized by that particularly society, free of suppression and oppression of its natural tendencies, and allowed to build itself based on what knows is real and true rather than going against nature, or against God, if you like.
@@Charlemagne_III Can we call it pro-nomian?
So, consistent with their aspirations, emotions and instincts, and disciplined impulses.
Couldn't agree more.
Time to out the establishment ... who they are , what they own ... and a little history lesson on Ham from the Talmud.
The conclusion is really tough to swallow and sadly true
Listen at x.75 for proper comprahension
Love the video, but check the audio it’s not properly balanced
Why can nobody in these spheres say Ancien Régime properly? Jeez
He posts up a picture of Oswald mosley and his fascists and says 'it's perfectly normal'..
Wtf dude
excellent video Charlemagne
Hi about our encounter on the stream of academic agent. I'd be back to you with cercle richelieu.
Are you the artist formerly know as "the leftovers"
Nationa-socialism was not egalitarian. Partly because Hitler and others had extreme discriminatory policies as against Jews and other "non-Germans".
A bit here and there.
But so did many societies back then. America can be called anti egalitarian from its very founding until a few decades after WW2. Where gays, women's, amerinidians, and blacks weren't allowed equal rights.
@@TheWayoftheSith well, yes because it was a contextual development and is still an important lessons learned from history
Kako li Dragoševe slike završiše ovde? Nije da im nije ovde mesto.
United Colors of Benetton.
Where did the discord channel go?
Your robotic delivery is very distracting to an otherwise interesting video. I also felt like you tried too hard to name this video "A Genealogy of Liberalism", rather than something more accurate like "A review of the influence of continental liberalism in the western world since the French Revolution".
“The crisis of values” - yes! These “third position” pseudo Nozis will NEVER talk about the state of the novel, the symphony or the Mass. All you get is political economy, all day and all the time.
That’s just false.
6:37 “…everyone reduce to the same level of prosperity”…the socialism understander has entered chat. Do some real reading before you spout bs.
"my special snowflake flavor of socialism would let trillionaires KEEP their goodies, actually...."
@ have you read Marx?
National Socialism is state sponsored oligarchy’s, but where super normal profits must be divested to benefit the nation.
It’s limited competition, dictated by government contracts, but it is privately run, just government dictated, it doesn’t allow for profits to leave the country or to be invested in non productive national activity.
It’s very different to U.K. style Nationalisation, which is just Socialist/Communist Command economics.
Fascism in old sense, can work.
True, Trump is an example of right-wing collectivism
What is the restored form you are talking about? What is the restauration?
It must be Catholicism! Nothing else will do.
4:09 "the use of slave labor...is a BLACK mark..."
i see what you did there ;)
Cool
Almost all forms of salvationist-egalitarian-liberationist leftist philosophy can be traced back to the French Revolution, specifically Jacobinism.
Buen video
Bioleninism+Calvinism= every modern problem
Ditch the trichotomy, it's nonsense.
Imperium Press has a better Trichotomy now. It's called Vitalism, or the pagan tradition, Clannishness, and folk accelerationism.
Blackpilled again.
In another words, embrace Dugin and 4PT.
Starship Troopers got it right.