@appa609 He means normal ordinary straight white males are all far right extremists that a threat to democracy. What’s so hard to understand about that?
I like the rightism of the Hutterites, the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, the Haredi Jews, and the Mormon Fundamentalists. Observing their reproductive success, it appears at least for now that they have hit upon a winning formula. However, I think it could be improved with some tweaks. The great thing about it is you don't need to control the state to implement it. As long as society remains somewhat tolerant of cultural minorities and protects private property rights, it is a rightism that can expand exponentially right under the noses of liberals.
Islam doesn’t operates on left right chart, it has it’s own path to carve over the skulls of everyone and Islam is realist only one nation will lead mankind
Or on the other hand, you can live in ignorance and purchase your happiness. When blood and sweat is the REAL cost, thinking ceases. The truth is lost.
@@hismajesty6272 those are the lyrics of phase 1 against him, phase 2 lyrics are raiden realising that he does have a point, he isn't exactly what he thought he was and they have things in common.
Nice video. From a Hispanic libertarian regarding Peruvian conservatives, the majority of people in Latin America didn't embrace communism, communists became terr*rist guerrillas and k*lled a lot of people starting civil wars all over the region after 1959. Then the people begged the different military to take power and ext*rminate those guerrillas. That's why Pinochet, Videla, Bordaberry, and everyone else got into power. However, after these military defeats, Castro came up with the idea of "21st-century socialism" to now use the renewed democratic system to take power and never go away. Now using ecologism, human rights, feminism, anti r*cism, etc. to trick people and win elections. That is how we got Chávez, Lula, AMLO in Mexico, the Kirchner Thieve marriage in Argentina, Evo Morales, Boric. And most of the people still vote for them. Even though they have the old terr*rists from the 60s and 70s in their ranks (the same people their grandpas asked the military to er*dicate)
@@luan0020Religious-non-technical civilizations don’t see themselves as places were they linearly move forward morally nor technologically. This is why tradition was the norm. Back then wanting to conserve tradition wasn’t called out since things seem to be correct the way they were and risk wasn’t taken as productive for society. Today is the opposite, as the society rushes forward to nihilism and the idea of a morally optimal unknown future.
Not for the Americas except for things like the Aztec or Inca monarchies. But for north America most societies were traditionally organized as tribal confederations the structure of which influenced some aspects of the American constitution.
I was going to point out that Rudyard should read Dune. It provides an number of interesting solutions to the problems the Right faces, once they eradicate the Left.
People keep forgetting that COVID gave you a higher chance of myocarditis than the vaccines. Why would China or Russia do mass vaccine rollouts if they were terrible?
Rudyard: A legitimately philosophical Christian Society involves demons being taught in psychology textbooks, adultery being illegal, and churches being the top social network. Me: Don't scare me with good times
It's scary and unpallatable to the Western mind to think that adultary (or sexual license) in general should be actively discouraged by the state. Reality is that marriage is the foundation of a strong family. If we weren't endlessly propagandized by selectivepy portraying "needful" cases of divorce and "happy" divorce, the general perception would be that family breakdown tends to scar children who grow up to be scarred adults, and all things being equal, will become less capable of contributing to society as an adult. Marriage and families are yet another artefact to be offered up on the altar of freedom, praise be unto its name.
Is a marriage held together by threat from the law really worthwhile? Better to have the truth known I think then to hold onto something that shouldn't be.
That would make you one of the most dangerous people on the planet,and I want the same, I mean ,after all two of my mentors were in the SS,one of them survived the siege of Stalingrad ,another of my mentors was an old Rhodesian bush soldier ,my own grandfather ex SADF,yeah ime all for the warrior thing
Ironically both left and right people just make up boogeymen to justify their perceived victimhood to them re-justify their beliefs. 80% of people are normal and know it ain’t that deep. They just spend their days staring at the 10% they don’t agree with on either end
@@Legalizeasbestos That's why I don't like to debate politics online. People immediately start assuming the stereotypes of the 10% on your side apply to you.
This just shows that, again, the right is more tolerant. There's many flavours on the right, and they can debate each other. The left, is a religion, or a cult, if you don't comply fully to the doctrine, you're disfellowshipped.
Which actually benefits the left though in a sense. All these unprincipled moderates being lumped into the right seems to be watering down the right and pulling the supposed right further left. See the staple green cards to degrees, pro-gay, “take the guns first, due process second” GOP presidential nominee as a shining example of this.
I think most Western conservatives, at least North American conservatives, do want some form of classical liberalism/British conservatism. They want a robust middle-class, and for the government to have minimal control over their lives. The big question is, what is needed to support that? It seems that the right is lacking in a shared story to unite them. Some want to unite around Christian values, some around ethnonationalism, and some have no concept of any uniting force beyond smaller government and freer markets. And, of course, we see a lot of the ethnonationalists pushing a form of Christian ethnonationalism which focuses on Europe's Christian history, but ignores Christian values or the truth of the Gospel. I think similar to this is someone like Andrew Tate, who declared himself a Christian, then a Muslim, because he thought islam was a stronger and more masculine religion. I.e., his religious beliefs aren't based around truth, but power.
I think a large part of the US right could unite around Burkean conservatism, but the biggest problem right now is that nobody on the right has any real power. Every major institution in society is controlled by the left, with some partial exceptions only for elected offices. (And of course the more theologically conservative religious bodies, but I would hardly number them among our society's "major" institutions.)
I think you answered your own question unknowingly. The ideal belief system should be around the pursuit and deification of truth rather than power or race or genetics.
@@cometlake_17 I'm aware that's the ideal, and I believe that's what genuine Christianity is. I'm simply saying the issue is that the right is divided. Many aren't amenable to Christianity, and without that, I'm not sure what could hold society together.
As a right libertarian, what I want is simple. True freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, actual 4th amendment rights not just of my person and property but also my health and DNA info, a ban on lobbyists, elimination of most departments of federal government, a ban on all abortion that isn't a risk to the mother's life, enforcement of monopoly laws, the return to gold backed currency (AKA money) and removal of the Federal reserve, a ban on foreign investment in US property, discontinuation of welfare programs in most cases, closing the IRS and moving to a national sales tax system with no state or federal income taxes, the end of property taxation, etc... I could go on and on.
I do not consider myself a libertarian, but I agree with much of what you asking for. I think the Bill of Rights should never be amended. Property law should be absolute. I consider myself a conservative, I guess in the British conservative sense. Except I am not for Monarch rule.
@@kenyanicholas6809 I would refer you to the SoHo forum debate between Walter Block and Kerry Baldwin. Being pro-life does have a valid libertarian rationale. Beyond this, one of the few powers given to the federal government is to protect life. People can do mental gymnastics but a fetus is a life. The vast majority of abortions (more than 98.5%) are elective, in those cases a woman's right to choose was before agreeing to consensual sexual relations.
I’d outlaw taxation and government borrowing. All state activity should be funded by a lottery, donations from the left, and licensing (ring fenced) of state activity eg. Road tax for roads, hunting permits for conservation etc etc.
I think, out of all my years of studying, I've narrowed down what each political leaning is or fighting for in one word: "Far"/Radical/Dissident Left: Equality "Moderate"/Centre Left: Justice Center: Freedom "Moderate"/Centre Right: Truth/Honor "Far"/Radical/Dissident Right: Beauty/Harmony And if there's one HUGE distinction it's that the right wants to achieve complete unity with nature/god(s)/universe/cosmos/reality, while the left sees a problem with it. I think that's the biggest underlying aspect that I so often see in the patterns.
this is really interesting, but what do you mean when you say beauty and harmony? Also what would you say about the leftists that consider themselves christians and god lovers nowadays?
@@gangsupere Thanks. My comment is obviously a vast oversimplification, but sometimes that is useful for certain discussions. Any of these groups can exhibit other values as well. I just think these values are what most adherents to each group value most on average, from what I can tell after years of layman studying, and out of evaluating what people are just saying. As for beauty/harmony, I'll try to explain it the best I can. I can clearly in my mind see what I mean, but it's another thing articulating it 😂Think of how the anti-lgbtq is far more amplified the further right you go, or how further rightists will be anti-immigration more for racist or social harmony reasons unlike more center rightists that might cite economic factors. Think of how further rightists are far more politically incorrect when calling people UGLY or FAT, the polar opposite of beauty. Observe how admiration of typically beautiful art and music is more prevalent among further rightists, and how the left for example claims how that type of art and music sets "unrealistic" standards, is colonial and racist and white supremacist etc. By harmony it'd be more specifically like being more strict in enforcing and ensuring these beautiful standard, unlike more center rightists that are more compromising by acknowledging that someone else's perspective can also be true, and their honor among the wider group stops them from doing what further rightists want to do. Freedom is best typified by the people that basically go: "Let me just grill and drink beer in peace." Equality seeking is sort of like justice, but justice doesn't HAVE to have an egalitarian. It's more about reaching what can be perceived as a good compromise for most or all. Solely equality-seeking is much more militant, hence the "far" or radical left. It's best typified by the communist belief of all workers owning the means of production, and everything that has happened as a result of trying to achieve that historically, because it's impossible, but the equality-minded doesn't care because they want to equality. This is why I think each of the most radical wings exhibit these more uncompromising values than the other groups. I think Christianity can be (mis)used to justify a lot. Maybe it's their way of transgressing the Christian doctrine by claiming they are Christian themselves. It's a typical leftist tactic. But not sure.
Hi ! I don't see much of "beauty/harmony" sentiment on the far right. Instead, I think they are deeply bent on "Safety" as a core sentiment, which makes them hold on to traditions hardcore, just because it feels safe. What do you think ?
@@GaëtanKlein I disagree. To an extent all groups do their stuff to ensure what they perceive as their safety. But if for example you look at leftists they're very passionate about creating their own safe spaces. Right-wingers for example value safety so their societies are safe from criminality. But no ideological group uses "safety" as their core slogan. They're generally more idealistic than that, and use higher words to rally their supporters for. Contrast it if you used "fighting for safety" or "fighting for beauty" or "fighting for justice", the latter two sounds much more inspiring for their followers. And being far right today isn't really safe, yet people are so saying that's their primary value is just dishonest. If you read my reply to @gangsupere maybe you'll understand what I mean by the "beauty/harmony" concept. Your comment seems more like an attempt at a "gotcha" than a factual evaluation.
@@HuWhiteDeath yeah, I agree with you, I just didn't see your point about inspiration. But it is true safety is a catch-all, not specific to far-right.
The rate of technological progress has slowed significantly since the 70s too except for communications. Right around the same time as the cultural shift.
Freedom is an oxymoron. Humans are domestic animals, you setting your own rules based on our domesticated society is just safely wandering rather than free will and “freedom”.
@@CristianmrWuno A free man lives by his own law not those of the government. Just the fact criminals exist show their are disagreeable people who are not "domesticated" and instead live by their own rules. The fact that people with the know-how can just exit society and live off grid is an act of freedom
I wish more people would do the "as I explain in this text wall" thing. Does the extra work for people that want more information, doesn't have to link to another video. It's great
and depending on our attention span at the moment, it leaves it up to us to digest the extra content or leave it there while moving along. Packs a lot of extra info for us, if we choose to consume it.
Most Conservative men today, have no issue with working to earn their way to being able to provide for their family, at the same time we want our tax dollars spent on providing for it's own country and it's citizens. Conservatives want to know they are working together to make a safer, more efficient future for it's people, no matter what country they come from. We don't want to be taxed into poverty just to see our tax dollars support greedy bureaucratic politicians and their rich friends. The suffering is going to be the end of the left yet again. Gen Z knows they have nothing to live for right now and they will eventually snap.
Hence why Trump has resonated with so many not necessarily conservative people. His philosophy of America first and "drain the swamp" hit home for people. If course he has his negatives, like his ego and his thin skin, he's boisterous and brash and it turns an almost equal amount of people off. If not Trump himself, that attitude is however what we need. Somebody who will take care of their own country first, and will try to weed out as many of the bureaucratic waste as possible. I personally don't think Trump is the guy, he's too old and too controversial, however, I do see him as the catalyst for change. For good change.
I’ll chose the first because while it’s oppressive, it’s ideologically inconsistent and could eventually swing towards loosening up like Spain. Most of the Commie Bloc just collapsed for rights to come back.
After watching anthropology of the left I assumed this video would take a month to come out. We were spoiled today. Edit: just wanted to say that British conservatism can absolutely create radicals willing to fight to the death. The promise of owning something is powerful to those that own nothing. I can very easily see fanatics fighting to destroy monopolies and big governments to take what they have, a sort of weird hybrid between communism and British conservatism. Last thing: democracy’s tendency for equality can go in two ways. 1: nobody will own anything and so everyone will be equal. Or 2: everybody will own something and so everyone will be equal. The first was explored with communism. The second has yet to be explored, but seems to be the logical conclusion of a British conservative country like America.
>The promise of owning something is powerful to those that own nothing. This is probably what the next western revolution will be over, once some new counter-elite group decides to take it up as a cause (since all revolutions are performed by some form of elite seeking to usurp the existing elite, even if the cause is itself on behalf of non-elites). A whole generation of young men who will own nothing, no house, no land, just eternal rent-slavery to the ownership class. In such abhorrent conditions, why wouldn't they fight to own something? Trudeau says "housing must retain its value" because it's the boomers' retirement fund. But that means zoomers and younger millennials will never own homes (since the government won't let the market correct) AND we know that our society is built around using a house (which we will never have) as a retirement fund which means we know we won't even get to retire.
'the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.' It seems to be inevitable, that even if we could balance wealth out equally at any given point in time, some would spend their given wealth quickly on consumable goods, while others would gather up durable assets and build wealth again. I don't think equality is ever possible, simply because of human nature and the different choices people would make for themselves.
@@Tehz1359 Actually, all 'mericans are supposed to have a built-in dislike of mercantilism (British Rightism) as the latter were the bulk of the British East India company; the organization whose forced policies the colonists were mainly against. The colonists initially inclined, and hoped/organized for, a sort of localized autonomy lead by men whole interests were 90% regional, not national. The general government (republic) was designed only to care for the elements common (common foreign borders, sea trade, large necessary interstate infrastructure) to all--no more. The British 'rightism' differed in that it auctioned off (to the rich and connected) internal rights and overall trade--this made the rich richer and the working man penury cogs to a system of despotic oligarchs.
As a German who has studied the literature of the “conservative revolution” a lot in recent years, I have come to the conclusion that this very movement has a good ideological basis for the future of the right. German conservatism all the way. “To be conservative does not mean to remain attached to what has been, but to live and act starting from what has a lasting value.” - Arthur Moeller van den Bruck
2:55 so what you're saying is... the right is wayyyyyyy more diverse than the left and wayyyyyyy more accepting of all kinds of groups from all over the world....
