Seeds of Collectivism | Stephen Hicks, James Lindsay, & Michael O'Fallon | Changing Tides Ep. 5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- When you listen to the moral language and rhetoric of our culture today, you less often hear appeals to "personal responsibility" and "rugged individualism" -- and more often claims of "privileges," "disparities" and "oppression." This latter set of ideas, once foreign to American ears, is now popular with those promising "equity" and utopia.
Individualism has been accused of being part of the "white" or "patriarchal" system, while top-down collectivist solutions are demanded along with a new social contract. In nearly every case, an idealized concept of collective justice is embedded in the proposed utopia -- along with a rejection of the meritocratic system that has successfully created exponential growth in our civilization. The American way is to be discarded to the ash heap of history.
To understand the genesis of this conflict, knowing about Geneva’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau is essential. Rousseau’s anti-Enlightenment ideology was the ideological inspiration of the Jacobin dictators of the French Revolution. While the American Revolution valued individual liberty and natural rights, the French Revolution demanded equality and collective rights of man.
Connect with Stephen Hicks:
www.stephenhick...
/ srchicks
Connect with James Lindsay:
newdiscourses.com
/ conceptualjames
Connect Michael O'Fallon:
/ sovmichael
sovereignnatio...
Support Sovereign Nations:
paypal.me/sovn...
/ sovnations
Follow Sovereign Nations:
sovereignnatio...
/ sovereignnations
/ sovnations
/ sovereignnations
/ sovnations
minds.com/sovn...
parler.com/pro...
Podcast:
/ sovereignnations
podcasts.apple...
podcasts.googl...
open.spotify.c...
www.stitcher.c...
© 2021 Sovereign Nations. All rights reserved.
I've learned more in a month about wokeism than I learned over the past five years from watching this series of podcasts.
I encourage you to read the primary material. John Locke's "On Liberty" alone can give one insight into the rational consequences we experience as a result of 'enlightenment' thought.
“I've learned more in a month about wokeism than I learned over the past five years from watching this series of podcasts.”
WTF! I had to read that twice! 😁
Is that
‘learned more in a month’ (elsewhere by some means unspecified)
than
‘I learned over the past five years from watching this series of podcasts’
[I.e. this series of podcasts over the last five years is a complete waste of time.]
or
‘learned more in a month from watching this series of podcasts’
than
‘I learned over the past five years’ (elsewhere by some means unspecified)?
[I.e. this series of podcasts is invaluable.]
I strongly suspect it’s the latter. But it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. At least not enough in my book to hang anyone.
Assuming it’s the latter then this might be a less ambiguous way of stating it:
“I've learned more in a month about wokeism from watching this series of podcasts than I learned over the past five years.”
Albert Pierrepoint 😁
@@orsoncart802 At least 50 folks weren't confused like you were - are you sure you aren't lying because you don't like the content on this channel, and that in fact you understood exactly what I meant but you wanted to express your dislike for this channel? Seems like you could have found a less untruthful and more direct way of doing that.
@@tmcleanful You’ve got the wrong end of the stick entirely. I was one of those who upvoted your comment.
Now let’s see if you can work out the rest for yourself. Are you up to the challenge?
@@orsoncart802 I prefer to assume deception rather than foolishness in most cases. My mistake - you upvoted my comment and then wrote a screed about how confusing it was. Soldier on I guess.
Holy moly, amazing to see James and Stephen at the same table! Looking forward to listening to this!
My first viewing of Stephen Hicks, another viewing of Lindsay and I was not disappointed!!
I love the comment section. I often wish these were interactive classrooms. Yes, it would be fascinating to interact with Stephen and James, but also beneficial to do so with those who take the time to comment and add to the discussion.
Hicks and Lindsay, the supreme dream team!
This is going to be interesting.
They're clowns
@@tankiesbot6578 Interesting comment can you please elaborate.
Just started. But it is awesome James is sitting there with his beer in a koozie, flip flops and shorts.
He is such a righteous dude. Thanks for the prompt.
