The Postliberal Right - Michael Nayna & Professor Eric Kaufmann
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Last year, I sat down with Professor Eric Kaufmann to discuss a new intellectual movement that I noticed gaining traction on the political right, both in a buttoned-down academic form and a more eclectic network of self-employed or anonymous thinkers innovating wildly at the edges of a digital hivemind. Some call this movement "the New Right," others "Postliebralism".
I filmed our discussion and turned it into a short film, which has been behind a paywall until now. Given that predictions made in our chat have come to bear and the movement has found a path to the Whitehouse via J.D. Vance, I thought I would make it public.
If you'd like some updated analysis on postliberalism and how it relates to J.D. Vance you can find it on my main platform -
www.michaelnayna.com/p/the-maga-metamorphosis
Please consider supporting my work there.
Featured Clips Include:
Patrick Deneen with Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Regime Change and the Future of Liberalism
Patrick Deneen with Reset DOC - The Rise of Populism Comes from the Failure and Success of Liberalism
Patrick Deneen with The Theology Pugcast - Episode 258
Patrick Deneen with Irreverend - Regime Change
Yoram Hazony with Unherd - The case for National Conservatism in the UK
Yoram Hazony with The Hoover Institution - Rediscovers Conservatism
Yoram Hazony with Natcon - After the Revolution - What Happens Next
Chris Rufo with The Manhattan Institute - The Blueprint for Recapturing the Public Universities
Sohrab Ahmari with Natcon - Neoliberal Nowhere-Land
Academic Agent - Smashing the Boomer Truth Regime - • Smashing the Boomer Tr...
Ron DeSantis with Forbes - Vows To Kneecap ESG
Curtis Yarvin with Justin Murphy - • Curtis Yarvin Live at ...
#postliberalsm #NewRight #EricKaufmann #MichaelNayna #MikeNayna #JDVance #Populism #postliberal #Postliberalism
I would like to agree with Kaufman about the neutrality of institutions, but I just don't believe that is actually achievable. The problem with neutrality is that it only works if all parties agree, but it seems like it can't be enforced against a small group determined to undermine that neutrality. How do we avoid ending up in precisely the same place as we are now?
@@zachrabun7161 You've hit on the most salient issue here, I think. The postliberals have aimed a lot of intellectual firing power at making the case that neutral institution = unicorn. The Woke don’t believe in it either and have subverted liberal procedure to capture them to illiberal ends. All this makes those calling for liberal procedure look like a referee blowing a whistle at a bar fight.
Clearly defined and easily communicated principles. They need to be simple, articulable and as fundamental (there would only be few of them) as possible.
Self-sovereignty, limited by the right to your property or the fruits of your labor, seems like a start. Actually, it seems like the fundamental concept.
This would end all government coercion (including involuntary taxes, like income tax) except when it’s necessary to protect an individual’s life, limb or property.
A lot of government agencies would necessarily disappear as the result of adhering to these concepts as well, so would government-run social welfare and a great deal of other marketplace interventions.
@@MikeNayna the woke are the logical offsprings of liberalism. Just like libertarianism and all of the left is. The logical progression from liberalism to these movements is quite clear in careful analysis in retrospect.
The postliberals right now are making the better case. Liberalism served its purpose and it's pass overdue we do away with it now.
Having been raise in and educated in by the Roman Catholic tradition, the OG of Cathedral institutions, and *_THEN_* having studied the Bible out of the entire quagmire of human-entangled admired men of renown (specifically meaning I was a Roman Catholic *_UNTIL I READ & studied the Bible_* which exposes the lies and hypocrisies of men claiming God's authority over other men) the very problem you are referring to of human competing against human for neutrality or authority..., I can answer your question very simply, by submitting to the authority of the AUTHOR of Life: God and His Word.
We *_do_* have ONLY ONE SINGLE Creator God speaking to mankind in the first person revealing His will for His creation in all of recorded history.. He has revealed Himself and made very simple laws, written on ALL our hearts (which is why the the thief in the furthest unreached regions as well as the thief in downtown London BOTH go under cover of night: they instinctively know to thieve is wrong).. But men do not want to submit to the authority of God. Men love darkness because their deeds are evil for every who loves TRUTH comes to the LIGHT that their deeds may be made manifest as being wrought in God. So, this battle between those who submit to God's authority and those who pursue to possess God's authority and rebel will not end until His Kingdom come and those who hate Him, His enemies are separated from those who love Him.