In the age of scarcity, belonging to the group and loyalty to the group is the end-all be-all of your life to navigate and combat said scarcity. Be it the Frankish Empire, Mongols, Romans, Abbasids, Carthaginian, Aztecs, and many more (these civilizations are different in many ways, but similar in many others) Even in the age where nationalism is still in its infancy, these people work the same way all around the world; that being trying to make sure your group flourish in spite of other group That is why the right is as diverse as it gets, everyone's spawning point is scarcity, and it breeds in-group loyalty The left, especially the modern left, works under the assumption of post-scarcity worldview in which in-group loyalty could be seen as something bizarre, thus said loyalty could be criticized and be labeled as something bad, like calling it fascism or nationalism or any other denomination
No. A Christian nationalist from Louisiana would never accept a Hindu nationalist from India. A buddhist right winger from Burma will never want to cooperate with a Muslim right winger from Bangladesh
I pick the monarchy. The king cares more than the merchant. The merchant only wants to make a quick buck. The King is held accountable for the wellbeing of the country and when a rebellion occurs they know who to overthrow.
The British right (that advocates for Republic) is the best solution; however, as you said it needs very strong foundations to work and is extremely rare. So for it to work, you'd have to advocate for several things at once: Religiosity, Morality, Property Rights, Military Strength, and Land Owning (Stake Holding) Limited Voting Franchise. It's a winning combo, but it only works if you have all of them at once. Which is why I see people supporting and easier (and more stable) ideology over it. Such as Monarchism.
Him: they have no idea what a Christian takeover would look like. Proceeds to list 3 things I am perfectly ok with. Though likely the demons one would be tempered as one of the primary thing exercises are taught is to eliminate all natural solutions first. Similar to how miracles have to go through huge process to be confirmed.
47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks" yes "Adultery being illegal" Yes. "And Churches being top societal networks" YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
@@scurvydog20 47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks" yes "Adultery being illegal" Yes. "And Churches being top societal networks" YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
I’m much the same. It’s important to remember he’s referring to the secular types who really don’t want Christianity, they want Christian Morality separated from Christian Dogma. Essentially they want the benefits of having a firm moral standard, but don’t want the added responsibility that comes with aligning oneself to that standard. A kind of Lukewarm Christian Institutionalism, where everything is based on Catholic social teaching but every actual reference to Catholic Theology is removed. Believe me I’m all for everything he says. Demons are very, very real and need to be taken into account when dealing with certain kinds of afflictions. Certain obsessions and addictions can be diabolically influenced into happening. Adultery is terrible for society because it just adds incentives for men and women to hate each other so it should be at the very least heavily discouraged if not straight up illegal in writing. As for the last point, if the Church succeeded in gluing society together and fostering sanctity for all the years up to the Protestant Rebellion and even beyond it can fix the problems of today. We’d just need a people psychologically capable of actually comprehending its necessity.
I don’t think it should be tempered and that’s not me trying to be more “based” then you are. Demons don’t necessarily have to possess someone to cause mental distress or problems. And they’re methods of determining which is going on.
I disagree with your view on monarchism. Not that it is more stable in certain circumstances, but how it ended. It was due to the capitalists gaining so much wealth they were able to influence the populace. Monarchs and capitalists are at odds, as a capitalist would want the government to pass favorable regulations like we saw on Florence, Venice, and even today in the US. Monarchs cannot be bribed as they have no reason to accept a bribe. As a result, the capitalists fomented the rebellions that created republicanism. They were effectively counter-oligarchs to the oligarchs and the monarchs in the European monarchies.
Well, some monarchs can/got greedy ,were evil or just stupid. Yeah,by &large they can't be bribed.Reminds me of Sultan Abdul -Hamid the second ,the last Ottoman sultan who refused to sell Palestine to the zionists in late 1800s .I think non-hereditary monarchy can work in today's world
@@abdirahmanbadal781 the problem with that is no matter what, the monarch can be corrupt. In order to be elected as ruling monarch, you need help from others. That means you're going to owe people very big favors. This is where capitalists, aristocrats, and lobbyists can begin taking over de facto control of the country. In a hereditary monarchy, this is impossible as the heir is guaranteed the position at birth. The only way an elective monarchy can possibly work is if the monarch is a baby when elected, however it can end up like the Bush family with Bush Senior making his son pay his debt to the Saudis. No matter how you cut it, there is going to be a major issue. Do we accept that occasionally we will have a bad ruler who will rule for life, or do we adopt a more Republican style of governance where the oligarchs of society inevitably become the de facto rulers. It's an impossible situation.
The only times i can think of monarchs being susxepible to bribery is when the country is actively collapsing due to a fiscal crisis, such as Russia selling Alaska, or France selling Louisiana Realistically theres very little you can bribe a monarch with that they cant just get for free anyway
@@hismajesty6272 I recently discovered him, but I was on the path to being in favor of monarchism for the last few years. He kinda pushed me over the edge
I’d like a combo of “British conservatism” and Christianity. Respecting property rights while also being anti degeneracy to rule the right in the future. They would also ally with places like the Mises Institute.
Personally I'd prefer an Orthodox or Baptist theocratic oligarchy. The Old Testament pre-David shows what God's ideal form of governance is: government by prophets/priesthood. Get the right priesthood and you're gunna be ok.
I look forward to the next thousand years of colonizing space under this ideology. Or maybe it will only last a century because hyperdrives are completely fictional devices that can never exist.
In answer to your question towards the end, these are some key tenets of the new right in my opinion. Self reliance. Personal responsibility. A boundary and recognition between masculinity and femininity. The nuclear family is the basic economic unit. Small, efficient government. Low taxes to incentivise entrepreneurship. Decentralization of political power. A return to smaller, more close nit rural communities, and as a result greater self reliance in food and energy production. A tendancy towards off-grid style living, which gives the individual and family greater agency. A general recognition that government inherently tends to become authoritarian over time and that social zeitgeist should be constructed with this in mind. Thats just a few off the top of my head. I could be way off, but I found the question interesting and thought I'd put in my 2¢. Thanks for another great video.
The only option that even has a prayer of salvaging this. Christendom lasted undivided for almost 1500 years and fed our forefathers before the Protestant Rebellion. The current liberal order fell apart in under a quarter of a millennia because it incentivized people to put God anywhere other than first. Ave Christus Rex ✝️🇻🇦
You shared your favorite quote. So I shall share with you mine... On principle, we should be suspicious of explanations for other people's beliefs and behaviors when those explanations imply they would believe and behave as we do, if only the were as mature and enlightened as we are. - Richard John Neuhaus
Though "being suspicious" should never mean that we never allow ourselves to come to that conclusion, after being given copious amounts of evidence. It would be just as foolish to willfully ignore the possibility that someone is less mature or enlightened as to assume that no one can be shorter, slower, or weaker. And all of that is separate from ever assuming that someone with less competence has less right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Just that they have no business being in charge of OTHER PEOPLE.
Excellent work, Rudyard. Yes, we need to figure out WHAT we want. I am currently reading, "START WITH WHY" by Simon Sinek. First we need to clarify and simplify our vision, the "why", then we can more easily determine the "how" and the "what". I could make a long list of what I do NOT want and that is helpful in honing in on what I DO want but it still needs to be boiled down enough to one sentence and then a 30 second "elevator pitch" explanation. Just like the process for a good business plan.
Yes, as long as we also have chivalry and charity to widows and orphans and keep crony capitalism and lobbyists and corruption out of it. Respect the dignity of the legitimate poor, but do not enable the lazy and envious. Virtue, humility, charity, and diligence.
The Right I would want to see take action for would be a mix of British and German right. More leaning to British right than German right. I'm a Christian, first and foremost, ideally, I would want a Christian ideal of how a country should be ran to be pushed in place. That I would see looking like a Christian Republic, the question then is 'how do we get that and keep it?' I want to fight for freedom for all people, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of ownership of property; all so anyone can live without having to live in fear and/or to break core convictions. I also want force to be demonstrated from this Right to make it clear that the Right will not back down and continuously let go of what we should be fighting to hold on to, basically, I want this Right to fight with warlike force to push the lane back to Christian values that breed prosperity and blessings to all who live in this system, then this Right needs to continue to use like warlike power to keep the line in place so we don't devolve into degeneracy and self-destructive ideology. That's why I think a blend of British and German right would be the best view to hold and push for. While all views have failed from the right and from the left, Christianity still is living on, Christianity needs to be the foundation in which a new prosperous right builds upon and is interwoven with using British right to encourage property owning and the German right to encourage warlike mentally that is healthy to protect our people and our way of life. Having the British right and German right molded with Christianity will also encourage higher education, morally, religiosity and homogenous thought that will serve to build up and hold a Republic system that can withstand a longer period of time for the foundation is not on blind uncertainties of man but on the longlasting rock that is Christianity. This is what I want to see for our future, this is what I want to fight for, this is the ideal that I want to push for so that ALL may experience a healthy way of living full of purpose and meaning.
It wouldn't be actual demonology or spooky occult stuff it would be some guy rambling about mental illnesses. Mental illnesses and things that are very real would immediately be reduced to "Satan magic" and we would never progress from that point. Remember, at one point some guy saying the Earth was round and rotated around the sun was considered blasphemous witchcraft. All the "fun"and informational modern things would be banned or heavily guarded by religious puritans. Modern conservatives are not ready to part ways with their own sinful ways no matter how much they complain about it on Twitter.
Yes and tucker should be the teacher that’d be gold! Just picture him calling out all the tyrants and calling them demons while giggling in his classic laugh 😂
No way you mentioned the fact radical Islam has marxist roots, i was reading a book stating radical Islam back then was a revolutionary ideology created by former-marxists in MENA. With the goal of creating a State based on Islam.
Modern Islamic leaders tend to be men with very close Western ties, often being born in an Islamic country but then being sent to liberal Western schools and universities.
Nonsense. Islam's normal state is radical. It has been radical since it was it was founded in the seventh century AD. Did you know that North Africa used to be entirely Christian? That was until Islam invaded.
To be concise, as a german who has had some deep insight into the german-style not only by history, but by family and personal experience, I believe that german-style...what is the point, let's just say a national type of socialism paired with a religious society is the optimal way forward. Besides the cultural warfare, the biggest issue of these days is that unregulated capitalism is screwing the majority of the population, due to our economy being based on a ponzi-style model that is centralized banking. It is fundamentally designed to rob the poor and enrich the elite. Before we discuss culture or religion, the economy must prosper or else revolution is inevitable in the long term. German type socialism aimed to create a functional economic system which worked EXTREMELY well for not only generating wealth, but especially raising the quality of life for the AVERAGE person. This brought a sense of spiritual unity and kinship which united our nation. To break it down to the most fundamental level, a country needs moral values, a functioning economy and a culture that promotes unity to flourish. Christianity provides moral values that not only prevent degeneracy but also unite a country culturally, as history has sufficiently shown. German socialism supports similar values, such as being united culturally and helping each other, while also providing a functioning economic model (restricted capitalism) that generates wealth but prevents capitalism from straying too far and e.g. selling hazardous foods just for short term benefits, like the US is doing right now. The pillars of the ideal society are therefore german socialism and christianity. Let's not forget that culturally and economically, german socialism succeeded. It was not defeated because it was flawed. It was defeated by war. That being said, some aspects clearly went too far and should be addressed and kept in check, but exactly that is Christianity's mission - to set moral boundaries. Also you should not be so quick to dismiss a christian-ruled society, as even the CIA basically admitted that they dabbled into the supernatural with some success. Most of the greatest minds of history were convinced christians and very well read on esoteric traditions and the supernatural. Be a bit open-minded and don't dismiss everything immediately, just because you grew up hearing it was superstition.
The biggest problem is that it was based on a military economy and therefore needs enemies. To maybe make the economic model work u would need some non militaristic greater good with high industrial needs. In my opinion. The only thing that comes to my mind is space exploration and pushing for expansion there as well as building monuments like a Dyson sphere. Because I am really afraid of the destructive powers the ideology can have as well as the ability to turn people into not thinking monsters. Btw. Wenn ich fragen darf was ist deine Sicht auf die AFD?
Ye, pretty much. If Mr. Mustache was an actual Christian and not esoteric, occult fascist then the whole thing could work. Worst part is, there's even place for esoteric, occult Christianity which appeals to military. The thing is, it has to be limited to military and the state cannot be just the military. Exactly the SAME how state can't be just the church, look what happened with whole Papal fiasco, muddying waters and producing more schisms for hundreds of years. Or exactly how you can't have state be just the merchants, that just ends up in corpo dystopia down the line. You gotta balance these things out, they don't have to be 1:1:1 but they sure can't miss whole third or even two out of three pillars of civilization. Great thing about Christianity, especially Orthodox kind, is that it's very much open ended. While Islam and Judaism really hamper down on "do this/don't do this" and are very much rules based, Christianity has rather small emphasis on day to day control of your behavior. What it often asks though, is to be involved in your decision making, to be constant chip on your shoulder. Basically, it doesn't remove agency, nor is it isolationistic. Issue with first monotheistic faith is that it's isolationistic and sort of "this is just for us" thing. Issue with last monotheistic faith is that it openly cannot exist unless it's 100%, and it will do that any means necessary. Out of three (we're not counting Zoroastrianism lmao) monotheistic religions there's a clear "winner" for a moderate right person in the West. Similarly to that then, one should evaluate different branches, with them being Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Once again, the issues are clear, Catholicism is too strict and really insist on this whole Pope thing which is an experiment proven not to work, truly biggest social experiment of Europe, two steps behind though. Issue with Protestantism is the fact most people will answer "Which one?", which is a problem in itself. It's so loose and lackluster that there's zero way to reform it, unify it or do anything useful with it. Organized faith cannot exist in climate where you could get excommunicated in one part of your village, then proceed to build your own church three streets away. I won't even get in the whole no icons, churches that look like business or anything like, just looking at it from a practical stand point. So what's the issue with Orthodoxy? Honestly, the orthodoxy. Best part about it is that it's the same Christianity from 3rd century, but that's also the worst part, it's very stagnant and inert. Neat part about it though, it's both modernizing in past 2 decades (only around 10 years ago Orthodox priests started using internet to actually proselytize) and there's cultural agreement (all be it , this is cultural, among the Greeks and Slavs) that it's not church's job to do the progress, but soothe the herd. This is why most eastern societies split into warrior and priest classes, with Darwinistic people running states while Christians run the moral background of the society. No idea how Orthodoxy could work with addition of merchants though, it has never been done as far as I know. Maybe you should look outside of Europe and find Orthodox Christians elsewhere, it's on the rise in US, China, Japan, South Korea, perhaps there one could observe how it interacts with merchants.