The absolute best.
A real pleasure to listen to a discussion in which the participants allow each other the space to develop ideas and to speak without denunciation. As Aristotle more or less said: understanding is the only pleasure not followed by remorse. Also in my experience most of the French people and English people I know admire and enjoy each other, with exasperation - like competitive sisters, even post Brexit. Ruth Scurrs book about Robespierre "Fatal Purity" is also a pleasure of the same kind.
“The best quality product isn’t always the most popular.”
Wow - so much excellent info and historical background in this episode - it was like getting a good dose of Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" and then turning it to "11." Thanks Michael, and thanks Stephen and James for hanging out with our radically reformed friend!
Yes I'm so glad I came across this
Please Jeff go on Rogan with Wokal and Hicks.
James Lindsey Is Amazing... he makes so much sense...I see God in everything.. so I don’t understand those atheists that have guided our society....
Yes, he's good, but I'm much more impressed by Stephen Hicks. What a brilliant synthesis of 17th-20th century Western philosophy he presented!
I love Reflections on the Revolution in France where a Frenchman writes to Burke expecting him to be pleased about their revolution since he basically supported the Americans, and then Burke proceeds to tear it to shreds.
Thank you for inviting the great and learned mr. Hicks to this series. What an enjoyable conversation.
Woah, Hicks & Lindsay in one place. Yes, thx
THANK YOU ALL! Can't wait until you come back to teach us more!
Teach 'me' more. I dont know you and you are making assumption that I am an 'us' here in the comments.
Metaphysical Statism…wow. That rings very true
I need to study Kant...I love ❤️ these brilliant deep thinkers..
The coconuts on the table were so deeply meaningful in a Post Modern sense. They spoke to me louder than the mansplaining words ever could.
21:39 powerful point
Gentlemen, thank you
WOW! Very COOL...
mmm... I think a need a course manual to go along with this. However good job Michael!
I have so much reading homework now 😅
7 minutes in and I already know an hour is not going to be enough time.
I like to think of Winston Churchill's "Finest Hour" speech as a good capture of the moment we are in.
There he was after France fell and Britain was left alone v Nazi Germany allied with the USSR unsure of the future. He ended his speech this way:
"Let us therefore brave ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and it's Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say : "This was their Finest Hour"
Now in a similar light, as we witness the increased hostility to all that is good and holy, with thousands to our left and 10s of thousands to our right being captured and killed in spiritual warfare, may we brace ourselves to action with the shield of faith and sword of truth to continue the fight against fearful odds to win a victory worth a thousand Thermopylaes and Battles of Britain.
That men and women a thousand years from now will sing the praise "This was Christianity's Finest Hour" to the glory of Jehovah the One and Living God.
Wow. Lots to unpack
Thank you for explaining all the work the philosophers did.
But who was in charge of the sheep dip?
Ah, hello Bruce!
Nietzsche seems to be the most multifaceted. Unlike the others I can’t pin him into the platonic or Archimedean spilt
I wonder if it's possible to look back at ancient tribal mythologies and see the roots of collectivism vs individualism in some way. If these basic social concepts exist in pre-ancient societies. See if the stories themselves lead towards a kind of interpretation.. anyone know of a writer who explores an idea like that? Maybe tribal cultures are de-facto collectivist and individualism only grows under certain conditions where individual autonomy is possible, generally meaning civilization and affluence.. but there just might be hints of ideas in old stories too.
I think philosophers use their predecessor's works, combined with the direct evidence of their time. For instance, postmodernism is influenced by Kant, Hegel & Marx, but through the eyes of people that experienced two world wars and the abject poverty of communism. Similarly, Rand returns to Aristotle and Aquinas, and presents a completion of the enlightenment that she said would be impossible without seeing the effects of the industrial revolution. Ideas + evidence.
Individualism is a unique product of the Enlightenment. It never happened before hence the extraordinary trajectory from there through the industrial revolution to exponential population growth. Individualism is Modernity, The West and the mass migration towards it.