So, to answer your question, we do not "avoid ending up in precisely the same place as we are now" because this is ultimately about the Authority of the AUTHOR of life over His image-bearers and His creation and those who want to CLAIM that authority for themselves over others. This is why the very premise of the USA declaring its independence was anchored in the self-evident truth that individual man's rights are inextricably endowed by his CREATOR, those who seek to usurp that authority of the AUTHOR of life are the ENEMY of both mankind and GOD ... ALL the great men of renown ("influencers") from Jesus to Saul Alinsky, from Lennon to Lenin, from Marx to Mohamed have recognized this. Man is either in submission to to the AUTHORITY of God or he is in active pursuit of it, in rebellion... the nations will rage until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and *_then and only then_* will every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
If you have not studied the Bible for yourself, you may want to wonder why.
I’m relieved by the post liberal movement. We live in societies with family and neighborhoods and fellow citizens. We have a responsibility to them and a duty to their service as spouses, parents, uncles, friends, neighbors, and so on.
How's that Amy different from those not part of this movement? They have families and live in society with neighbors and have citizenship duties to their fellow Americans too. Which is what this illiberal movement is trying to take away from all of them and from you.
Excellent video! Thanks for posting!
Sad that Nanya does not get more exposure. He hovers right over the key players and ideas around the Replacement Ideology.
Folks, if, like me, you thought this was poorly put together with the video jumping from one scenen to another, with no clear idea of who is interviewing whom, stay with it for a few minutes and it will become clear that the two people talking are referring back to conversations about which (about whose topics) they are talking.
It turns out to be a very worthwhile listen, in my opinion.
A really well crafted tool in helping me disambigiuate what I have always found were confusing trends on the right! I particularly like the unannounced and unexplained cutaways at the precise point at which they ae pertinent to the narrative. I learned quite a bit here, thank you very much
Thanks. Here's a more recent analysis if you're interested - www.michaelnayna.com/p/the-maga-metamorphosis
Great work, seconding Mario's comment. Minor point - it would be helpful if the source/speaker was referenced on screen during the background clip. I wasn't familiar with some of them.
I've thought about this problem a lot lately. I used to think I had no religion or belief system or moral system other than that humans are born with. I now realize that I had a value system, it was just invisible to me like water is to a fish. My value system is the scientific method. Truth is at the apex of my hierarchy of values with human well-being and prosperity close behind. Valuing the truth for it's own sake and the scientific method is a plausible basis for a society, if it were taught consistently like religion has been. People argue that atheism gave rise to the Soviet Union, that may have played a part, but the Soviet Union was not based on truth, if it was it would have worked. Controversial things sex and race differences and the Pareto principle cannot be ignored under my value system. Can this be applied at scale, I do not know. I think it depends on what percentage of humans have the hardware capable of it.
Have you read the groundbreaking book by Batya Ungar-Sargon, ”Second class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women”? With regard to the lack of post liberalism and cynical theories among the Trump voters. Why are the working class issues so often in scarcity in these otherwise superb intellectual conversations?
And thank you for all your brilliant work Mr Nayna.
I've read it. These people are tools of the corporate overlords that are in conflict with the working class. All the hand-waving and pearl clutching about 'culture', 'woke', etc is a distraction away from working class material concerns like better paying jobs.
Much here to consider. Wow. Thank you Mike!!
There was a time when liberalism knew the difference between reasonableness and didactic iconoclasm.
I think we definitely have to question the merits of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.
This is the kind of intelligent interaction I wasn't getting here so I changed platforms. Thanks.
Did liberalism know, or did the people who supported it know because they were a homogeneous group of practicing Christians who presupposed reasonable truths? Liberalism seems to be a tree that does not recognize its own roots and is indifferent to their destruction.
I love your style Michael, and I love this video
This was outstanding! Very well put together.
The "Dissident internet class"( a term coined in this video) is the side of this movement that I've been most aware of. It's lazy of thinkers to dismiss this because it has been very effective even if it is 'a mile wide and and inch deep', and seems to be responsible for capturing a lot of people.
I've been having trouble getting past the 'inch deep' part because they largely seem content just to make waves and be contrarian and have been somewhat dismayed that a lot of people don't see the lack of depth.
Carl Benjamin's Lotus Eaters people are a case in point. Carl seemed to be successfully improving on his previous 'point and laugh' style (which admittedly brought a lot of success), but then seem to become ideologically barren and grasped for Postliberalism in almost indecent haste. If it was just him then I could put it aside but his fellow LE's now parrot the same stuff too.