@@MGUM_but it achieved most economic success without having been military driven though. And Germany was technically the last belligerent to adopt a full scale war economy, only doing so in 1943. Compare that to the USA, which had switched over even before entering the war, making ends meet for the lend lease program, and the reality makes much more sense. And as history proved, a military driven economy is only bad if you lose. America came out on the winning side on both world wars, and until the first one its economy had always been behind that of Europe as a whole (comparing the US to single European countries is nonsensical as the scale is off on every metric).
Paired with a religious society AND eugenics! Eugenics is the best way forward. Second best is to suppress the germ theory of disease, destroy all sanitary practices, and ban modern medicine. Worst is to keep going the way we are: no artificial selection, and no natural selection either. It is a recipe for disaster. Animal breeders understand this.
47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks" yes "Adultery being illegal" Yes. "And Churches being top societal networks" YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
Yeah they’re not bad things. Demons are very real, adultery is terrible for society so it should be at the very least HEAVILY discouraged if not blatantly illegal and Churches were the glue that held society together for over 1500 years until the Protestant Rebellion. However actually living out life in accordance with Christ’s will requires one to seriously realign their worldview which most are generally unwilling to do. A lot of people want Lukewarm Christianity to continue existing because it asks nothing of them personally, but it simultaneously defends them by using those who are more zealous. Even I’m far from perfect in this and I’m a practicing Catholic, Latin and all. I can’t imagine the more secular types would take the transition all too well. I made the transition from completely secular to focused on faith relatively smoothly because I already preferred belief in objective moral standards and already had a preexisting, self made honor code. All I had to do was tweak a few lenses and wipe off some grime to see clearer. Most people only do what serves their own interests and the idea of intentionally handicapping your own ability is seen as nonsensical. Those people would need an entire ideological rework to even begin the journey I took because from their perspective everything I’ve done would make no sense. Even my family who’re relatively similar to myself didn’t really understand the turn initially and I’ve had to re-catechize them from scratch. Thanks be to God they respect my judgment enough to actually listen, I’d be devastated if I lost them in the process.
@@captain0ffd244 47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks" yes "Adultery being illegal" Yes. "And Churches being top societal networks" YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
To be real, the British style of Rightism is the best the world has seen. Although it isn't perfect, it is the best system I think the world has had. We need to go back to more of those beliefs with some modern twists to update it a little.
@@c63amgblack Twice. And the powers you mention nearly have broken Anglo-Saxon rule. Both cases involved a lot of effort by England and British Empire.
@@c63amgblack But since you have mentioned the geography. Isn't the fact of a semi independent Polish state in 2024 impressive enough, without even looking into the science and economics?
The best answer I have seen on the right comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe and the Austrian school. It combines social conservatism with monarchy and anarcho-capitalism. For an introductory book I would recommend "Getting Libertarianism Right." If you want an in depth explanation, his book "a theory of socialism and capitalism" has a good amount of critiques of the socialist ethic, as well as the 9th and 10th chapters going into details about how to protect people in an anarchist society and protect against monopolies in that same society. Good video!
I want to know which sources did you read for latin america? Because the church were allies of the indians against the common spanish colonial, and the king of spain worked actively to give better conditions that criollos (spanish born in america) were against it. This sound like the common anglo propaganda against Spain.
Rudyard mentioned those things in his prior videos on Latin America. I don't know why he didn't include them in this one. To steelman his case, I'd assume he either forgot, omitted it for the sake of narrative clarity, or (what I suspect) he put church and state together since the marriage of church and aristocracy is usually how it works in the rest of the world, which allows him to make a clean "Peruvian conservative" category without having to subdivide it between Latin and non-Latin and such. I should also note that 19th-20th century Latin America was not wholly the same as Colonial Latin America in terms of power dynamics, so maybe he was talking moreso the post-independence juntas and anticommunist Cold War governments than he was the old colonial viceroyalties.
You are correct on both counts. The clergy and monks tried to protect the Indians from predatory landowners and Spain's distant King was more considerate of the natives than the criollos (creoles). The profit motive is socially useful, but its excesses need to be kept in check. A small number of families owning and controlling almost everything, including the state, is a historically recurring pattern.
@@michaels4255 It's really unfortunate it always ends up that way, but some people are more naturally gifted at acquiring land and wealth than others. Some know how to work the system to their advantage, while other's don't or can't figure that out. At the low income end, we have millions of people who have figured out how to work taxpayer funded entitlement programs. At the higher income end, we have wallstreet and executives who know how to work our financial system for profit. People in the middle just work, and have their labor taxed or stolen or used against them. I think it's always been that way. It's human nature. Intelligent animals always figure out how to work any system for their advantage.
The latter is true only in certain specific cases. The colony did not treat the majority of indigenous people well. In the case of the Virreinato del Rio del Plata, many indigenous people supported the revolution. And it is not propaganda, not at all, the newspapers of the time and Spanish documents confirm it.
@@TheP0dcastHub YT is at it again so 0ld. 8ite chut3. There are a few video site. YT, RUM, and two versions of the one I am refering to. The old one is best.
I enjoy watching people who put labels on me, try and tell me about myself. When I was a child I was told I was a Libertarian because I thought the governments roll in society should be supplemental to the human condition and not a burden upon it. Than I was called a socialist because I said corporations shouldn't be able to buy up all the single family houses, driving up prices and creating life long rent slaves. THAN I was called a Communist for saying that minimum wage should scale to inflation so people can live a easy life free of unnessisary monetary burdens. AND EVEN THEN I was called a NAZI because I believe that all the army's of the world shouldn't be able to just send there men across our WIDE open borders. The funny thing about all that name calling, it was by both parties. There the same party. Nobody Wants to fix what is easy to fix, only march forward making it worse so you keep voting them back in or stop voting all together. It's funny because there only hurting themselves not listening to me.
Being a fan of Carl Benjamin, I find myself agreeing with his stance that while classical liberalism was a good fundamental position for our founders, there has to be something beyond it. Something that can combines the perspectives of what you are free to do with what you were responsible for doing.
As a non-American viewer of your work, I wish to see the reemergence of the German right. And realistically, that's the only option around I see on the continent. The is almost no Peruvian right left in Europe, Islam is foreign to our psyche, and we don't have much of the shopkeeper mentality developed in the British right. Basically, British right parties were astroturfed into Central Europe after WW2, but since the post war generation is now about to die off, the artificiallity of it all is clear to see. For the average German man, there is no incentive to join the establishment conservatives (CDU/ OVP/ SPD etc). I'm 32 and somewhat out of my generation (I mostly mingle with 20somethings) and I see all of them being more and more open about being what you termed German right. And I myself like the developements.
You are right about mainland Europe and British Right not being popular there. That’s probably why we see the continual rise of “far right” movements across Europe.
The problem really is whether you are going to have enough population to support the German rightism movement. With the ethnic replacement happening in Europe right now I can imagine Islamic rightism being the only feasible option, and the German rightists converting to Islam in order to atleast secure a victory against the left and continue into a messianic Islamo-fascist hybrid
@@nessesseda yes wonderful to see. And it’s really common sense I see nothing far right it’s Asinine labeling. Islamic immigration is something only a feminist matriarchy would do or guilt ridden aspects being manipulated to accept cultural suicide. The powers the pre existed always were afraid of Germany and did anything to keep them down. All of Europe practically is Germanic, France by franks, England by Anglo saxons and then Norman’s, austrogoths across Austria Italy and east and Visigoth’s Spain and France, even the kieven Rus has Nordic origins. Love seeing Thuringia and saxony, but as we see in America or with marine la pen, these people are realllly pushing to keep this sane rational movement down
Good luck to you mate, because the Islamics will try to force their way by outbreeding you guys. Strike while the iron is hot, I believe in you and your people.
I can tell this will be a good one. In just 6 months I went from being a republican (little r) to being a postliberal traditionalist, so it’s fun to be part of the more dynamic side of politics.
What exactly is a postliberal traditionalist? Maybe I am one? I was a lapsed Catholic, tepid average american, but now I prefer the Latin Mass and wear a veil at church and want my children to get married young and have lots of babies. I used to be into some liberal sorts of ideas, but they leave a bad taste in my mouth now. So is that postliberal? I'm definintely trad.
@oneperson5760 Post liberalism is a rejection of the notion of capital L Liberalism, which is individualistic and afraid of limits and enforcing the common good. I’d recommend Eudiamonia’s video on it, or any lectures by Patrick Deneen (both traditional Catholics) for a more detailed explanation. As far as being a traditionalist, I don’t think there’s a good definition but I’d say I reject rationalism as an ideology, as we’re barely ever rational in new “innovation,” and I find it better to lean on cultural traditions and old ways and values. Another good critic of Liberalism who takes on that angle is Carl Benjamin, a British political pundit. If you’re a Latin Mass Catholic you’re probably mostly in line with Postliberal Traditionalism or almost there. God bless you -a sympathetic Protestant
This really puts it all together, Rudyard has proven what I believe; that the term "Right" and "Conservative" have been used so broadly as to be effectively meaningless. However if they have no meaning than that means they can be given one, which is the likely challenge of the 21st century. Very thought provoking!
Another thing with the Fascists and Nazi debate over right or left is that they are foundationally a split from broader Socialist and Marxist thought, one mostly derived from witnessing the first world war where the masses overwhelmingly identified with their common nation and blood over their class, which caused some among the Socialist thinkers to figure that if they were to implement Socialism with the masses it would be more probable to do it in a national rather than international fashion.
That's exactly it. National Socialism. Nationalist like the right. Socialist like the left. An odd amalgamation of the two prevailing ideologies. Internally, N*zi Germany was run very socialist in nature from the standpoint of the government controlling much of the production and government run work programs and youth camps.
@user-pz4ir9rf6i When you consider the emotional pain that adultery causes and how it spills out into society in general -- divorce, broken families, traumatized children -- one might make a good argument for it. I just apply Hillel and point out that I don't want it done to me and abstain from it all on my own. Laws aren't very good at preventing the negative behaviors, though.
I feel we. Kinda dismissed the possibility of something more like Heinlein presented but i guess on some vauge level you did.... I do know given how this all works out usually it wont be smooth... Also to answer the question at the end. 1. I want the freedom to be who i am, with reasonable expectations from me given my oddities, issues, and overall position. 2. I want the freedom to be armed against all possible threats and enemies that present a threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. 3. I want those who partake of the franchise (vote) To be not only correctly, But honestly informed. And those that Partake of Political efforts to understand the responsibility, the usual cause and effect of their actions, and utmost be held accountable for their actions when they make mistakes. Be this Removal from office or to make blatant honest admittance to error and make a genuine effort to change course. 4. To know my borders are secure from Foreign agents, Activists, and Enemies. A sharing of cultures and ideas can be benifical but if said ideas are "Burn everything you own, Destroy everything thats good in life, and then take everything from somone else" it is not appropriate. and while i feel i could point to more here. I think the long story short is, when looking at the Original Constitution of the United States, The Articles of Confederation, The bill of rights and the general process to get there i find the vast majority of what i am looking for. I do not wish to return to Slavery, I do not wish to run headlong in pure anarchy and the lack of rule of law that operates within the spirit of the law. But i do not wish to continue on this route where the state has full reign over everyones lives and you can take no action to stand against the ongoing wrongs and efforts to Strip the rights that are marked written and acknowledged.
Early America fused prussianism with libertarianism, (duty to the individual as part of the whole) in a much healthier way. Returning to foundational American ideals is the only alternative I can think of without disastrous consequences. But to do that lobbying needs to be banned and the government must shrink immensely, which the modern left would never allow.
Far left and far right are about giving power to a minority, who those advocating for them believe will benefit them personally not society in general. Democracy in theory is an ideology that aims to please a majority often at the expense of minorities (that is the trade off). I have always found that if my fellow citizens are given all the facts they will make the best decisions for their society (see Brexit and Trump in 2016). i.e. democracy is an ideology that can adapt rather than trying to dogmatically apply one set of ideas over eons. All the problems we are seeing in the world are because elites are usually narcissists and believe that doing what plebs want is a threat to their power (which it often is). As Noam Chomsky said (not an endorsement of everything he says). "The answer to subversion of democracy is more democracy, more freedom, more justice". That is why we are being flooded with incompatible cultures. Democracy only works with homogenous societies (and borders). The minoritarians on both sides are trying (and succeeding) to create low trust societies where democracy is impossible.
That's the inherent vice of democracy. You can rig the system by oppressing the majority with an influx of heterogenous (to the current majority) political minorities that will shift the balance of power away from the majority you as the one in power dislike. That's what's happening in America and all over Western Europe. Don't like what the people want? Import new people to outnumber them and sway the vote and shift of majority power. The left in the United States likes to talk about "threats to democracy", however they are the ones that are trying to abuse the democratic system to shift the power. Trump put them on overdrive because he rallied the working class, generally conservative "sleeping giant" in America. He was a huge threat to them. I said since the very first failed attempt to jail him, they will just try to kill him next. And here we are.
Well what the minority ideology is doing is trying to import enough people that will vote their way to outnumber and overthrow the majority. American leftism has always been the minority but it it is growing, yes through them controlling the education system, but also through importation of a whole new entitlement class. Even though registration of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were traditionally pretty close, with even Democrats having a slight edge, there were always still a good number of conservative Democrats so rightist vs leftist numbers always favored the right by a substantial margin. Also a factor that modern Republican Presidents like Reagan and Trump have poached a good number of Democrats to their side. So now it's time not to throw out the system, but rather to throw a wrench in the gears and just import their way to a new majority. That's the downside of democracy in the modern world where not only can people in other countries be more mobile, but also it pays big for others to assist them, there are countless near failed states for them to come from, and we have all the benefits in the world to entice then with. Come to America, we'll take care of you, and by the way vote for us and don't forget who gave you all the free stuff when you vote the next time and the time after that. Don't like the majority? Import a new one. That's the left's game plan. While I do agree a democratic system is the best option, unfortunately it can be abused in this manner.