Thanks England, maybe next time keep your thoughts to yourself.
@@gothicwestern that's the accepted wisdom on this topic and I'd agree at the moment but I do like looking at older stories from various tribal cultures and I still think there's a small chance I might see seeds of that idea somewhere earlier. However for the time being what you are saying seems true to me.
@@JoJaDaRu interesting but it seems likely that individualism emerged for sound biological reasons, namely, the anglo saxon mating pattern, see hbd chick website. Northwest europeans became over the centuries approx 6th cousin to each other allowing both a decrease in clan obligation and an increase in trust between all members of society, ie public space. That is the biological context from which individualism emerged. Culture is not an ethereal entity but something grounded in the material reality of the human organisms which produce it. Have a great day!
Yes. The Bible (Old Testament & New Testament)
Abram was called OUT of the city of Ur to start a new people thousands and thousands of years ago and the stories of INDIVIDUALS called out of each family as unique but within a collective journey is what the Bible is about.
New Testament too: individuals, together creating a movement but not at the expense of their individuality. Jesus approached individuals. The collective was addressed but not at the expense of the individual.
The tendency to only look at the last three hundred years forgets the foundations, such as Plato and Aristotle and their derivatives, such as Neoplatonism.
But it’s for the grater good!!! The ends justifies the means… RIGHT!!!
That is Hegelian. Thesis+Antithesis = Synthesis... Hegelian leftists are contrarians who want to turn everything upside down to it's antithesis, they think f.ex. World Wars are justified and necessary, because they are just dialectical steps towards the higher synthesis. They think they bring some "balance to the force" by being brutally critical against everything good. They think a perfect utopian synthesis will emerge if they just flip everything upside down and destroy the status quo. And it's WRONG. Hegel was an idealist, like Hicks said. Hegel's dialectics was not practical, but a fancy metaphysical idea.... Marx made that idea materialistic, which led to horrific destruction and 100's millions dead... They think all that destruction and de-construction is necessary and justified, they are steps towards their perfect synthesis, which they think will rise from the ashes and ruins just naturally... and they are horrifically WRONG.
@@aakkoin Thanks. Can you recommend any books that talk in laymen's terms about Hegelian dialectics and how that idea finds its expression in postmodern deconstruction.
The problem with text is no one can read sarcasm.
@@AD-gu6sr Well James Lindsay did a 4 hour podcast about it, that's were I understood it somewhat. New Discourses podcast is the name.
@@j.harris83 I got the sarcasm! Just felt like japping
Trust Not into your own understanding.. is what I meant to type...
Build back better?
It's more like topple towards tyranny.
Some ideas are so insane only a Ph.D. would entertain them.
Hot air.
Hmmmm. The elephant in the room here, nay, the mastodon, stomping his feet and trumpeting, is Derrida.
…trumpeting, it may be added, by what is written and what is spoken, our undoing.
Skip to 9:00 and watch Stephen's true leprechaun voice spring forth for a second before he has the tact to pull it back in and maintain his secret identity.
Patty B, you are a weird puppy indeed 😁
Rousseau sounds like the original hippie.
These chats... Wow
Marx still would have been important without the Russian revolution. The German Social Democratic Party (SPD) was a large Marxist party before WW1 and would have had a significant role in the governance of Germany after WW1 even if the Bolsheviks had failed. Without the bloodletting in Russia and Hungary as a warning, perhaps Marxism would have had a more dominant role in Germany. The point is, Marx would still have been considered a top-tier philosopher (albeit quite wrong) without the Russian revolution.
Uh, Rousseau is an even bigger problem for you guys than you seem to realize: *_He was a market phenomenon_* . No one in 18th Century France had to buy piles of his books with his discretionary money and turn the titles into best-sellers, translate these books into other languages, discuss his ideas, try to portray these ideas in novels, theater, and music, etc. Rousseau's earliest fans did this on their own initiative because Rousseau discovered and filled a demand in the market, like the good entrepreneurs you praise in other contexts.