He got a whole degree in liberalism. It exposed liberalisms absolutely fatal flaws and he moved into post liberal because he like liberal norms of lack of interference but otherwise sees it as a failure to adhere to reality.
I don't care how someone feels about their identity. So identity is never a choice and liberalism is gone on this one metric
@@FlawlessP401Real liberalism has all the necessary philosophical tools to defend itself. Unfortunately, the world has too many cowards in it.
Please do a follow up on what Eric’s exercise and diet routine is!
Guys 54 and looks 34
I’m open to hearing the ideas of the new right. I’m a boomer. In the 1970s we were taught to assert our rights. But rights come with responsibilities. With responsibilities, comes respect. I hear the far far left today cry: I demand my rights, no responsibility, and respect. And I want to sing them the Sesame Street song: 🎵One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you guess which one is not like the others, before I finish my song? 🎵❤
There is no far far left. There's not even a far left. There's barely a left at all. The only guerillas in the hills lately are right wing leninists that want to burn it all down for fun. So get your basic political science straight first and then get your head out of your ass so you can get a read in the pulse of this environment.
Responsibilities have nothing to do with the constitution, except for upholding the Constitution itself, and respect doesn't have anything to do with either, except for maybe respecting the Constitution. This is where you and much of your generation were fed absolute lies from a trough of slop for the last 50 years. They piled your own shit right back into your heads. What you need is a factory reset of the mind.
Leave people alone. That's all you have to do. Nothing, basically. Gays? Leave them alone. Women? Leave them alone. Blacks? Get the cops to leave them alone. Government leaving people alone.
Do you understand boomer? That is the liberty that is you and everyone else's right. Leave people tf alone. Keep government out of their lives and just let them be.
We are The People too. Dont fuck with us.
This will be interesting....
Excellent work Mike
Influence the culture and you thereby influence the politics. Andrew Breitbart said it best: “Politics is downstream from culture.” Let’s not just philosophize about it; let’s literally take on the culture and transform it!
Also, true individualism is not the problem; it is an essential, even crucial step in human development and evolution. Tribalism is over and done with; it has provided all the training and learning that it can provide for humanity. All that constitutes “wokeness” today is only a form of tribalism, masquerading as individualism.
However, with individual freedom goes radical responsibility, that is, taking up responsibility for oneself and responsibility for your family, neighbors, friends and community. These are all aspects of conscious and self-aware individualism.
You can't take on and transform the culture individually. Culture is a collective concept.
Tribalism is over for who? Not for the Jews, not for the Sikhs, not for the Muslims. White liberals are the only ones doing away with it and they are getting replaced in their own countries.
But culture is downstream from the money power.
Breitbart was funded by Israeli money.
When AA randomly showed up😂
16:42 great point here
As someone from the UK, the comparison of Trump voters and Brexit voters is a projection of the American status quo on the UK. It fundamentally misunderstands the ethnic tensions that underlie the British political system. Northern Ireland voted Remain despite the parties that govern it being pro-Brexit. Scotland voted remain by two thirds; this despite Scotland having had arguably more democratic disconnect from the so-called liberal Westminster parliament, and arguably worse outcomes from industrial decline: it has the worst drug deaths in Europe, it has the worst health outcomes in Europe, and its education system has been in sharp decline for years.
Reading your comment I'd lean toward you not fully understanding or getting a miscategorized impression of the "Trump supporter", and likely looking too much through the media's lens. Same with we here in the US looking at what's going on in Europe or elsewhere.
I support Trump, but I also drop my head with impatience, discouragement, and disappointment nearly every time he speaks. No one on the conservative side likes Trump's character as the egomaniac, womanizer, non-intellectual, etc. To understand Americans who support Trump over here takes studying the last 30+ years of do-nothing RINO Republican rule whose main characteristics are globalists, bought and paid for politicians, war hawks, "fiscal conservatives" (who ironically add just as much debt as the left), country club conservatives who like to "lose with dignity" and not fight socialism but simply slow it down. We support Trump because he's the culminating protest vote after these 30+ years. He's a wrecking ball against the establishment. Not perfect, but just about the best we can do with our current political system and make up.
I suspect the Trump supporter is in fact very similar to brexit supporters, Dutch farmers, German nationalists, etc. Just patriots trying to fight against the collapse of their countries.