I kind of agree but only men over age of 30 should be able to vote... Politics is largely a media game imo, political landscape is vastly different with Elon buying Twitter and popularity of Tiktok
13:00 you are going to need a bit more of an explanation than: if society move fast stable thing can't last. In many ways, one person will be able to respond much faster and more effectively than an entire state apparatus. Monarchy lost it's foothold in the west with the decline in the power of the Church and the rise of leftism (which are, of course, linked)
This is a thing of beauty, a double video drop on my feeds most boring day of the week.. Thank you for you work sir. Best historian/geopolitics commentator on the tube, IMO. EVen if I do pick at you in the comments sometimes. Go ahead trolls...
Freedom from freedom This not only explains totalitarianism but humanity as a whole Most don’t want to look in the mirror, knowing what looks back at them is ultimately their responsibility
If gravitate to the right because I felt God in their movement. I am not naive, I know most conservative are actually not christian, but its the one who is not actively working on building a "utopia" separated from the Lord. If its not from God, I don't want anything
Most of my life, the vocal Left has been militantly anti-Christian while the Republicans generally have payed lip service to God. On the one hand, I have a Left Wing that says I'm a fascist and theocratic for not wanting porn and condoms in schools. On the other hand, the "Far-Right" figures like Tucker Carlson are bringing on guests who say to spend less time on politics and more on prayer. Many conservative Christians are insincere, and many days, I fall into that insincerity too, but maybe we're God's useful idiots.
We shall unite under the new german right and fight for god and fatherland, just as we used to. Let us all stand together lest we all fall apart - united by Christianity.
If by Christian you mean "evangelical," then you are correct. But if you mean Christian more broadly than just self described evangelicals, then US conservatives might very well be majority Christian.
@@michaels4255true but mainstream 'matt walsh' conservatism is designed to be inoffensive to a secular audience. I think most conservative people would be in favor of a more Christian representation in politics if it arose
German style rightism is absolutely a dream but one I wish to see and partake in. Being forced to run 5 miles and do 30 pull ups everyday in gym class leading to a beautiful Warhammer 40k-esc militaristic space colonialism. My armor is contempt. My shield is disgust. My sword is hatred perfectly encompasses my ideaology for how I have a visceral and gut reaction to modernity.
Hey Rudyard, I highly recommend TIK History if you're gonna deep dive on Fascism, he's got a number of quite excellent videos on them, all with cited sources. Additionally he's recently begun work on a tree to trace back our modern ideologies to where they got their ideas from which is very helpful when looking into the Anthropology of a given philosophy.
TIK is a staunch libertarian though, so eventually all his views devolve into "fascism is left wing" or whatever even though fascism is more socially conservative than any libertarian.
@@admontblanc I agree, you have to take some of his opinions with a grain of salt because his libertarian assumptions are so intense that sometimes they color his interpretation of events in ways that I think are unrealistic. But having said that, "fascism is left wing" is a plausible view if only because this is how it was regarded (NS too) until the day Germany invaded the USSR when it abruptly became right wing. But in reality the various fascist movements straddled the fence between left and right, combining elements of each, which does make them rather difficult to classify. They were intermediate, or perhaps I should say synthetic, yet one could not really call them moderate either.
@@michaels4255 I don't think it's plausible to say fascism is left wing. My grandparents and uncles lived through such a regime, every description of everyday life indicates it was indeed very right wing. Not just socially but also economically. The country was very fiscally conservative, there was no welfare state beyond basic pensions and nearly zero bureaucracy regarding the establishment of small businesses. TIK on the other hand never lived through such a regime, nor does he have close/family relationships with anyone who did. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that fascism is to the left of absolute monarchy, certainly isn't to the left of libertarianism unless you only count the economy.
I thank God that I'm surrounded by a good and powerful group of people. Between my church and my leadership group, I know myself and those I care about will be fine no matter the circumstances.
Wow. Great video. It's funny, something I've found in modern intellectual discourse around political orientation is that labels and common language on the subject have become increasingly useless, and even counterproductive, in trying to actually communicate your point. Glad you touched on that. Liberal, leftist, conservative, communist, Nazi, fascist, etc have all become terms that are so emotionally loaded and associated with irrelevant ideas that as soon as one of them is used it essentially shuts down any real discussion. I've found it's best to completely remove the language itself. Under this you'll find surprisingly more common ground with people you might otherwise have found none.
Is there any chance we can get a reading list for any of your videos? Maybe even a book club series (kind of like Preston Jacobs' 1000 worlds book club)?
You started off the video saying that monarchies are fundamentally stable and provide the greatest freedom over time. I am a monarchist for that reason. I believe that humanity's fundamental immorality is not conducive to a completely free society, and we do ourselves a disservice trying to make it work. I advocate for a return to traditional monarchies.
Modern Christianity is non-violent to the point of self-defense being controversial. It doesn't seem like too bad of an ideology to retake the West. Also, I understand that historically people conquered in the name of Christianity, but...the copy of the Bible I have, and most people have I'm assuming, doesn't advocate for needlessly destroying people.
@@shaunkarr5641 He litterally wrote "the copy of the Bible I have, and most people have I'm assuming, doesn't advocate for needlessly destroying people." Is the Bible not the book part?
@@blahhumbug1That was to establish the tribes of Israel and a line for Jesus to come forth. The Old testament is also a fallen world before Jesus crucifiction
@@blahhumbug1Have you ever read the Bible? We are Christians (I am educated like one) Christianity takes as its main basis what Jesus said and it was the complete opposite of the Old Testament, it is incredible how they are not able to read the book on which their faith is based.
I like the part of the Right where I can have property rights, be a man/warrior when necessary and have a wife that I can cooperate with without the worry of losing everything.
These anthropology videos maybe some of the best and most inherently important societal videos I’ve ever seen. The misunderstandings and clarifications of the left vs right and the dynamics are detailed so well. Even tying in how totalitarianism and radicalism are prevalent between both sides. I think with the prevalence of the left and harsh reaction from both during the world wars were finally wrapping back towards the questions that started during the French Revolution. I think this turning point and evolution of the right will finally and cohesively bind each of these aspects of the right into something that is truly revolutionary. I refer to myself as a British rightist as well but my question is what differentiates American right from the British right? More pressing question is are we in the period in which we define what the new American right is? Since most of American history we’ve build and innovated off what the British did and created an identity unseen that goes beyond the limitations of the right but ascends it into something that cohesively binds it together into something harmonic.
@18:31 you are right, we dont have real capitalism, we have crony-capitalism. Crony-capitalism is also know as corporatism. Mussolini stated what corporatism really is.
I want my kids to feel confident in their ethnic heritage, a safe community, younger parents so we can give our kids more freedom to play on their own, an education system that serves them for history, and culture, math and art, and just take away some of the struggles I had growing up, such as. White guilt, stupid gangster rap, black worship, over sexualized pop music, the annoying HR and evil DEI at the expense of competency.
>The Perivian style is a mild-moderately bad situation that lasts a long time >The British style is a good sutuation that's hard to maintain >The German style starts as a great situation that very quickly turns horrible >The Islamic style is a potential corruption of Christianity
Islam was said to be founded by various Christian heretics such as Arianism and Nestorianism who were kicked out by the Orthodox Romans and fled to the Arab Deserts
I guess the one thing that blows my mind about all this is the way religion plays into this, especially in regard to Christianity. Christianity is a religion that, while it upholds traditional morality in many respects, is also highly critical of systems that promote vast wealth disparities while promoting ideas like “the first shall be last and the last shall be first,” “blessed are the meek”, and “the least of these,” all of which are very disruptive to the social order. In fact, the very founder of Christianity was known for cursing the religious conservatives of his time, and was eventually murdered by a corrupt priestly class because he upset the social order so much. Then the religion was adopted by women and slaves and eventually became a major component in bringing down the Roman Empire. One would think these attributes would make Christianity very attractive to the left and repulsive to the right. But somehow, it’s the exact opposite.
Seems to me whenever a good system gets put in place anywhere it slowly makes people soft and weak and then society crumbles. Need something like how America started but maybe do like some countries and when you graduate high school you are obligated to 1 to 3 years in the military to toughen you up. Some of our problem is many people seek positions of power out of greed or end up being corrupted. I think we need an amazing group of politicians and lawyers to redo alot of the system and make it way more difficult to abuse government powers with harsh punishments if caught.
I really appreciate the realness in his narration - especially where he laughs at important revelations that would be common sense but we’re generally supposed to pretend otherwise about.
1. Demons in psychology textbooks? Based! 2. Adultery being illegal? Based! 3. Churches being the top social networks? Based! I'm for the based American "fundamentalist" Christian state.
Impressive that "Rudyard" managed to make a 50 minute sequel to his left anthropology video in just 2 minutes.
He speed reads and talks fast. 😂
CoD QuickDraw perk enabled
it really makes you think...
He made them both at once .
No, really? How do you know?
I like aviation, weight lifting, and running my own business. I'm clearly a dangerous, extreme far right mad man.
What?
Hitler is that u? Lol
@appa609 He means normal ordinary straight white males are all far right extremists that a threat to democracy. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Luftwaffe phenotype
I hope you don’t like freedom, capitalism, the countryside and eating meat as well.
You could be dangerous (to the bureaucracy).
Intro -- Previous explanaitions.
6:10 - Part 1: Peruvian Rightism
15:35 - Part 2: Britsh Rightism
25:41 - Part 3: German Rightism
36:24 - Part 4: Muslim Rightism
47:22 - Conclusions
Thank you sir
I like the rightism of the Hutterites, the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, the Haredi Jews, and the Mormon Fundamentalists. Observing their reproductive success, it appears at least for now that they have hit upon a winning formula. However, I think it could be improved with some tweaks. The great thing about it is you don't need to control the state to implement it. As long as society remains somewhat tolerant of cultural minorities and protects private property rights, it is a rightism that can expand exponentially right under the noses of liberals.
A true hero.
Islam doesn’t operates on left right chart, it has it’s own path to carve over the skulls of everyone and Islam is realist only one nation will lead mankind
pog
"What future do you want?"
Have you heard of Senator Steven Armstrong?
The righteous will succeed
You're not crazy....
YOU'RE BAT S#1T INSANE!
Or on the other hand, you can live in ignorance and purchase your happiness. When blood and sweat is the REAL cost, thinking ceases. The truth is lost.
@@hismajesty6272 those are the lyrics of phase 1 against him, phase 2 lyrics are raiden realising that he does have a point, he isn't exactly what he thought he was and they have things in common.
@bmetalfish3928 God, Metal Gear is such an autistic and based franchise.
The more I study politics, the more I thank God I found Him, because nothing humanity builds will ever last forever.
Amen 🙌
That is why we have room to improve upon It to make It better.
@@kkjppt5359 As a Muslim well yeah I kinda do that already, its in our religion.
Praise Yahweh made manifest in Jesus Christ
God is not real
Nice video. From a Hispanic libertarian regarding Peruvian conservatives, the majority of people in Latin America didn't embrace communism, communists became terr*rist guerrillas and k*lled a lot of people starting civil wars all over the region after 1959. Then the people begged the different military to take power and ext*rminate those guerrillas. That's why Pinochet, Videla, Bordaberry, and everyone else got into power.
However, after these military defeats, Castro came up with the idea of "21st-century socialism" to now use the renewed democratic system to take power and never go away. Now using ecologism, human rights, feminism, anti r*cism, etc. to trick people and win elections. That is how we got Chávez, Lula, AMLO in Mexico, the Kirchner Thieve marriage in Argentina, Evo Morales, Boric. And most of the people still vote for them. Even though they have the old terr*rists from the 60s and 70s in their ranks (the same people their grandpas asked the military to er*dicate)
Bruh moment
Dang... do I really have to start c*ensoring my comments like this
Brazillian here. Couldn't have explained better myself brother. You nailed it.
You do know your LATAM very well my friend, well done
Imagine thinking amlo is a communist 😂
For most of Western History, "Conservative" meant "Royalist".
You’re gay
For good reason too.
For most of Western History, there was no such thing as a "Conservative."
@@luan0020Religious-non-technical civilizations don’t see themselves as places were they linearly move forward morally nor technologically. This is why tradition was the norm. Back then wanting to conserve tradition wasn’t called out since things seem to be correct the way they were and risk wasn’t taken as productive for society.
Today is the opposite, as the society rushes forward to nihilism and the idea of a morally optimal unknown future.
Not for the Americas except for things like the Aztec or Inca monarchies. But for north America most societies were traditionally organized as tribal confederations the structure of which influenced some aspects of the American constitution.
Was literally just wondering why I haven’t had a new whatifalthist video in over a month. I’ve now been gifted with two.
Rudyard was too busy hitting the podcast circuit 😏
@@lucasglowacki4683 Rudyard loves the shorts
You’re gay
We don’t deserve him
@@jackmoore7716shorts are stupid, nothing good can be adequately covered in that format. It's a garbage brain rot format and sucks in general.
“It is impossible to live in the past, difficult to live in the present and a waste to live in the future.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
@@nathandanner4030 What we wanted, we did not know. What we knew, we did not want
Ernst von Salomon. The Outlaws.
Unless, of course, you have Spice!
I was going to point out that Rudyard should read Dune. It provides an number of interesting solutions to the problems the Right faces, once they eradicate the Left.
The best part about having border security is not having crime.
The best part about being a conspiracy theorist is not having myocarditis.
You’re gay
People keep forgetting that COVID gave you a higher chance of myocarditis than the vaccines. Why would China or Russia do mass vaccine rollouts if they were terrible?
I do agree with the borders Point since I think you can't have a country without borders.
"not having myocarditis." Cries in double jabbed 😢
Yeah can't understand Rudyard calling the truth "conspiracy theory" all the time.
Rudyard: A legitimately philosophical Christian Society involves demons being taught in psychology textbooks, adultery being illegal, and churches being the top social network.
Me: Don't scare me with good times
It's scary and unpallatable to the Western mind to think that adultary (or sexual license) in general should be actively discouraged by the state. Reality is that marriage is the foundation of a strong family. If we weren't endlessly propagandized by selectivepy portraying "needful" cases of divorce and "happy" divorce, the general perception would be that family breakdown tends to scar children who grow up to be scarred adults, and all things being equal, will become less capable of contributing to society as an adult. Marriage and families are yet another artefact to be offered up on the altar of freedom, praise be unto its name.
Yes those are the goals I assume everyone was pushing towards too.
I was basically in the “I was already for it, you don’t have to sell it to me” meme
Is a marriage held together by threat from the law really worthwhile? Better to have the truth known I think then to hold onto something that shouldn't be.
Deal me in. Sounds like a reasonable path towards this elusive “utopia” societies have been clamoring for.
I want a fusion of German style warrior spirit and British style economic freedom with a Christian domination of morality.
I'm salivating.
I'm ovulating.