So what do you do when what you consider to be a "bad philosophy" arises and flourishes in the free market?
It took the collective efforts of collectives to defeat Germany in WW2. The soviets, American and British Empire and others united to crush a potential rival. Individualists then step in to retcon. What IS the American way?
I think they are talking about the fundamental grounding for beliefs and epistemology, not weather we can act collectively or individually at various times.
A collection of individuals is not a collective of unindividuals.
Feet
"When you listen to the moral language and rhetoric of our culture today, you less often hear appeals to "personal responsibility" and "rugged individualism" -- and more often claims of "privileges," "disparities" and "oppression." This latter set of ideas, once foreign to American ears..."
This, from the description, is the dumbest thing I think I've ever seen written.
Americans only recently heard of 'oppression'? Not the Civil Rights movement? Abolition? Women's Suffrage?
Perhaps read the description a little more carefully. Do you see the words "only recently heard of" anywhere in it?
Surely the statement is just an observation of a comparison between today's language and that of a former time. An issue of degree. Not a proposal that oppression was discovered last Tuesday.
Iooi
Crock of French cooking.. Bottom line if we don't defend the bible and bless Israel then God lifts his blessings and protection..
:)
Is that a Big Wave you’re drinking? I love that stuff.
I know you!
I love how :) is the comment you always leave on videos you appear in that aren’t your own.
So basically :) is a hate symbol now.
21:38 "Once you become a collectivist...you don't see individuals anymore. When you stop seeing individuals anymore you dehumanize the enemy at a further level and you're willing to do worse things."
Read Thomas Sowell “A Conflict of Visions” alongside what Stephen Hicks brilliantly outlines here.
THOMAS SOWELL- A BRILLIANT MIND AND WHO WAS NEVER TO SPEAK THE TRUTH.
INCREDIBLE men, with incredible minds. That was like getting a huge history of philosophy lesson handed to me on a silver platter. So concise, so articulate, so objective. Brilliant. Now to re-listen and take notes so I can truly integrate all that info! A big thank you to Professor Hicks and James Lindsey and to the moderator who was also excellent.
Wow, being able to recite modern philosophy 101... Such great, wow. Much insight.
@@copudesado
Wow....sarcasm. Grade 5 sarcasm. Such great, wow. Sneering 101.
Great intellectual insight.
55566
@@Snakeplissken3 idk what that means.
@@AdamA-pm3yn I have both those books on my shelf. So many books, so little time!
Stephen “Heavy Hitter” Hicks and James “The Hatchet Man” Lindsay tag-teaming Postmodernism?
Oh yeah brother!
Haha i hear ya!
Seems to be all Hicks.
@@saerain I mean Hicks is saying more but i don't think he is contributing more to the conversation than lindsey. James is just more succinct with his words.
I think James is being deferential and rightfully so. Stephen is one of the premier authorities on the subject and has been studying it for decades. James is relatively new to the game but his insight isn’t any less valuable.
And Rufo on the activist front!
All modern politics is simply a question between the French Revolution & collectivism & the American Revolution & universal individual rights. This is right on target.
Collectivism is very attractive to weak men, and insecure women, for obvious reasons. She believes she will be taken care of, he is ensured that he will not need to protect her, and it requires no meaningful and difficult relationship between the two. It’s a win win for them.
Collectivism provides leadership and fellowship, I assume. It also seems to relieve people from having to make choices, thinking from themselves, and personal responsibility. Some people will thrive and others will perish in such a construct. And, of course, things never go exactly to plan …
@@hellokitty524 Good points. I’d never really thought of collectivism as a way to get rid of personal responsibility in quite this way before, but it’s making more and more sense. Generally we think of it as shirking responsibility for working and earning a living, but in this more personal lens, you can see the attractiveness for people who might not want to take responsibility for a while host of actions. For instance reproductive issues. Of course the male feminist would be wholly in favor of state intervention for a woman he might knock up, because either choice she takes he will get off scott free. It’s really quite amazing when you think about it.