I've watched a few videos on this version of the right but haven't come across a key point yet - what is their position on economics? What does a post (neo)liberal economy look like?
If you are a working class white person in America, getting rid of DEI or critical race theory in schools will be perhaps a short lived win and then you're back to your hometown that never recovered after the local factory was offshored
Most of the neo-reactionary (not the entirety of the post liberal right) guys are Silicon Valley types. They want the country run like a corporation with a highly skilled CEO /monarch at the top. You should definitely read Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug. I think most of his stuff is available online but I downloaded his writing in ebook form for 5 bucks. He’s pretty wild.
This PhD clinical psychologist (gay) in Florida really like Rufo & DeSantis
I thought that godawful moaning was someone in the audience in response to the speaker 😂
> overthrow the party of progress
> revolutionary
Little funny ironic bit at the beginning
Not really when the party of progress is in charge of the government and the media.
The dissident right isn't anti-revolutionary, it is counter revolutionary.
@@flacjacket We don't need a counter-revolution. They always fail. We need a revolution of our own. There's a reason why reactionaries lost and fascists took over.
Funny when progress these days looks like regression.
Not all progress is good or beneficial to the public.
Growing and centralizing a behemoth government is not progress.
The institutions have failed us.
In what book did lock say we aren't bound by stuff we don't control? I think they confuze lock being in the same 300 year period as transgenderism as lock with the idea of transgenderism being based on lockian ideas, which would be an impressive mistake
Everybody jumping up and down, touting their grand plans, no one identifying fault in Liberalism that was exploited.
Sovereignty resides with the individual. This is correct, and the purpose of government is to defend that sovereignty.
The free individual can use their freedom to choose to belong to a community with any particular cultural norms.
Any number of communities can coexist, having vividly contrasting cultural norms, and values. Some may choose to incorporate a cosmopolitan multicultural local coexistence, some may have values that require more geographical exclusivity for the members of their community to satisfactorily play out their lives.
What all communities and individuals must have in common while experimenting with life under their overarching liberal democratic republic, is that they have a duty of tolerance.
It is always the function of tolerance that is exploited by would-be usurpers of Liberal democracy. Woke Marxists, Fascists, and religious fundamentalists of almost every creed (but notably Islam, in the current religious climate) all attempt the same manoeuvre, and the degree to which they tend to be successful, depends on the degree to which they manage to hide the ball, but it always comes down to some variation of the same nonsense, with different schemes of camouflage:
You must tollerate our intolerance, or else you are the thing that you think is the most bad.
Hell no.
There is no paradox, there was just a concealed first move.
Tolerance is ‘compelled in the aggregate’ by the political philosophy of Liberalism, but this is no more a contradiction than is ‘living free’, while simultaneously being forever compelled to breath in and out, or sleep every night, or eat and drink.
When you begin to tollerate intolerance to your system of individual sovereignty, under a Liberal government (which must itself be perpetually pruned of the entropic corruption that amnesially sprouts new “worthy” purposes, though its SOLE purpose is to protect the sovereignty of the individual), you begin also to dismantle the bulwark against despair that is the hard won scaffold of your own freedom.
There is no such thing as an individual. You have your name and your blood because of your parents. You speak the language you do because of the people you grew up around. Your tastes are influenced by your society, and you would die of exposure if you were treated as an individual from the get go.
@@hismajesty6272
@@hismajesty6272 If you intend to make the argument that you’re not an individual, I’ll hear you out.
I am an individual. I’m not JUST an individual, obviously. I don’t exist in a vacuum, and if we can’t all recognise that our greatest problems, and our highest achievements, need to be understood on a vastly expanded and interdependent societal level, making good use of the modelling concepts arising from such fields as network theory, for example, then we will, in all probability, fail to solve those problems quite spectacularly, and likely achieve less and less that’s worth crowing about.
But to say, “there is no such thing as an individual” is either obvious and immediately dismissible nonsense, or else dangerous and insidious nonsense; it’s ridiculousness concealed within an emotive ideology of moral subservience to, race, religion, state, or any number of rhetorical conceptual groupings, available to malcontent sophists bent on some form totalism, and their eternal infant acolytes, eager to give up their own control and autonomy, provided it’s taken away from them in a package deal with their tiresome personal responsibilities.
Rights are the rights of the individual, with the least suspicious of these consisting largely of various flavours of non-interference, and all arriving with an implicit array of logically inescapable attendant responsibilities; both to others and to oneself.