That would make you one of the most dangerous people on the planet,and I want the same, I mean ,after all two of my mentors were in the SS,one of them survived the siege of Stalingrad ,another of my mentors was an old Rhodesian bush soldier ,my own grandfather ex SADF,yeah ime all for the warrior thing
France: Nervous sweating
"Self government won't work without self discipline"
I'm a straight white 37 year old male that has a wife, three kids and a dog.
*Far Right Extremist!!
;'-D
Ironically both left and right people just make up boogeymen to justify their perceived victimhood to them re-justify their beliefs.
80% of people are normal and know it ain’t that deep. They just spend their days staring at the 10% they don’t agree with on either end
I'm 32 with 1 kid and another on the way, I've been an atheist all my live but I'm starting to wonder if maybe militant catholicism is the way hahah
@@Legalizeasbestos That's why I don't like to debate politics online. People immediately start assuming the stereotypes of the 10% on your side apply to you.
@@smallpiper2
It is the way
I'm a gay white 22 year old that has a boyfriend and two cats
But I like guns
*far right extremist :(
Essentially, it’s not the left versus the right, it’s the left versus everyone else
This just shows that, again, the right is more tolerant. There's many flavours on the right, and they can debate each other.
The left, is a religion, or a cult, if you don't comply fully to the doctrine, you're disfellowshipped.
"God Damm Liberals!!!"
@@briish4615F*cking hippies
Left versus left as well.
Which actually benefits the left though in a sense. All these unprincipled moderates being lumped into the right seems to be watering down the right and pulling the supposed right further left. See the staple green cards to degrees, pro-gay, “take the guns first, due process second” GOP presidential nominee as a shining example of this.
I think most Western conservatives, at least North American conservatives, do want some form of classical liberalism/British conservatism. They want a robust middle-class, and for the government to have minimal control over their lives. The big question is, what is needed to support that?
It seems that the right is lacking in a shared story to unite them. Some want to unite around Christian values, some around ethnonationalism, and some have no concept of any uniting force beyond smaller government and freer markets.
And, of course, we see a lot of the ethnonationalists pushing a form of Christian ethnonationalism which focuses on Europe's Christian history, but ignores Christian values or the truth of the Gospel. I think similar to this is someone like Andrew Tate, who declared himself a Christian, then a Muslim, because he thought islam was a stronger and more masculine religion. I.e., his religious beliefs aren't based around truth, but power.
Islam has the momentum.
Islam also has an excellent record when it comes to dealing with the left once in power.
I think a large part of the US right could unite around Burkean conservatism, but the biggest problem right now is that nobody on the right has any real power. Every major institution in society is controlled by the left, with some partial exceptions only for elected offices. (And of course the more theologically conservative religious bodies, but I would hardly number them among our society's "major" institutions.)
Because iits the people that want this, not right wing parties.
I think you answered your own question unknowingly. The ideal belief system should be around the pursuit and deification of truth rather than power or race or genetics.
@@cometlake_17 I'm aware that's the ideal, and I believe that's what genuine Christianity is. I'm simply saying the issue is that the right is divided. Many aren't amenable to Christianity, and without that, I'm not sure what could hold society together.
RUclips really showed their hand. This video has ads. The Anthropology of the Left does not have ads.
Opposite for me 💁♂️
You get ads? RUclips just deletes my comments.
From what I’ve seen neither have them now, surprising absolutely nobody.
This literally doesn’t mean anything
Probably because he talked about anti-semetism for 10 minutes in that video and the algorithm flagged his video
Whatifathist is the best at dropping a video during the right political climate
Type shit
@@TioMogiyou’re both gay
cuz he’s a wizard b
@@TioMogishit
ruclips.net/video/pi3-pcieT-w/видео.htmlsi=P9OZ4U4VRZnCw6BJ
As a right libertarian, what I want is simple. True freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, actual 4th amendment rights not just of my person and property but also my health and DNA info, a ban on lobbyists, elimination of most departments of federal government, a ban on all abortion that isn't a risk to the mother's life, enforcement of monopoly laws, the return to gold backed currency (AKA money) and removal of the Federal reserve, a ban on foreign investment in US property, discontinuation of welfare programs in most cases, closing the IRS and moving to a national sales tax system with no state or federal income taxes, the end of property taxation, etc... I could go on and on.
I do not consider myself a libertarian, but I agree with much of what you asking for. I think the Bill of Rights should never be amended. Property law should be absolute. I consider myself a conservative, I guess in the British conservative sense. Except I am not for Monarch rule.
…aaaaand a sharp reduction in our TRILLION $$ per year military.
> right “libertarian”
> ban on abortion
🧢
@@kenyanicholas6809 I would refer you to the SoHo forum debate between Walter Block and Kerry Baldwin. Being pro-life does have a valid libertarian rationale. Beyond this, one of the few powers given to the federal government is to protect life. People can do mental gymnastics but a fetus is a life. The vast majority of abortions (more than 98.5%) are elective, in those cases a woman's right to choose was before agreeing to consensual sexual relations.
I’d outlaw taxation and government borrowing. All state activity should be funded by a lottery, donations from the left, and licensing (ring fenced) of state activity eg. Road tax for roads, hunting permits for conservation etc etc.
I think, out of all my years of studying, I've narrowed down what each political leaning is or fighting for in one word:
"Far"/Radical/Dissident Left: Equality
"Moderate"/Centre Left: Justice
Center: Freedom
"Moderate"/Centre Right: Truth/Honor
"Far"/Radical/Dissident Right: Beauty/Harmony
And if there's one HUGE distinction it's that the right wants to achieve complete unity with nature/god(s)/universe/cosmos/reality, while the left sees a problem with it. I think that's the biggest underlying aspect that I so often see in the patterns.
this is really interesting, but what do you mean when you say beauty and harmony? Also what would you say about the leftists that consider themselves christians and god lovers nowadays?
@@gangsupere Thanks.
My comment is obviously a vast oversimplification, but sometimes that is useful for certain discussions. Any of these groups can exhibit other values as well. I just think these values are what most adherents to each group value most on average, from what I can tell after years of layman studying, and out of evaluating what people are just saying.
As for beauty/harmony, I'll try to explain it the best I can. I can clearly in my mind see what I mean, but it's another thing articulating it 😂Think of how the anti-lgbtq is far more amplified the further right you go, or how further rightists will be anti-immigration more for racist or social harmony reasons unlike more center rightists that might cite economic factors. Think of how further rightists are far more politically incorrect when calling people UGLY or FAT, the polar opposite of beauty. Observe how admiration of typically beautiful art and music is more prevalent among further rightists, and how the left for example claims how that type of art and music sets "unrealistic" standards, is colonial and racist and white supremacist etc. By harmony it'd be more specifically like being more strict in enforcing and ensuring these beautiful standard, unlike more center rightists that are more compromising by acknowledging that someone else's perspective can also be true, and their honor among the wider group stops them from doing what further rightists want to do.
Freedom is best typified by the people that basically go: "Let me just grill and drink beer in peace."
Equality seeking is sort of like justice, but justice doesn't HAVE to have an egalitarian. It's more about reaching what can be perceived as a good compromise for most or all. Solely equality-seeking is much more militant, hence the "far" or radical left. It's best typified by the communist belief of all workers owning the means of production, and everything that has happened as a result of trying to achieve that historically, because it's impossible, but the equality-minded doesn't care because they want to equality.
This is why I think each of the most radical wings exhibit these more uncompromising values than the other groups.
I think Christianity can be (mis)used to justify a lot. Maybe it's their way of transgressing the Christian doctrine by claiming they are Christian themselves. It's a typical leftist tactic. But not sure.
Hi !
I don't see much of "beauty/harmony" sentiment on the far right. Instead, I think they are deeply bent on "Safety" as a core sentiment, which makes them hold on to traditions hardcore, just because it feels safe. What do you think ?
@@GaëtanKlein I disagree. To an extent all groups do their stuff to ensure what they perceive as their safety. But if for example you look at leftists they're very passionate about creating their own safe spaces. Right-wingers for example value safety so their societies are safe from criminality. But no ideological group uses "safety" as their core slogan. They're generally more idealistic than that, and use higher words to rally their supporters for. Contrast it if you used "fighting for safety" or "fighting for beauty" or "fighting for justice", the latter two sounds much more inspiring for their followers. And being far right today isn't really safe, yet people are so saying that's their primary value is just dishonest.
If you read my reply to @gangsupere maybe you'll understand what I mean by the "beauty/harmony" concept.
Your comment seems more like an attempt at a "gotcha" than a factual evaluation.
@@HuWhiteDeath yeah, I agree with you, I just didn't see your point about inspiration. But it is true safety is a catch-all, not specific to far-right.
I don't want all these inventions, I just want freedom.
The rate of technological progress has slowed significantly since the 70s too except for communications. Right around the same time as the cultural shift.
Freedom to do what and for what purpose?
Freedom is an oxymoron. Humans are domestic animals, you setting your own rules based on our domesticated society is just safely wandering rather than free will and “freedom”.
@@CristianmrWuno A free man lives by his own law not those of the government. Just the fact criminals exist show their are disagreeable people who are not "domesticated" and instead live by their own rules. The fact that people with the know-how can just exit society and live off grid is an act of freedom
@@CristianmrWunoagreed and to add it’s a fallacy on its own you want freedom but want protection which you need to give up some freedom for
A society that rewards merit, embraces responsibility and accountability and works twards a goal bigger than one's self.
You completely contradicted yourself there.
DOUBLE DROP LADS GET IN HERE
drop top
Present and accounted for.
I wish more people would do the "as I explain in this text wall" thing.
Does the extra work for people that want more information, doesn't have to link to another video. It's great
and depending on our attention span at the moment, it leaves it up to us to digest the extra content or leave it there while moving along. Packs a lot of extra info for us, if we choose to consume it.
Most Conservative men today, have no issue with working to earn their way to being able to provide for their family, at the same time we want our tax dollars spent on providing for it's own country and it's citizens. Conservatives want to know they are working together to make a safer, more efficient future for it's people, no matter what country they come from. We don't want to be taxed into poverty just to see our tax dollars support greedy bureaucratic politicians and their rich friends. The suffering is going to be the end of the left yet again. Gen Z knows they have nothing to live for right now and they will eventually snap.
Hence why Trump has resonated with so many not necessarily conservative people. His philosophy of America first and "drain the swamp" hit home for people. If course he has his negatives, like his ego and his thin skin, he's boisterous and brash and it turns an almost equal amount of people off. If not Trump himself, that attitude is however what we need. Somebody who will take care of their own country first, and will try to weed out as many of the bureaucratic waste as possible. I personally don't think Trump is the guy, he's too old and too controversial, however, I do see him as the catalyst for change. For good change.
That statement about choosing Fascism, or Communism is so true.
I’ll chose the first because while it’s oppressive, it’s ideologically inconsistent and could eventually swing towards loosening up like Spain. Most of the Commie Bloc just collapsed for rights to come back.
@@hismajesty6272 its not inconsistent. You may have a flawed understanding of national socialsim.
@@jagdawgii929 Fascism is not national socialism. Two different ideologies, though quite similar.
@@paavoilves5416 thats my point, hes labelling it different than it actually was
@@jagdawgii929 But you were the first to mention national socialism?
After watching anthropology of the left I assumed this video would take a month to come out. We were spoiled today.
Edit: just wanted to say that British conservatism can absolutely create radicals willing to fight to the death. The promise of owning something is powerful to those that own nothing. I can very easily see fanatics fighting to destroy monopolies and big governments to take what they have, a sort of weird hybrid between communism and British conservatism.
Last thing: democracy’s tendency for equality can go in two ways. 1: nobody will own anything and so everyone will be equal. Or 2: everybody will own something and so everyone will be equal. The first was explored with communism. The second has yet to be explored, but seems to be the logical conclusion of a British conservative country like America.
reminds me of oversimplified part 2's
havent watched the video yet, hell I havent even finished the one on the left
In a recent History 102 interview, he even said he had a 3rd video ready to go, so the next one shouldn't be over a month away either
>The promise of owning something is powerful to those that own nothing.
This is probably what the next western revolution will be over, once some new counter-elite group decides to take it up as a cause (since all revolutions are performed by some form of elite seeking to usurp the existing elite, even if the cause is itself on behalf of non-elites). A whole generation of young men who will own nothing, no house, no land, just eternal rent-slavery to the ownership class. In such abhorrent conditions, why wouldn't they fight to own something?
Trudeau says "housing must retain its value" because it's the boomers' retirement fund. But that means zoomers and younger millennials will never own homes (since the government won't let the market correct) AND we know that our society is built around using a house (which we will never have) as a retirement fund which means we know we won't even get to retire.
America has played itself out. So, what comes next.
'the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.'
It seems to be inevitable, that even if we could balance wealth out equally at any given point in time, some would spend their given wealth quickly on consumable goods, while others would gather up durable assets and build wealth again. I don't think equality is ever possible, simply because of human nature and the different choices people would make for themselves.
Im a British rightist in good times and a German rightist in bad times.
Good times create British rightists, British rightists create bad times, bad times create German rightists...
@@admontblanc I love it!
I get what you're saying lol. But I have a certain dislike for British rightists for some reason.
@@Tehz1359 Actually, all 'mericans are supposed to have a built-in dislike of mercantilism (British Rightism) as the latter were the bulk of the British East India company; the organization whose forced policies the colonists were mainly against.
The colonists initially inclined, and hoped/organized for, a sort of localized autonomy lead by men whole interests were 90% regional, not national.
The general government (republic) was designed only to care for the elements common (common foreign borders, sea trade, large necessary interstate infrastructure) to all--no more.
The British 'rightism' differed in that it auctioned off (to the rich and connected) internal rights and overall trade--this made the rich richer and the working man penury cogs to a system of despotic oligarchs.
So your average incel LARP
babe wake up whatifalthist just posted about the anthropologies of the left and right
Become the Far Right Extremist the media warned you about
Based
OH SHIT IM FEELIN IT
👏 people telling me they're a communist is okay but I can't tell them they make me a fascist. Fuckin degenerates
I refuse to temper my beliefs, even for the media!😂
As a German who has studied the literature of the “conservative revolution” a lot in recent years, I have come to the conclusion that this very movement has a good ideological basis for the future of the right. German conservatism all the way.
“To be conservative does not mean to remain attached to what has been, but to live and act starting from what has a lasting value.” - Arthur Moeller van den Bruck
As a fellow German, i agree.
2:55 so what you're saying is... the right is wayyyyyyy more diverse than the left and wayyyyyyy more accepting of all kinds of groups from all over the world....