@@rodionglazkov1136 - Thanks for sharing your futher thoughts on the subject. Excellent points. Indeed, I think the idea of collectivism has been interesting to humans over the centuries for all the reasons we have discussed, and I am sure many more. But, as I said, there is no controlling the outcome of trying to teardown a functioning society just to create such constructs to eradicate perceived social ills. One doesn't kill the patient to treat a disease. Or at least one shouldn't do that ;)
@@hellokitty524 Yes, I fully agree. The prefect is always the enemy of the good. Our system has issues (corruption mostly) and we should fix those, but at the core it’s the best system ever devised and we should respect that.
Now that we've identified the philosophical antecedents that led to our present predicament, what do we do to stop these destructive ideas from permanently warping western civilization through their realization?
I don't think we can stop it. Try not to die in the next glorious revolution...
Rediscover Aristotelian thought, and live the best life you can.
Wokal Distance said he thinks the ONLY way is through the educational process and it'll take ten years if it can be done at all
History doesn’t repeat but it sure does rhyme
All these deep thinkers draw me to God and the Bible... the Bible says “trust onto on to your own understanding”. We can be so educated.. that we are educated out of our common sense... and common sense comes from God...
“Reality is created by our minds” in other words my lived experience is what is real regardless of real reality. Sounds familiar and yes those people are nuts but much of society is saying that they are the Sane ones.
Thanks for this discussion, I really enjoyed it. But it's also a little frustrating. It seems no one has applied critical theory to critical theory. Kant's fundamental premise of: thesis + antithesis = synthesis is the mechanism for progress and perfecting society/culture, etc. It has a fatal flaw. It presupposes that original thought, creative thought is non-existent. Therefore, when a creative idea emerges, it must be destroyed. Any new idea can be critiqued to death. It cannot be proven because it's new. It cannot even be explored because it has not been proven. Thus critical theory can only create a deteriorating condition.
What we know about all of the foundational philosophers behind critical theory with certainty is that not a single one of them was capable of creative thought and are the very last people whose ideas should be taken seriously, especially when trying to order society.
The enlightenment thinkers had no such limitations and that is why their ideas about liberty and sovereignty were so successful. While not everyone is highly creative, everyone is creative. Critical theory crushes all creative thought and action. The theories of the enlightenment thinkers were underpinned by Christianity. Just consider these 2 broad concepts from Christianity:
1. God created the universe and made man in his image. Therefore man is at his best when emulating God, creating. It doesn't matter whether man is creating a child, a good meal, an automobile or a work of art. Creation is man's greatest source of fulfillment.
2. It's difficult to see what is not there even when what's missing is very significant. In Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth and all living things. But what is missing is that he never gives man dominion over man. Enlightenment rationale respects individual sovereignty and protects the individual's right to create whether modestly or greatly.
I'm not saying that everyone has to convert to Christianity, only that, to date, it is the single greatest literary source of wisdom (the Veda is probably a close second) that we have and a really good place to start in order to create a thriving civilization.
Wow! Thanks for all that. Another brilliant mind at work!
@@margasnyder254 You're welcome! I have been pursuing this line of logic for over a decade but did not have the time or temperament to read the vomit of these self-proclaimed scholars in depth. James' patience, persistence and his wife's support are so valuable to me! I trusted my instincts, but could not document my analysis fully. James took it to a whole new level and I am so grateful. I am even more grateful for all of his followers who have taken the time to listen and to understand. We are not just the silent majority. We are the resolute majority and we will never concede our liberties to these grossly inferior ideologues. We will win. Not because we are bullies or ideologues, but because we respect one another. Thank you so much and carry on. Liberty is at risk and we are its defenders. James is one of our great leaders and supporters.
well said
I have a well meaning criticism of your second point. Dominion simply means authority over something. As such, the Bible is replete with examples of man having dominion over man and in some cases mandates it. However, I agree with the foundation that you are trying to lay. Have you considered combining your first point with an economic argument for the end of slavery mainly the economic changes that the Industrial Revolution brought about?