There is, granted, something ethereal about them, just as there is something unworldly about morality itself, upon which rights are founded, and from where they get their name.
No doubt this plays a part in the difficulty that those who cast about to no avail, searching for signs of natural rights, or their corollaries, somewhere in the world outside themselves, run into whenever they attempt to wrestle the surety and self evidence of moral rights away from the grip of any of the wide variety of zealots; each claiming that there is no access to morality other than the portal of idiosyncratic dogma, provided by their preferred deity, for the salvation of all devout adherents to whichever fantastic cult of flawed universe modelling it is feverishly believed to benevolently preside over.
If you want something more concrete, slap yourself in the face as hard as you can. That supposedly ‘non-existent’ individual, is the “where’, the ‘when’, and the ‘who to’, of that pain’s existence in reality.
When did another person last strike you? Inflict incontrovertible physical pain upon you personally, without good reason, against your will, using force that you yourself were insufficient to resist, causing you to suffer greatly and unjustly.
That was real.
That, in point of fact, is just about as real as reality is capable of getting.
Reality, squeezing itself mercilessly through the window of the senses, fully manifesting at the only locus we have discovered, or could ever even conceive of, anywhere in the explored or imagined universe: the subjective experience of an individual agent.
It is also as good a ‘place’ as any to begin to look for morality (immorality in this case) out, as it were, in the real world.
As such, it is as good a place as any (and, for my part, the only sensible choice from the available options) to attempt to attach the notion of a ‘right’.
Society (for the most part) agrees that you have a ‘right’ to (among a great many other things) not be violently assaulted by another person without just cause, as it would be a moral wrong for that agent to deliberately molest you in such a way.
This ‘right’ does not have its basis in legislation, in society, in politics, or in religion.
The methodology of the upholding of that right, it’s defence, and the normative procedural arrangements surrounding the particular redress consequences of its infringement, will originate in, and become the most consuming business of all these supra-individual institutions, but the moral basis for the right itself does not, and can not.
Your right, in this case to live unmolested, is grounded firmly, and quite correctly, in your existence as a sentient individual, with the capacity to suffer that only an individual posses.
This foundation can not, and will not, vary or fluctuate with the caprices of human religion, government, or law.
It is beyond argument that without these institutions, or without, at a minimum, some similarly constituted ad-hoc rudimentary cooperative of enforcement, any such right of the individual is, by itself, quite impotent in the face of an indifferent, sufficiently powerful, and actively immoral agent.
However, ‘impotent’ is not the same as ‘meaningless’, unless one is in the thrall of some craven and malevolent ideology.
Only you can suffer, and so only you, as an individual, can be the locus of the moral right to not have suffering unjustly imposed upon you.
As far as secular morality goes, this is pretty much axiomatic. Leaving aside supernatural dogmas, any principled departure from it is, typically, some form of nihilism; either openly so, or in one of its more covert forms, and nihilism, as well as being the quintessential example of ‘not much of an argument’ at the theoretical level, is also pretty poor practical consolation to a proponent in the face of any degree of actual suffering.
In fact, nihilism is one of only a very few doctrines that can be convincingly disproven, to even the most enamoured and informed devotee, with no more sophisticated an argument than a swift and unforeseen kick to the groin.
While the rate of recidivism over the long term is not entirely encouraging, the initial philosophical conversion is invariably both comprehensive and profound.
I like Kaufmann but this nonsense about neutral institutions has to stop. No institution is neutral. In order to defend a liberal principle of "neutrality" you must be pefer liberal ideas to non liberal ideas, ergo your institution is not actually neutral. Another way to understand this is that an institution only has an identity if it can define what it does and does not support, ie the identity of the institution relies on the ability to exclude from itself that which is not of itself ie not neutral.
Except liberal ideals aren't liberal ideas. Ideals are good. They show us an unattainable position but something worth struggling toward.
Liberal ideas are independent of liberal thought. They were a result of Britain's cultural out pouring and Britain has liberal ideals without being ideologically liberal.
9:56 to 10:02 - Good classical tradition point about corrupted leadership.
Pretty good dude
Era of library boom everyone wanted & singularity ,we lived the judge the book by its cover era created a reminiscent faithful following out of it ...it was the oppositional warning to great debate tho so it wasn't something unknown.