In the age of scarcity, belonging to the group and loyalty to the group is the end-all be-all of your life to navigate and combat said scarcity. Be it the Frankish Empire, Mongols, Romans, Abbasids, Carthaginian, Aztecs, and many more (these civilizations are different in many ways, but similar in many others)
Even in the age where nationalism is still in its infancy, these people work the same way all around the world; that being trying to make sure your group flourish in spite of other group
That is why the right is as diverse as it gets, everyone's spawning point is scarcity, and it breeds in-group loyalty
The left, especially the modern left, works under the assumption of post-scarcity worldview in which in-group loyalty could be seen as something bizarre, thus said loyalty could be criticized and be labeled as something bad, like calling it fascism or nationalism or any other denomination
No. A Christian nationalist from Louisiana would never accept a Hindu nationalist from India.
A buddhist right winger from Burma will never want to cooperate with a Muslim right winger from Bangladesh
Only if you simplify the entire left as "communists"
"all Asians look the same"
Diversity is not a virtue and neither is being accepting.
So the choices are:
Monarchs, Merchants, and Marauders.
F in chat for humanity
Ws in chat for monarchy
I pick the monarchy. The king cares more than the merchant. The merchant only wants to make a quick buck. The King is held accountable for the wellbeing of the country and when a rebellion occurs they know who to overthrow.
@@hismajesty6272 Why doesn't the King of the United Kingdom currently care about his people?
@@jboss1073:D
@@jboss1073does he have a kingdom ? Does UK even matter ?
The British right (that advocates for Republic) is the best solution; however, as you said it needs very strong foundations to work and is extremely rare.
So for it to work, you'd have to advocate for several things at once: Religiosity, Morality, Property Rights, Military Strength, and Land Owning (Stake Holding) Limited Voting Franchise.
It's a winning combo, but it only works if you have all of them at once. Which is why I see people supporting and easier (and more stable) ideology over it. Such as Monarchism.
Him: they have no idea what a Christian takeover would look like. Proceeds to list 3 things I am perfectly ok with. Though likely the demons one would be tempered as one of the primary thing exercises are taught is to eliminate all natural solutions first. Similar to how miracles have to go through huge process to be confirmed.
47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks"
yes
"Adultery being illegal"
Yes.
"And Churches being top societal networks"
YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
yeah tbh
@@scurvydog20 47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks"
yes
"Adultery being illegal"
Yes.
"And Churches being top societal networks"
YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
I’m much the same. It’s important to remember he’s referring to the secular types who really don’t want Christianity, they want Christian Morality separated from Christian Dogma. Essentially they want the benefits of having a firm moral standard, but don’t want the added responsibility that comes with aligning oneself to that standard. A kind of Lukewarm Christian Institutionalism, where everything is based on Catholic social teaching but every actual reference to Catholic Theology is removed.
Believe me I’m all for everything he says. Demons are very, very real and need to be taken into account when dealing with certain kinds of afflictions. Certain obsessions and addictions can be diabolically influenced into happening. Adultery is terrible for society because it just adds incentives for men and women to hate each other so it should be at the very least heavily discouraged if not straight up illegal in writing. As for the last point, if the Church succeeded in gluing society together and fostering sanctity for all the years up to the Protestant Rebellion and even beyond it can fix the problems of today. We’d just need a people psychologically capable of actually comprehending its necessity.
I don’t think it should be tempered and that’s not me trying to be more “based” then you are. Demons don’t necessarily have to possess someone to cause mental distress or problems. And they’re methods of determining which is going on.
I disagree with your view on monarchism. Not that it is more stable in certain circumstances, but how it ended. It was due to the capitalists gaining so much wealth they were able to influence the populace. Monarchs and capitalists are at odds, as a capitalist would want the government to pass favorable regulations like we saw on Florence, Venice, and even today in the US. Monarchs cannot be bribed as they have no reason to accept a bribe. As a result, the capitalists fomented the rebellions that created republicanism. They were effectively counter-oligarchs to the oligarchs and the monarchs in the European monarchies.
Well, some monarchs can/got greedy ,were evil or just stupid. Yeah,by &large they can't be bribed.Reminds me of Sultan Abdul -Hamid the second ,the last Ottoman sultan who refused to sell Palestine to the zionists in late 1800s .I think non-hereditary monarchy can work in today's world
@@abdirahmanbadal781 the problem with that is no matter what, the monarch can be corrupt. In order to be elected as ruling monarch, you need help from others. That means you're going to owe people very big favors. This is where capitalists, aristocrats, and lobbyists can begin taking over de facto control of the country. In a hereditary monarchy, this is impossible as the heir is guaranteed the position at birth. The only way an elective monarchy can possibly work is if the monarch is a baby when elected, however it can end up like the Bush family with Bush Senior making his son pay his debt to the Saudis. No matter how you cut it, there is going to be a major issue. Do we accept that occasionally we will have a bad ruler who will rule for life, or do we adopt a more Republican style of governance where the oligarchs of society inevitably become the de facto rulers. It's an impossible situation.
The only times i can think of monarchs being susxepible to bribery is when the country is actively collapsing due to a fiscal crisis, such as Russia selling Alaska, or France selling Louisiana
Realistically theres very little you can bribe a monarch with that they cant just get for free anyway
A fellow Lavendar viewer?
@@hismajesty6272 I recently discovered him, but I was on the path to being in favor of monarchism for the last few years. He kinda pushed me over the edge
Appreciate all the work and thought in producing content for this channel, thx🇦🇺
I’d like a combo of “British conservatism” and Christianity. Respecting property rights while also being anti degeneracy to rule the right in the future. They would also ally with places like the Mises Institute.
Wait, have I seen you in Arthur Greenwood’s comment section before?
@@hismajesty6272 idk who that is so no
15 years old?
Personally I'd prefer an Orthodox or Baptist theocratic oligarchy.
The Old Testament pre-David shows what God's ideal form of governance is: government by prophets/priesthood. Get the right priesthood and you're gunna be ok.
I look forward to the next thousand years of colonizing space under this ideology. Or maybe it will only last a century because hyperdrives are completely fictional devices that can never exist.
We need an anthropology of the up and an anthropology of the down.
So you’re proposing we make a S.O.A.D. parody band? I’m down.
anthropology of the forward and the backward
The Anthropology of the B
The Anthropology of the A
The Anthropology of the Start and The Anthropology of the Select
The Anthropology Konami Code!
we need the anthropology of the horizontal and the vertical
Anthropology of The Ana and The Kata
In answer to your question towards the end, these are some key tenets of the new right in my opinion. Self reliance. Personal responsibility. A boundary and recognition between masculinity and femininity. The nuclear family is the basic economic unit. Small, efficient government. Low taxes to incentivise entrepreneurship. Decentralization of political power. A return to smaller, more close nit rural communities, and as a result greater self reliance in food and energy production. A tendancy towards off-grid style living, which gives the individual and family greater agency. A general recognition that government inherently tends to become authoritarian over time and that social zeitgeist should be constructed with this in mind. Thats just a few off the top of my head. I could be way off, but I found the question interesting and thought I'd put in my 2¢. Thanks for another great video.
@@Awabaug One man's utopia is another man's hell. Lol
Who maybe thinks a return to Christendom
The only option that even has a prayer of salvaging this. Christendom lasted undivided for almost 1500 years and fed our forefathers before the Protestant Rebellion. The current liberal order fell apart in under a quarter of a millennia because it incentivized people to put God anywhere other than first.
Ave Christus Rex ✝️🇻🇦
Me! (I’m an Eastern Orthodox Christian ☦️ Convert!)
As long as it keeps out of politics.
@@InfinitePlain no
Sanitized of superstition and based in epistemology and phenomenonology
You shared your favorite quote. So I shall share with you mine...
On principle, we should be suspicious of explanations for other people's beliefs and behaviors when those explanations imply they would believe and behave as we do, if only the were as mature and enlightened as we are. - Richard John Neuhaus
Though "being suspicious" should never mean that we never allow ourselves to come to that conclusion, after being given copious amounts of evidence. It would be just as foolish to willfully ignore the possibility that someone is less mature or enlightened as to assume that no one can be shorter, slower, or weaker.
And all of that is separate from ever assuming that someone with less competence has less right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Just that they have no business being in charge of OTHER PEOPLE.
Excellent work, Rudyard. Yes, we need to figure out WHAT we want. I am currently reading, "START WITH WHY" by Simon Sinek. First we need to clarify and simplify our vision, the "why", then we can more easily determine the "how" and the "what". I could make a long list of what I do NOT want and that is helpful in honing in on what I DO want but it still needs to be boiled down enough to one sentence and then a 30 second "elevator pitch" explanation. Just like the process for a good business plan.
So, we need Capitalist Crusaders. Deus Vult and Free Markets combined. I like it.
Mammon is in opposition to that
That's called Objectivism.
Yes, as long as we also have chivalry and charity to widows and orphans and keep crony capitalism and lobbyists and corruption out of it. Respect the dignity of the legitimate poor, but do not enable the lazy and envious. Virtue, humility, charity, and diligence.
Capitalism, an idea so good it has to be mandatory.
@@Lusa_Iceheart capitalism is rejected by the Catholic Church in favour of corporatism and distributism
German, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise
ew
Grüße aus Texas!!
Grüße aus Hessen
@@samuellblake oh hey look this guy is doing GSR right now lol
@@Guy-Mann shaming is a typical female trait but men also shame people.
The Right I would want to see take action for would be a mix of British and German right. More leaning to British right than German right.
I'm a Christian, first and foremost, ideally, I would want a Christian ideal of how a country should be ran to be pushed in place. That I would see looking like a Christian Republic, the question then is 'how do we get that and keep it?'
I want to fight for freedom for all people, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of ownership of property; all so anyone can live without having to live in fear and/or to break core convictions. I also want force to be demonstrated from this Right to make it clear that the Right will not back down and continuously let go of what we should be fighting to hold on to, basically, I want this Right to fight with warlike force to push the lane back to Christian values that breed prosperity and blessings to all who live in this system, then this Right needs to continue to use like warlike power to keep the line in place so we don't devolve into degeneracy and self-destructive ideology. That's why I think a blend of British and German right would be the best view to hold and push for.
While all views have failed from the right and from the left, Christianity still is living on, Christianity needs to be the foundation in which a new prosperous right builds upon and is interwoven with using British right to encourage property owning and the German right to encourage warlike mentally that is healthy to protect our people and our way of life. Having the British right and German right molded with Christianity will also encourage higher education, morally, religiosity and homogenous thought that will serve to build up and hold a Republic system that can withstand a longer period of time for the foundation is not on blind uncertainties of man but on the longlasting rock that is Christianity.
This is what I want to see for our future, this is what I want to fight for, this is the ideal that I want to push for so that ALL may experience a healthy way of living full of purpose and meaning.
Demons being taught about in school would be awesome.
It wouldn't be actual demonology or spooky occult stuff it would be some guy rambling about mental illnesses. Mental illnesses and things that are very real would immediately be reduced to "Satan magic" and we would never progress from that point. Remember, at one point some guy saying the Earth was round and rotated around the sun was considered blasphemous witchcraft. All the "fun"and informational modern things would be banned or heavily guarded by religious puritans. Modern conservatives are not ready to part ways with their own sinful ways no matter how much they complain about it on Twitter.
Don't worry they already do classes covering Reagan and Thatcher
It's called drag kids story hour.
Yes and tucker should be the teacher that’d be gold! Just picture him calling out all the tyrants and calling them demons while giggling in his classic laugh 😂
@bmx13andit52 Tyrants are the tools of demons, not demons themselves.
No way you mentioned the fact radical Islam has marxist roots, i was reading a book stating radical Islam back then was a revolutionary ideology created by former-marxists in MENA. With the goal of creating a State based on Islam.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Modern Islamic leaders tend to be men with very close Western ties, often being born in an Islamic country but then being sent to liberal Western schools and universities.
Nonsense. Islam's normal state is radical. It has been radical since it was it was founded in the seventh century AD. Did you know that North Africa used to be entirely Christian? That was until Islam invaded.
Islam IS revolutionary.
I was reading about the baloch insurgency in Pakistan and was surprised to know that all of those rebel groups had names with "Marxist Leninist"
To be concise, as a german who has had some deep insight into the german-style not only by history, but by family and personal experience, I believe that german-style...what is the point, let's just say a national type of socialism paired with a religious society is the optimal way forward.
Besides the cultural warfare, the biggest issue of these days is that unregulated capitalism is screwing the majority of the population, due to our economy being based on a ponzi-style model that is centralized banking. It is fundamentally designed to rob the poor and enrich the elite.
Before we discuss culture or religion, the economy must prosper or else revolution is inevitable in the long term. German type socialism aimed to create a functional economic system which worked EXTREMELY well for not only generating wealth, but especially raising the quality of life for the AVERAGE person. This brought a sense of spiritual unity and kinship which united our nation.
To break it down to the most fundamental level, a country needs moral values, a functioning economy and a culture that promotes unity to flourish.
Christianity provides moral values that not only prevent degeneracy but also unite a country culturally, as history has sufficiently shown.
German socialism supports similar values, such as being united culturally and helping each other, while also providing a functioning economic model (restricted capitalism) that generates wealth but prevents capitalism from straying too far and e.g. selling hazardous foods just for short term benefits, like the US is doing right now.
The pillars of the ideal society are therefore german socialism and christianity.
Let's not forget that culturally and economically, german socialism succeeded. It was not defeated because it was flawed. It was defeated by war.
That being said, some aspects clearly went too far and should be addressed and kept in check, but exactly that is Christianity's mission - to set moral boundaries.
Also you should not be so quick to dismiss a christian-ruled society, as even the CIA basically admitted that they dabbled into the supernatural with some success. Most of the greatest minds of history were convinced christians and very well read on esoteric traditions and the supernatural. Be a bit open-minded and don't dismiss everything immediately, just because you grew up hearing it was superstition.
The biggest problem is that it was based on a military economy and therefore needs enemies. To maybe make the economic model work u would need some non militaristic greater good with high industrial needs. In my opinion. The only thing that comes to my mind is space exploration and pushing for expansion there as well as building monuments like a Dyson sphere.
Because I am really afraid of the destructive powers the ideology can have as well as the ability to turn people into not thinking monsters.
Btw. Wenn ich fragen darf was ist deine Sicht auf die AFD?
Ye, pretty much. If Mr. Mustache was an actual Christian and not esoteric, occult fascist then the whole thing could work. Worst part is, there's even place for esoteric, occult Christianity which appeals to military. The thing is, it has to be limited to military and the state cannot be just the military. Exactly the SAME how state can't be just the church, look what happened with whole Papal fiasco, muddying waters and producing more schisms for hundreds of years. Or exactly how you can't have state be just the merchants, that just ends up in corpo dystopia down the line.