Thanks, I just checked Merriam-Webster and it has the following definitions: Definition of dominion
1 : DOMAIN
2 law : supreme authority : SOVEREIGNTY
having dominion over the natural world
3 dominions plural, Christianity : an order of angels
- see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY
4 often capitalized, government : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state
5 law : absolute ownership
My specific reference was to Genesis. Also in that book, it instructs the Jewish people to elect a leader from among themselves for every group of 10, then those 10 elected leaders would elect from among themselves the leader of the 100, etc. I appreciate your point, but I still stand by my comment.
I have a post on my blog addressing the issue of the economics of slavery only my focus was on the production of inexpensive mechanized energy, which pretty much equates to the Industrial Revolution: backyardfence.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/345/ I didn't include this idea because my comment was already a little long, but I hope you'll have the time to read it.
I think it's interesting how Hicks conceptualize the proliferation of information to the masses is a function of the creation of the Encyclopedia, and not the efforts of Church reformers creating Vulgate translations for the laity to be able to access scripture without the clergy interfering. I belive the impact of the so called enlightenment is far overblown by the secularists.
I can hear your furrowed eyebrows curling up as I read this.
Well said. It concerns me that God Almighty, and our relationship with Him, is completely sidelined as a solution to these corrosive social ills.
Important issue. But note the context here is only the French Enlightenment and its educational mission with the Encyclopedia, rather than the much broader issues of Europe as a whole and the reformers' projects.
@@StephenHicksPhilosopher so secular knowledge, utility and pragmatics (sorry I can't remember your example but something like how to build a smithery), and not scriptural knowledge, value and moral? To make a ham fisted distinction as yes it is more complex and less categorical than that.
So we need a 'year zero', a great reset one might say. Then to build back better.
Nice opening 🙄
I've never heard James Lindsay this quiet for this long. It's slightly unsettling
And yet his explanation of metaphysical statism was the only part of the 'discussion' that offered an insight into contemporary society from an analytical perspective as opposed to Hick's detailed but descriptive insight into the history of the Enlightenment.
Tldr; if you need help putting up a tent, ask James. If you want to know where tents come from and what they're made of, ask Stephen.
@@gothicwestern Hicks did all of the hard work when he was asked about Rousseau and really gave a wonderful history lesson, and so that just set it up easy for Lindsay to just talk about the metaphysical dimensions of it all. Hicks of course did mention the metaphysical at times but was mainly concerned about the historical and philosophical framework.
My son majored in Philosophy at Berkeley... he returned being an atheist.. believing Howard Zinn nonsense...
Can this be 3 hours long and “Around the Fire Pit” Special
Each of these men is incredible. The one major factor I think they missed here is that current Post Modern Cultural Marxism views collectivism not just in metaphysical terms. The perspective, as I understand it, is so literal that the collective somehow exists fully devoid of the individual. Yet, in a stunning self-contradiction, the fundamentalist ethno-religiosity of Post Modern Cultural Marxism forces the individual to reframe his/her world based solely on his/her personal isolated viewpoint. So, in a sense, their concept of collectivism is instead hyper-licentious individualism.
I believe you need to involve George Sorel also. To me he is the first post modernist.
Stephen Hicks is absolutely brilliant. The guy is so damn knowledgable.
James Lindsay really knocks it out of the park on this one.....🙂
This is extremely interesting discussion. I need to lean more about the French Revolution and what are seeds for today's confusing identity politics. It partly feels like we are being swept up between different collective groups who want control and power over the culture.Everything has been changing so quickly now that it's somewhat difficult to get a realistic grasp on what is going on.