It's wild how people become consumed by what they do and how easy it is to fund to continue seeing the world through those lenses with no time & place app under need & demand cause for use .
The greatest contribution computation could give us is a wholistic knowledge interactive education no more myth & men ease of access teaching.
universal operating systems training that relocated specialized semantics of products/ feilds and services/ diciplines into something you learn along the way properly.
Specialized education should be something we go back and do after entering workforce young paying our dues live learn then if we don't want to manage or labor go become a lifer in Academia in your 30s.
And this should take priority over how we form and shape education & computation to come.
I like hearing about these ideas, but the video is a bit disjointed and hard to follow. The arguments need to be fleshed out and tested with good questioning.
I think it's a bit simplistic to suggest that women are lesson board with various post liberal projects because they are more conformist. It seems to me that women who are socially and politically alert are more aware of the ways in which post liberal institutions might dramatically diminish the range of choice available to them. Women certainly don't want to be deracinated. But they also recognize that the traditional communities post liberals seem to want to reestablish or often ones in which women were subordinated. I suspect they tend to think that it's possible to find new forms of shared life that are emancipatory, and that these forms of life are to be preferred to those sought by the post liberals.
I think Postliberalism is still far too young. In the meantime, major structural changes to the US govt is needed and possible without abandoning the design. Such as vastly reducing the size of the federal govt, increasing the power of the individual states, state electoral colleges, making it harder to vote (ex, make it as hard as it is to go to the store and buy some beer), addressing the debt spiral that is going to destroy the nation long before anything else.
This channel makes me self conscious that watching any political video which takes a stance makes me feel i am isolating myself from other perspectives, and contributing to the problem
Kudos for helping me be aware of political polarization
They should call it Post-Materialism because none of the focus is on improving the lives of everyday people in material terms. Saying "liberty", "liberate", etc., over and over again is a distraction away from the complete abandonment or hostility to unions, organizing workers for better work-life balance, improve health outcomes, and similar real material concerns. I have read one of Kaufman's books, Whiteshift.
The National Conservatives HAD a good start because they were focused on issues like industrial policy, as judged by the early articles in American Affairs magazine. Once the NatCons started trying to compete with Trump and MAGA, they lost what made the movement different. Listening to grown men my age and older constantly saying 'woke' is comical, especially when they can't see it was a cynical ploy to blunt any energy the working class could assemble standing up to factions like private equity, and their habit of using leveraged buyouts to takeover healthy companies, load them with debt, suck up the real value, and leave the formerly vibrant companies as a dry husk.
There have been many similar economic left critiques of the postliberals in the comments here, but I think it misses something important. Or perhaps Eric and I brushed over this aspect. The postliberal's are actively adapting and adopting economic left analysis and strategies. Whether they'll pull through or not against the business interests of tech is another thing, but making life materially and culturally better for the working class is a major aspect of the movement - www.michaelnayna.com/p/the-maga-metamorphosis
Comment to feed the algorithm
Considered purely objectively Rufo's record as a college administrator has been dismal, with the quality of applicants plummeting, academics fleeing the school (and indeed the state) resulting in large numbers of vacant posts that can't be filled, and academic students displaced from student accomodation in favor of an athletics program that's driven academic standards down even further.
That would make sense. The rot had set in and those academics and students were the ones festering in it. They bailed out and it takes time to rebuild an institution.
Because Authoritarian Right and Theocratic Right are harder to market. [Kaufmann's Liberal National Conservatism sounds fine, though.]
I am sort off with the Kaufman's, up to an extent with DeSantis (although I think he demonstrated lack of character by bending the knee) or Rufollo. As for the post-liberal right, that is just madness trying to fight off madness. At the end we just have unrestricted and uncontrolled madness. Never ends well.
"lack of character by bending the knee".. I'm not sure to whom DeSantis bent the knee.This Floridian likes the guy alot
@@johnl5316 you know what I am talking about, to Trump.
I won't dispute that he has done a good job in Florida.
Post-liberal conservatives want to legislate social conservatism based on their essentialist understanding of the world. Every thing and everyone has an immutable essence and there are hard boundaries between things. This is why they hate transgenderism so much. Every one has a fixed nature that can never change. Plus, that fixed nature determines one’s station and status in society.
Who edited this?
the strength of progressivism is its universal vision. christianity had a profound universal vision which was what made it so powerful memetically. so far dissidents or reactionaries or whatever you want to call them have no such vision.