You gotta balance these things out, they don't have to be 1:1:1 but they sure can't miss whole third or even two out of three pillars of civilization. Great thing about Christianity, especially Orthodox kind, is that it's very much open ended. While Islam and Judaism really hamper down on "do this/don't do this" and are very much rules based, Christianity has rather small emphasis on day to day control of your behavior. What it often asks though, is to be involved in your decision making, to be constant chip on your shoulder. Basically, it doesn't remove agency, nor is it isolationistic. Issue with first monotheistic faith is that it's isolationistic and sort of "this is just for us" thing. Issue with last monotheistic faith is that it openly cannot exist unless it's 100%, and it will do that any means necessary.
Out of three (we're not counting Zoroastrianism lmao) monotheistic religions there's a clear "winner" for a moderate right person in the West. Similarly to that then, one should evaluate different branches, with them being Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Once again, the issues are clear, Catholicism is too strict and really insist on this whole Pope thing which is an experiment proven not to work, truly biggest social experiment of Europe, two steps behind though. Issue with Protestantism is the fact most people will answer "Which one?", which is a problem in itself. It's so loose and lackluster that there's zero way to reform it, unify it or do anything useful with it. Organized faith cannot exist in climate where you could get excommunicated in one part of your village, then proceed to build your own church three streets away. I won't even get in the whole no icons, churches that look like business or anything like, just looking at it from a practical stand point.
So what's the issue with Orthodoxy? Honestly, the orthodoxy. Best part about it is that it's the same Christianity from 3rd century, but that's also the worst part, it's very stagnant and inert. Neat part about it though, it's both modernizing in past 2 decades (only around 10 years ago Orthodox priests started using internet to actually proselytize) and there's cultural agreement (all be it , this is cultural, among the Greeks and Slavs) that it's not church's job to do the progress, but soothe the herd. This is why most eastern societies split into warrior and priest classes, with Darwinistic people running states while Christians run the moral background of the society. No idea how Orthodoxy could work with addition of merchants though, it has never been done as far as I know. Maybe you should look outside of Europe and find Orthodox Christians elsewhere, it's on the rise in US, China, Japan, South Korea, perhaps there one could observe how it interacts with merchants.
Central banking is anti-capitalist - anti-property rights by it's nature.
@@MGUM_but it achieved most economic success without having been military driven though. And Germany was technically the last belligerent to adopt a full scale war economy, only doing so in 1943. Compare that to the USA, which had switched over even before entering the war, making ends meet for the lend lease program, and the reality makes much more sense. And as history proved, a military driven economy is only bad if you lose. America came out on the winning side on both world wars, and until the first one its economy had always been behind that of Europe as a whole (comparing the US to single European countries is nonsensical as the scale is off on every metric).
Paired with a religious society AND eugenics! Eugenics is the best way forward. Second best is to suppress the germ theory of disease, destroy all sanitary practices, and ban modern medicine. Worst is to keep going the way we are: no artificial selection, and no natural selection either. It is a recipe for disaster. Animal breeders understand this.
47:16 he says this if it’s a bad thing.
*battle hymn of the Republic intensifies
47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks"
yes
"Adultery being illegal"
Yes.
"And Churches being top societal networks"
YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
Yeah they’re not bad things. Demons are very real, adultery is terrible for society so it should be at the very least HEAVILY discouraged if not blatantly illegal and Churches were the glue that held society together for over 1500 years until the Protestant Rebellion. However actually living out life in accordance with Christ’s will requires one to seriously realign their worldview which most are generally unwilling to do. A lot of people want Lukewarm Christianity to continue existing because it asks nothing of them personally, but it simultaneously defends them by using those who are more zealous. Even I’m far from perfect in this and I’m a practicing Catholic, Latin and all.
I can’t imagine the more secular types would take the transition all too well. I made the transition from completely secular to focused on faith relatively smoothly because I already preferred belief in objective moral standards and already had a preexisting, self made honor code. All I had to do was tweak a few lenses and wipe off some grime to see clearer. Most people only do what serves their own interests and the idea of intentionally handicapping your own ability is seen as nonsensical. Those people would need an entire ideological rework to even begin the journey I took because from their perspective everything I’ve done would make no sense. Even my family who’re relatively similar to myself didn’t really understand the turn initially and I’ve had to re-catechize them from scratch. Thanks be to God they respect my judgment enough to actually listen, I’d be devastated if I lost them in the process.
Went here to comment this lol, he just described my ideal society
@@captain0ffd244 47:14 "a Christian society involves demons in psychology textbooks"
yes
"Adultery being illegal"
Yes.
"And Churches being top societal networks"
YEEEEEEES! COME TO PAPA!!!!!!!
Monday double feature?! Rudyard, you’re spoiling us now.
To be real, the British style of Rightism is the best the world has seen. Although it isn't perfect, it is the best system I think the world has had. We need to go back to more of those beliefs with some modern twists to update it a little.
Its criminal how Polish history and civilization is forgotten.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that largely because of its indefensible geography, it was constantly swallowed up by neighboring powers?
@@c63amgblack Twice. And the powers you mention nearly have broken Anglo-Saxon rule. Both cases involved a lot of effort by England and British Empire.
@@c63amgblack But since you have mentioned the geography. Isn't the fact of a semi independent Polish state in 2024 impressive enough, without even looking into the science and economics?
@@c63amgblackconstantly is a stretch. It was truly only “swallowed up” in 1795, but that did last 123 years ;)
@@marcingaladyk yes it is, when did the surrounding powers nearly break Anglo rule?
The best answer I have seen on the right comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe and the Austrian school. It combines social conservatism with monarchy and anarcho-capitalism. For an introductory book I would recommend "Getting Libertarianism Right." If you want an in depth explanation, his book "a theory of socialism and capitalism" has a good amount of critiques of the socialist ethic, as well as the 9th and 10th chapters going into details about how to protect people in an anarchist society and protect against monopolies in that same society.
Good video!
This is the correct answer. There is no refutation for it. Those who disagree are utilitarians.
Thanks for the book recomendations
@@pigman876 My pleasure!
Hey Rud, Discovered you on Timcast IRL. That was a great show! Subscribed and excited to learn. Thank you for all you do. ✌🏻
I want to know which sources did you read for latin america? Because the church were allies of the indians against the common spanish colonial, and the king of spain worked actively to give better conditions that criollos (spanish born in america) were against it. This sound like the common anglo propaganda against Spain.
Rudyard seems to have a pretty strong anti-Catholic outlook.
Rudyard mentioned those things in his prior videos on Latin America. I don't know why he didn't include them in this one. To steelman his case, I'd assume he either forgot, omitted it for the sake of narrative clarity, or (what I suspect) he put church and state together since the marriage of church and aristocracy is usually how it works in the rest of the world, which allows him to make a clean "Peruvian conservative" category without having to subdivide it between Latin and non-Latin and such. I should also note that 19th-20th century Latin America was not wholly the same as Colonial Latin America in terms of power dynamics, so maybe he was talking moreso the post-independence juntas and anticommunist Cold War governments than he was the old colonial viceroyalties.
You are correct on both counts. The clergy and monks tried to protect the Indians from predatory landowners and Spain's distant King was more considerate of the natives than the criollos (creoles). The profit motive is socially useful, but its excesses need to be kept in check. A small number of families owning and controlling almost everything, including the state, is a historically recurring pattern.
@@michaels4255 It's really unfortunate it always ends up that way, but some people are more naturally gifted at acquiring land and wealth than others. Some know how to work the system to their advantage, while other's don't or can't figure that out. At the low income end, we have millions of people who have figured out how to work taxpayer funded entitlement programs. At the higher income end, we have wallstreet and executives who know how to work our financial system for profit. People in the middle just work, and have their labor taxed or stolen or used against them. I think it's always been that way. It's human nature. Intelligent animals always figure out how to work any system for their advantage.
The latter is true only in certain specific cases. The colony did not treat the majority of indigenous people well. In the case of the Virreinato del Rio del Plata, many indigenous people supported the revolution. And it is not propaganda, not at all, the newspapers of the time and Spanish documents confirm it.
Europa: The last battle.........Puts the modern world in a new light.
Where can you watch it?
@@TheP0dcastHub oldbitchute
@@TheP0dcastHub YT is at it again so 0ld. 8ite chut3. There are a few video site. YT, RUM, and two versions of the one I am refering to. The old one is best.
@@TheP0dcastHub 81t..........Chute........
@@TheP0dcastHub Sorry YT at it again.
I enjoy watching people who put labels on me, try and tell me about myself.
When I was a child I was told I was a Libertarian because I thought the governments roll in society should be supplemental to the human condition and not a burden upon it.
Than I was called a socialist because I said corporations shouldn't be able to buy up all the single family houses, driving up prices and creating life long rent slaves.
THAN I was called a Communist for saying that minimum wage should scale to inflation so people can live a easy life free of unnessisary monetary burdens.
AND EVEN THEN I was called a NAZI because I believe that all the army's of the world shouldn't be able to just send there men across our WIDE open borders.
The funny thing about all that name calling, it was by both parties.
There the same party. Nobody Wants to fix what is easy to fix, only march forward making it worse so you keep voting them back in or stop voting all together.
It's funny because there only hurting themselves not listening to me.
You seem a naționalist social libertarian
This is the best Monday we've had.
Nice pfp
nice pfp
"it's unmistakably a right wing group"
OMG we get a double feature! This is so friggin awesome!!!
Being a fan of Carl Benjamin, I find myself agreeing with his stance that while classical liberalism was a good fundamental position for our founders, there has to be something beyond it. Something that can combines the perspectives of what you are free to do with what you were responsible for doing.
Islamofascism with free speech areas and special economic zones
You can try a new Roman republic, it's the model those people where emulating to begin with, especially the founders of America.
Your dissection of Islam was quite illuminating. Kudos.
As a non-American viewer of your work, I wish to see the reemergence of the German right.
And realistically, that's the only option around I see on the continent.
The is almost no Peruvian right left in Europe, Islam is foreign to our psyche, and we don't have much of the shopkeeper mentality developed in the British right. Basically, British right parties were astroturfed into Central Europe after WW2, but since the post war generation is now about to die off, the artificiallity of it all is clear to see. For the average German man, there is no incentive to join the establishment conservatives (CDU/ OVP/ SPD etc).
I'm 32 and somewhat out of my generation (I mostly mingle with 20somethings) and I see all of them being more and more open about being what you termed German right.
And I myself like the developements.
You are right about mainland Europe and British Right not being popular there.
That’s probably why we see the continual rise of “far right” movements across Europe.
The problem really is whether you are going to have enough population to support the German rightism movement. With the ethnic replacement happening in Europe right now I can imagine Islamic rightism being the only feasible option, and the German rightists converting to Islam in order to atleast secure a victory against the left and continue into a messianic Islamo-fascist hybrid
@@nessesseda yes wonderful to see. And it’s really common sense I see nothing far right it’s Asinine labeling. Islamic immigration is something only a feminist matriarchy would do or guilt ridden aspects being manipulated to accept cultural suicide. The powers the pre existed always were afraid of Germany and did anything to keep them down. All of Europe practically is Germanic, France by franks, England by Anglo saxons and then Norman’s, austrogoths across Austria Italy and east and Visigoth’s Spain and France, even the kieven Rus has Nordic origins. Love seeing Thuringia and saxony, but as we see in America or with marine la pen, these people are realllly pushing to keep this sane rational movement down
Good luck to you mate, because the Islamics will try to force their way by outbreeding you guys. Strike while the iron is hot, I believe in you and your people.
I don't want to see it.
Especially the Germans do not deserve such after what they have done and continue on doing under different ideologies.
Glad you are doing well and still making videos, Rudyard!
I can tell this will be a good one. In just 6 months I went from being a republican (little r) to being a postliberal traditionalist, so it’s fun to be part of the more dynamic side of politics.
Now you just need to unravel the obvious lies of Cuckstianity
What exactly is a postliberal traditionalist? Maybe I am one? I was a lapsed Catholic, tepid average american, but now I prefer the Latin Mass and wear a veil at church and want my children to get married young and have lots of babies. I used to be into some liberal sorts of ideas, but they leave a bad taste in my mouth now. So is that postliberal? I'm definintely trad.
@@oneperson5760based
@oneperson5760 Post liberalism is a rejection of the notion of capital L Liberalism, which is individualistic and afraid of limits and enforcing the common good. I’d recommend Eudiamonia’s video on it, or any lectures by Patrick Deneen (both traditional Catholics) for a more detailed explanation. As far as being a traditionalist, I don’t think there’s a good definition but I’d say I reject rationalism as an ideology, as we’re barely ever rational in new “innovation,” and I find it better to lean on cultural traditions and old ways and values. Another good critic of Liberalism who takes on that angle is Carl Benjamin, a British political pundit. If you’re a Latin Mass Catholic you’re probably mostly in line with Postliberal Traditionalism or almost there. God bless you
-a sympathetic Protestant
2 videos - 1 day. We are truly blessed
This really puts it all together, Rudyard has proven what I believe; that the term "Right" and "Conservative" have been used so broadly as to be effectively meaningless. However if they have no meaning than that means they can be given one, which is the likely challenge of the 21st century. Very thought provoking!
Another thing with the Fascists and Nazi debate over right or left is that they are foundationally a split from broader Socialist and Marxist thought, one mostly derived from witnessing the first world war where the masses overwhelmingly identified with their common nation and blood over their class, which caused some among the Socialist thinkers to figure that if they were to implement Socialism with the masses it would be more probable to do it in a national rather than international fashion.
They were no Marxists. They were national socialists. They hated Marxism and they hated communism
W national socialism btw
That's exactly it. National Socialism. Nationalist like the right. Socialist like the left. An odd amalgamation of the two prevailing ideologies. Internally, N*zi Germany was run very socialist in nature from the standpoint of the government controlling much of the production and government run work programs and youth camps.
um yes, I do want the Christians to win...I want adultery to be outlawed and demons to be taught as real things. I want all that comes with it.
giga based exorcist chad detected.
@@user-pz4ir9rf6iinstilling it our children
@@UNSCSpartan118ONI a Spartan taht follow a Syrian ideology ....shame
while i dont agree with everything that would come from that i would take this over what the woke has planned 10000x over
@user-pz4ir9rf6i When you consider the emotional pain that adultery causes and how it spills out into society in general -- divorce, broken families, traumatized children -- one might make a good argument for it. I just apply Hillel and point out that I don't want it done to me and abstain from it all on my own. Laws aren't very good at preventing the negative behaviors, though.