Stephen Hicks vs James Lindsay: Stephen takes you on a tour through history, picking up principles as a by-product (a historian specialized in the philosophy sub-discipline), James isolates concepts and mechanisms and tracks those back to the origin. James is a scientist, Stephen is not. Philosophy is suffering greatly from this unscientific approach. Imagine all sciences worked like that. "How does gravity work?" "Read these Greek books, go on to medieval conceptions, bla bla bla.". Mainstream philosophy is dominated by historians. But - who said what at what point in time should be no more than an illustration of a concept/theory, like 'Mass attracts mass'. Illustration: "Newton was the first to formally cast this into mathematics". As long as philosophy is overwhelmingly practiced like a sub-discipline of history, things will remain obfuscated.
Interesting input. Thanks. I like it.
Philosophy is a science?
@@gregorytaylor9104 James is behaving in a scientific way (analysis based on models and theory), Stephen is a story-teller. That's all I wanted to remark. Not going into cul-de-sac questions here.
It's almost like James is here to bounce his ideas off of Stephen (the master) and see what he thinks of them and to make sure they're correct. Love this and love the brilliance if Hicks and Lindsay.
Love that James is drinking a (no doubt craft) beer! Cheers, Dr. Lindsay!
Drinking a Georgia beer.
Part of the label showing looks like Sweetwater 420 Pale Ale.
@@Twins22R I don't know. Based on color I'd guess Sam Adams Porch Rocker. (clearly this is the most important issue of the day... what beer is James drinking?)
Stephen Hicks is definitely among the best meta-modern thinkers and I really appreciate these interviews.
Insightful and profound conversation between a group of gentlemen.
Damn! Dr. Hicks rocking the working class weekend warrior outfit like a boss!
German philosophers,there's gotta be a joke there somewhere.
Killing it in flip-flops 🤘
Beautiful history of philosophy, wow amazing!
This was amazing.
Encore!
Just a fantastic episode. Stephen Hicks and James Lindsay are probably two of the foremost experts on this subject. Both are amazing communicators and have a way of breaking these complex ideas down so they are understandable. This ideology is totally insane, and you really have to have a good understanding of it in order to really see what is actually going on today.
Not to mention, once you understand it, you realize what a truly dangerous threat this is. Its spreading across the west like a wildfire, and is honestly getting scary.
We need men like these. Men who can teach others what they are dealing with so that the masses can fight back against this gathering darkness.
Loved it. Just gonna have to watch it quite a few times ton understand everything
I cannot believe a video of Stephen Hicks and James Lindsay has been available for a month and I'm just now seeing it.
Doesn't get much better than these two...
Much as I am in awe of high intelect here. Might I humbly point out. The "Glorius revolution" in England was far from Bloodless. Bloddless in the " Home Counties . However much will be shed in Ireland and Scotland for many years till "Culloden" 1746. So despite all of it's openness and political progress and it's successful constitunal monarchy providing a platform for the success of the State and economy. Some will mark it as less than Glorius or bloodless.
I'm about 23:00 in, and all I've seen from James Lindsay is some very vigorous head-nodding.
I learned a lot from an earlier discussion involving Lindsay and Pete Boghossian, with Michael O'Fallon moderating. I had hoped that I would hear more from Lindsay. Maybe further in...
It's also possible that James Lindsay is also learning something here, and is remaining quiet, because he is a relative newcomer to this subject. He is not a philosopher or man of letters, so maybe he is letting the expert in this field have the floor.
What a education this has been. Thank you so much!
Thanks for this, conversations like this should be large venue events.
Is the difference between the French and US revolutions that the US saw human rights as negative rights, where the French used state power.
@10:50 ....read Voltaire's 'Candide' or see Leonard Bernstein's great productions of the Play!
An informative, thoughtful and coherent discussion. Thank you.
Attention comrades you must not listen to these dissidents the state knows what is best for you.
(slowly backs away from the comment section)
Excellent discussion. Excellent location. And in sandals, like the ancients!
Collectivism is the seed of death 💀.
Great video.
The “glorious Revolution” wasn’t so clean in Ireland
Okay, my apologies, you recognised the difference a tad later.
Thanks Stephen, James and Michael!
Comment for traction. This is great!
I am a little less stupid now...
Love you guys God bless you
Great Stuff!
Rand roid.