That's a strength within the demotistic paradigm, but the real strength is that progressivism or leftism more broadly is entropic while the right is extropic. It's always easier to roll the ball down hill.
The right of course needs a positive vision, as it right now is unified only by its diagnosis, but that shared vision really only needs to sway an elite faction and needs a moral narrative that allows the masses to feel virtuous following them while remaining simple and accessible.
Wokeness works because it is simple and allows intellectually unimpressive masses to participate in an intellectual act that makes them feel virtuous for exercising power in service of their resentment.
The great problem of the right is in how to generate a similar tool to wokeness while constrained by what is true, eugenic, and good which aren't constraints that the left feels any compulsion to abide by. The asymmetry is real.
@@flacjacket i dont think progressivism is essentially more entropic. a universal vision requires an expansive and elaborated teleology at its core. this is not an entropic force at all
I think in terms of visions of the future. It is interesting how the mythos of lost greatness seems to be endemically relevant. China if one were take a naive view would be all about Marxist rhetoric, and yet its current form is that of a revanchist state that pacifies ethnic minorities, and increasingly embraces Han Chauvinism. India seems to be going into a similar direction.
This must be edited by/for Zoomers with seconds of attention span.
"As a liberal individualist, how are you going to solve these issues around family, around social cohesion, around mental illness...loneliness"
The question practically answers itself. You're not.
"It's hard to pin down an ideology" in reference to the Trump supporters.
Here's a clue. It's on every red hat you see at the rally. MAGA. Ever heard of that?
I am anti ideology. I am driven by Christian ethics and pragmatism. I think if we really want to restore America, we should generally ditch ideology and do whatever works.
@@hismajesty6272
Who defines what works?
I'm not into the woke overreach but this is also scary to me. I don't want to live in a Theocracy. It's like one extreme to the next. Just because the Christian Nationalist are polite and soft spoken doesn't mean the ideas are not very concerning.
That makes you woke.
You already live in a theocracy.
This is not a new problem or something you couldn't see happening 50 years ago.
People are forced to live out life as a measure of faith to the point that if your a population species ordering career your colleagues black ball you for triangulated judgment of anything other than physical matter.
Now they've raised several generations carved up specialized under myth and men teaching for ease of access time in a time and age need & demand.
Time the point that kids are measuring devine right blood harmons to justify skipping direct reproduction by crowning neices or nephews.
If you work anywhere in these feilds you must be traditionally historically pagan macro micro or if you speak out of context then your not good at your feild ,career or an expert.
Even a Steve Pinkerton who calls for reform will not or can't both Triangulate a Jim crow south had a Jim crow north of #1 economic 2 lifestyle 3 race.
No it's all measured by melonin in skin races as completly different species.
It's OK to self sacrifice multiple genrations of people as stepping stone but not the earth's climate.
We've been carved up secularized taught myth and men for over 70 yrs now.
The only thing cog in wheels or rulers like Bernie sanders will do is put form and shape around is objects they'll form social contracts practice theosaphy on matter only.
Even 50 years ago you would hear rando Joe referencing apes on the savannah as if a tool of guidance for how to organize kids birthday parties but not in a joking sarcastic manner. This machine without dialectical vision has been exhausted a long time breeding new generations
You could have saved a lot of time and energy by just saying that the "new right" is fascism. I put "new right" in parenthesis as this right isn't really new; it's just more explicit about the fascism at the heart of all conservatism.
this docu is pointless if you’re not willing to mention the specific race behind it all.
Whitey?
I gave up at "renegade intellectuals" when showing Jordan Peterson. What a joke.
I would trust your critique a bit more if you showed the ability to construct a sentence.
He stood bravely against Canada's C-16 legislation. What have YOU done?
@@calmon-ground962Jordan is a coward and he lied to himself and to you. Go look it up. He fell for the misinformation and propagated it. It's been 8 years and no one's been arrested or fined for anything. He's chicken little. He's a moral coward lost in his own psychological shadow. You'd do best to invert everything he says because he's wrong about everything outside of his expertise in textbook psychology.
Aye, Peterson is a self pardoning joke. I feel sorry for the man. He'll be forgotten after he's gone, or worse, remembered for how mentally ill he is and how wrong he is about literally everything.
Liberal? Read preternaturally naive.
I see you've never seen a trump voter speaking.
There is no such thing as political neutrality, sir. If there is, please point me to an explanation of it that no one anywhere or any time could disagree with.