I feel we. Kinda dismissed the possibility of something more like Heinlein presented but i guess on some vauge level you did.... I do know given how this all works out usually it wont be smooth... Also to answer the question at the end.
1. I want the freedom to be who i am, with reasonable expectations from me given my oddities, issues, and overall position.
2. I want the freedom to be armed against all possible threats and enemies that present a threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
3. I want those who partake of the franchise (vote) To be not only correctly, But honestly informed. And those that Partake of Political efforts to understand the responsibility, the usual cause and effect of their actions, and utmost be held accountable for their actions when they make mistakes. Be this Removal from office or to make blatant honest admittance to error and make a genuine effort to change course.
4. To know my borders are secure from Foreign agents, Activists, and Enemies. A sharing of cultures and ideas can be benifical but if said ideas are "Burn everything you own, Destroy everything thats good in life, and then take everything from somone else" it is not appropriate.
and while i feel i could point to more here. I think the long story short is, when looking at the Original Constitution of the United States, The Articles of Confederation, The bill of rights and the general process to get there i find the vast majority of what i am looking for. I do not wish to return to Slavery, I do not wish to run headlong in pure anarchy and the lack of rule of law that operates within the spirit of the law. But i do not wish to continue on this route where the state has full reign over everyones lives and you can take no action to stand against the ongoing wrongs and efforts to Strip the rights that are marked written and acknowledged.
Early America fused prussianism with libertarianism, (duty to the individual as part of the whole) in a much healthier way. Returning to foundational American ideals is the only alternative I can think of without disastrous consequences. But to do that lobbying needs to be banned and the government must shrink immensely, which the modern left would never allow.
Far left and far right are about giving power to a minority, who those advocating for them believe will benefit them personally not society in general. Democracy in theory is an ideology that aims to please a majority often at the expense of minorities (that is the trade off). I have always found that if my fellow citizens are given all the facts they will make the best decisions for their society (see Brexit and Trump in 2016). i.e. democracy is an ideology that can adapt rather than trying to dogmatically apply one set of ideas over eons. All the problems we are seeing in the world are because elites are usually narcissists and believe that doing what plebs want is a threat to their power (which it often is). As Noam Chomsky said (not an endorsement of everything he says). "The answer to subversion of democracy is more democracy, more freedom, more justice". That is why we are being flooded with incompatible cultures. Democracy only works with homogenous societies (and borders). The minoritarians on both sides are trying (and succeeding) to create low trust societies where democracy is impossible.
Some far left ideologies like anrcho communism, libertarian socialism and market socialism are about giving power back to the people.
Most democracies are scams to mask the power of the oligarchs. This was already true in Aristotle's time. Read his _The Politics_ .
That's the inherent vice of democracy. You can rig the system by oppressing the majority with an influx of heterogenous (to the current majority) political minorities that will shift the balance of power away from the majority you as the one in power dislike. That's what's happening in America and all over Western Europe. Don't like what the people want? Import new people to outnumber them and sway the vote and shift of majority power. The left in the United States likes to talk about "threats to democracy", however they are the ones that are trying to abuse the democratic system to shift the power. Trump put them on overdrive because he rallied the working class, generally conservative "sleeping giant" in America. He was a huge threat to them. I said since the very first failed attempt to jail him, they will just try to kill him next. And here we are.
Well what the minority ideology is doing is trying to import enough people that will vote their way to outnumber and overthrow the majority. American leftism has always been the minority but it it is growing, yes through them controlling the education system, but also through importation of a whole new entitlement class. Even though registration of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were traditionally pretty close, with even Democrats having a slight edge, there were always still a good number of conservative Democrats so rightist vs leftist numbers always favored the right by a substantial margin. Also a factor that modern Republican Presidents like Reagan and Trump have poached a good number of Democrats to their side. So now it's time not to throw out the system, but rather to throw a wrench in the gears and just import their way to a new majority. That's the downside of democracy in the modern world where not only can people in other countries be more mobile, but also it pays big for others to assist them, there are countless near failed states for them to come from, and we have all the benefits in the world to entice then with. Come to America, we'll take care of you, and by the way vote for us and don't forget who gave you all the free stuff when you vote the next time and the time after that. Don't like the majority? Import a new one. That's the left's game plan. While I do agree a democratic system is the best option, unfortunately it can be abused in this manner.
I kind of agree but only men over age of 30 should be able to vote... Politics is largely a media game imo, political landscape is vastly different with Elon buying Twitter and popularity of Tiktok
I always start Rudyard’s videos thinking “oh I’ll listen to 10 minutes.” Then 30 minutes later I’m learning the secrets of the universe
13:00 you are going to need a bit more of an explanation than: if society move fast stable thing can't last. In many ways, one person will be able to respond much faster and more effectively than an entire state apparatus. Monarchy lost it's foothold in the west with the decline in the power of the Church and the rise of leftism (which are, of course, linked)
This is a thing of beauty, a double video drop on my feeds most boring day of the week.. Thank you for you work sir. Best historian/geopolitics commentator on the tube, IMO. EVen if I do pick at you in the comments sometimes.
Go ahead trolls...
Freedom from freedom
This not only explains totalitarianism but humanity as a whole
Most don’t want to look in the mirror, knowing what looks back at them is ultimately their responsibility
Wonder why Germany became one of highest standard of living countries in the world by 1937? Weird.
If gravitate to the right because I felt God in their movement. I am not naive, I know most conservative are actually not christian, but its the one who is not actively working on building a "utopia" separated from the Lord. If its not from God, I don't want anything
Most of my life, the vocal Left has been militantly anti-Christian while the Republicans generally have payed lip service to God. On the one hand, I have a Left Wing that says I'm a fascist and theocratic for not wanting porn and condoms in schools. On the other hand, the "Far-Right" figures like Tucker Carlson are bringing on guests who say to spend less time on politics and more on prayer. Many conservative Christians are insincere, and many days, I fall into that insincerity too, but maybe we're God's useful idiots.
We shall unite under the new german right and fight for god and fatherland, just as we used to. Let us all stand together lest we all fall apart - united by Christianity.
If by Christian you mean "evangelical," then you are correct. But if you mean Christian more broadly than just self described evangelicals, then US conservatives might very well be majority Christian.
@@michaels4255true but mainstream 'matt walsh' conservatism is designed to be inoffensive to a secular audience. I think most conservative people would be in favor of a more Christian representation in politics if it arose
When you get past all the obfuscation and start to really understand what the left is and what the right is, there is so much clarity.
German style rightism is absolutely a dream but one I wish to see and partake in.
Being forced to run 5 miles and do 30 pull ups everyday in gym class leading to a beautiful Warhammer 40k-esc militaristic space colonialism. My armor is contempt. My shield is disgust. My sword is hatred perfectly encompasses my ideaology for how I have a visceral and gut reaction to modernity.
Hey Rudyard, I highly recommend TIK History if you're gonna deep dive on Fascism, he's got a number of quite excellent videos on them, all with cited sources. Additionally he's recently begun work on a tree to trace back our modern ideologies to where they got their ideas from which is very helpful when looking into the Anthropology of a given philosophy.
TIK is a staunch libertarian though, so eventually all his views devolve into "fascism is left wing" or whatever even though fascism is more socially conservative than any libertarian.
@@admontblanc I agree, you have to take some of his opinions with a grain of salt because his libertarian assumptions are so intense that sometimes they color his interpretation of events in ways that I think are unrealistic. But having said that, "fascism is left wing" is a plausible view if only because this is how it was regarded (NS too) until the day Germany invaded the USSR when it abruptly became right wing. But in reality the various fascist movements straddled the fence between left and right, combining elements of each, which does make them rather difficult to classify. They were intermediate, or perhaps I should say synthetic, yet one could not really call them moderate either.
@@michaels4255 I don't think it's plausible to say fascism is left wing. My grandparents and uncles lived through such a regime, every description of everyday life indicates it was indeed very right wing. Not just socially but also economically. The country was very fiscally conservative, there was no welfare state beyond basic pensions and nearly zero bureaucracy regarding the establishment of small businesses. TIK on the other hand never lived through such a regime, nor does he have close/family relationships with anyone who did. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that fascism is to the left of absolute monarchy, certainly isn't to the left of libertarianism unless you only count the economy.
@@admontblanc The USSR was socially conservative compared to both the modern left and some center right parties.
@@johnnyjohn-johnson7738 the USSR was a utter shithole, and an enemy of all the West, regardless of how shit the left is.
I thank God that I'm surrounded by a good and powerful group of people. Between my church and my leadership group, I know myself and those I care about will be fine no matter the circumstances.
All sounds great on paper until SHTF...then you will learn who really cares about whom.
One vote for the Germans
I’d like an Oswald Mosley Style Government to which we never got
Wow. Great video. It's funny, something I've found in modern intellectual discourse around political orientation is that labels and common language on the subject have become increasingly useless, and even counterproductive, in trying to actually communicate your point. Glad you touched on that.
Liberal, leftist, conservative, communist, Nazi, fascist, etc have all become terms that are so emotionally loaded and associated with irrelevant ideas that as soon as one of them is used it essentially shuts down any real discussion. I've found it's best to completely remove the language itself. Under this you'll find surprisingly more common ground with people you might otherwise have found none.
Is there any chance we can get a reading list for any of your videos?
Maybe even a book club series (kind of like Preston Jacobs' 1000 worlds book club)?
I second this motion.
In all honesty, adultery should be illegal.
At the very least, it should be grounds for civil suite (against both the cheating spouse and the third party) from the spouse being cheated on.
Not for men
@@pincermovement72 Why not?
It is in korea
You started off the video saying that monarchies are fundamentally stable and provide the greatest freedom over time. I am a monarchist for that reason. I believe that humanity's fundamental immorality is not conducive to a completely free society, and we do ourselves a disservice trying to make it work. I advocate for a return to traditional monarchies.
Modern Christianity is non-violent to the point of self-defense being controversial. It doesn't seem like too bad of an ideology to retake the West. Also, I understand that historically people conquered in the name of Christianity, but...the copy of the Bible I have, and most people have I'm assuming, doesn't advocate for needlessly destroying people.
Oh really? Then explain all the times that god commanded the Israelites to take a land and slaughter the men, women, and livestock.
It has been captured, and must be retaken as the form of is in is nothing less than sacrilegious.
@@shaunkarr5641 He litterally wrote "the copy of the Bible I have, and most people have I'm assuming, doesn't advocate for needlessly destroying people." Is the Bible not the book part?
@@blahhumbug1That was to establish the tribes of Israel and a line for Jesus to come forth. The Old testament is also a fallen world before Jesus crucifiction
@@blahhumbug1Have you ever read the Bible? We are Christians (I am educated like one) Christianity takes as its main basis what Jesus said and it was the complete opposite of the Old Testament, it is incredible how they are not able to read the book on which their faith is based.
I like the part of the Right where I can have property rights, be a man/warrior when necessary and have a wife that I can cooperate with without the worry of losing everything.
These anthropology videos maybe some of the best and most inherently important societal videos I’ve ever seen. The misunderstandings and clarifications of the left vs right and the dynamics are detailed so well. Even tying in how totalitarianism and radicalism are prevalent between both sides. I think with the prevalence of the left and harsh reaction from both during the world wars were finally wrapping back towards the questions that started during the French Revolution. I think this turning point and evolution of the right will finally and cohesively bind each of these aspects of the right into something that is truly revolutionary. I refer to myself as a British rightist as well but my question is what differentiates American right from the British right? More pressing question is are we in the period in which we define what the new American right is? Since most of American history we’ve build and innovated off what the British did and created an identity unseen that goes beyond the limitations of the right but ascends it into something that cohesively binds it together into something harmonic.
Holy double feature Batman
As an Australian; Holy testicular Tuesday, Batman!
@18:31 you are right, we dont have real capitalism, we have crony-capitalism. Crony-capitalism is also know as corporatism. Mussolini stated what corporatism really is.
I want a society that champions truth above all other virtues.
I want my kids to feel confident in their ethnic heritage, a safe community, younger parents so we can give our kids more freedom to play on their own, an education system that serves them for history, and culture, math and art, and just take away some of the struggles I had growing up, such as.
White guilt, stupid gangster rap, black worship, over sexualized pop music, the annoying HR and evil DEI at the expense of competency.
what about rock? don't take away my rock music!
Did you really struggle with white guilt at any point?
>The Perivian style is a mild-moderately bad situation that lasts a long time
>The British style is a good sutuation that's hard to maintain
>The German style starts as a great situation that very quickly turns horrible
>The Islamic style is a potential corruption of Christianity
Islam was said to be founded by various Christian heretics such as Arianism and Nestorianism who were kicked out by the Orthodox Romans and fled to the Arab Deserts
I guess the one thing that blows my mind about all this is the way religion plays into this, especially in regard to Christianity. Christianity is a religion that, while it upholds traditional morality in many respects, is also highly critical of systems that promote vast wealth disparities while promoting ideas like “the first shall be last and the last shall be first,” “blessed are the meek”, and “the least of these,” all of which are very disruptive to the social order. In fact, the very founder of Christianity was known for cursing the religious conservatives of his time, and was eventually murdered by a corrupt priestly class because he upset the social order so much. Then the religion was adopted by women and slaves and eventually became a major component in bringing down the Roman Empire. One would think these attributes would make Christianity very attractive to the left and repulsive to the right. But somehow, it’s the exact opposite.
The only thing that would be "right" is Rudyard oiling up
Or if he LEFT his clothes on the floor.
Lets calm down guys
@@therealspicybadger5071 It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it debates vaush again.
Seems to me whenever a good system gets put in place anywhere it slowly makes people soft and weak and then society crumbles. Need something like how America started but maybe do like some countries and when you graduate high school you are obligated to 1 to 3 years in the military to toughen you up. Some of our problem is many people seek positions of power out of greed or end up being corrupted. I think we need an amazing group of politicians and lawyers to redo alot of the system and make it way more difficult to abuse government powers with harsh punishments if caught.
I really appreciate the realness in his narration - especially where he laughs at important revelations that would be common sense but we’re generally supposed to pretend otherwise about.
1. Demons in psychology textbooks? Based!
2. Adultery being illegal? Based!
3. Churches being the top social networks? Based!
I'm for the based American "fundamentalist" Christian state.
Move to Florida bud
You want demons to be out in psychology textbooks 😅
American fundamentalism is worst branch of christianity. Breeding ground for superstition and idiocy
In the end Christians are no different from Muslims lol