Debate Highlights | This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
SUPPORT the Oxford Union ► oxford-union.org/supportus
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200 year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823. Your support is critical in enabling The Oxford Union to continue its mission without interruption and without interference. You can support the Oxford Union here: oxford-union.org/supportus
#debate
This is unfortunately not surprising. The intellectual will always support the percieved zeitgeist propagated by the state. The parallels to the madness of the 20th century are becoming clearer by the day.
I’m quite intellectual-
I disagree on those grounds.
Well if George Soros is a populist then I know that populism is not a good thing.
Soros is not a populist.
Well, he's not
Soros is a globalist socialist. He doesn't give two sh its about working people and wants to destroy democracy.
Soros is not a populist. He's a globalist. I don't care who he's trying to side with or dupe.
@@KenNickels he was national socialist. The socialist that made it bad, because it’s never worked.
What I’m getting from this is that they’re equating populism with the right, and are arguing against right wing populism and not populism as a whole
Why can’t we have a video of the entire evening rather than short snippets?
I was thinking the same thing. The reality, is likely that Oxford does not want these two arguments too close to compare with one another because the Pro side lost so badly to the opposition it just wasn't funny.
@@WifeOfTheBeast IVE NO CLUE WHO WON. THE ONLY WINNER I KNOW OF IS JESUS. WEIRDO.
@@WifeOfTheBeastWinston Marshall won this debate hands down. He unintentionally proved Nancy Pelosi to be the wicked Elitist hypocrite she truly is. Millions of Americans are are celebrating and laughing their arses off!
@@WifeOfTheBeast What do you mean - because the pro-side were not coherent but won anyway ... or ...?
Because Winston absolutely stole the whole show as far as the internet is concerned.
I still can’t see who won the debate. Please can someone publish it.
Look at end slide Ayes 177 Noes 68
Looks like a super majority of the elites at Oxford are in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The point was to present their arguments and let the public decide what they want for the future.
Winston Marshall
@@smurfiennes
I agree , Winston Marshall won this debate...
The vote by the audience concluded that populism is a threat to democracy
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
UNLAWFUL DOMINION:
In the preceding chapter, it was proven beyond any semblance of a doubt, that an actual patriarchal monarch (that is, a genuine, saintly king, as defined in that chapter) is the only type of person who is qualified to rule a nation, just as lesser societal units (such as nuclear families, extended families, clans, tribes, villages, town, and cities) are best governed by their respective patriarchs. Therefore, logically, any system of administration OTHER than one controlled by a naturally-arisen patriarch, is inherently evil, wicked, illegal, illegitimate, criminal, and adharmic.
SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM:
SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world.
Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism”, in the Glossary of this book.
Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on an ideology of both social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably within the atomic and sub-atomic realms. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite, in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely ECONOMIC systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere, because socialism depends on a governing power to organize society in a very meticulous manner. In any case, assuming that socialism is nothing more than a form of economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any kind of free-market exchange (the latter of which is objectively moral - or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation, according to the principles of sanātana dharma. At worst, socialism or communism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime, that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially the freedom of religious practice.
Witless Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposedly-wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies, is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his evil acolytes, had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx, who, for his sustenance, solicited funds from his friends, instead of earning an honest living as a writer.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort resources from his subjects, in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a human in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY:
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system, and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence!
No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
Cont...
Interesting read. Where did you get this from? Also, how would you define or characterise the saintly king and how would the position be passed down?
@@mtea3596
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
Following, are two imaginary dialectic exercises that demonstrate the STUPIDITY of those abject fools who advocate for anarchy. One such fool is a man who does not accept the paradigm that men ought to lead their families, whilst the other abject fool holds the antithetical position:
FIRST DIALECTIC:
Anarchist: “I firmly believe that ALL governments are corrupt and that anarchy is the only legitimate system of societal organization.”
Teacher: “Firstly, I am not convinced that the concept of anarchy would, or even could, include the fact of ‘organization’, but be that as it may, do you accept the OBVIOUS fact that human societies and civilizations are founded upon the nuclear family unit?”
Anarchist: “I think so, yes! As you stated, it is a rather obvious fact. Of course INDIVIDUALS are the foundation of the family, correct?”
Teacher: “Of course that’s true, but the basic SOCIETAL unit is the nuclear family - a man, his wife, and their children, if and when they come.”
Anarchist: “Okay - I can accept that! I won’t mention homosexual couples at this stage, since we might undertake a TANGENTIAL discourse!”
Teacher: “Briefly, homosexual couples are unable to expand as a unit, since PROCREATION can’t result, but let us leave that for another time!”
Anarchist: “CERTAINLY!”
Teacher: “So, in your considered opinion, who do you believe ought to be the HEAD of the nuclear family unit (and the extended family unit)?”
Anarchist: “Well, as an egalitarian, I believe that men and women are EQUAL, so a husband and wife ought to be joint leaders in their family.”
Teacher: “In that case, it seems that we have reached an impasse since, if you believe such an erroneous thing, there is no hope for you, sad to say! The only thing left for me to say is, you DESPERATELY need to read the Holiest of Holy Scriptures, ‘A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity’, in which it is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, that equality is non-existent outside the quantum and conceptual spheres. And because of this self-evident truism, just as with our closest relatives, the great apes, adult males have evolved to naturally serve as the leaders of their families, their extended families, and furthermore, their clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations (or in modern terms, their countries also). At the risk of hurting your feelings, any man who believes that their womenfolk are in any way equal to themselves in authority/leadership, is a truly pathetic-excuse-for-a-man, and deserves everything that comes his way as a result of his wimpish ideology, such as being hen-pecked by their bossy daughters, wives, and mothers.”
Anarchist: “WOW - that was quite offensive, wouldn’t you agree? Anyway, I shall look into the publication to which you referred, perhaps.”
Teacher: “I sincerely hope so, for the future of our species FULLY depends on adhering to what is known as ‘dharma’, and the viewpoint to which you subscribe, namely egalitarianism (and I would wager, other leftist ideologies, since it is practically impossible to find a human being in the present age who is genuinely conservative in all his or her ways), is the death-knell of humanity, truth be told!”
Cont…
Well that’s 177 people who shouldn’t be at a top University 😅
Shouldn’t be allowed so much as a whiff of any western university.
My only problem is that I don't see a choice on either side of the podium. I do not believe in democracy in regards to the mob (that's what democracy is) being able to vote on any whim of the moment policy. I believe in a democratic election to vote for a constitutionally binding limited role of government. Where is that being represented? I do not see my choice on the table anywhere. Except to some extent and for the first time since the American founding fathers, in Javier Milei.
we all like to read big books about big ideas but sometimes is good to go back to the dictionary.
Who won the vote ffs
@@bwmwm thanks! wow i didn't expect to see that kind of gap
Well? What’s the answer to your question? Who won the vote?
@@alastairgordon-forbes3139 lol i guess the comment was removed. someone said it was 177-68 for the Pelosi side
@@smoovjazz8029 Who would’ve guessed that Oxford was full of elitist. Imagine my shock.
Pelosi of course... vote was 177 in favour of the motion! Incredible as that might seem but Democrats always make sure they win,,😂
TRUMP 2024
Ridiculous shortage of natives at Oxford thats a real tragedy.😔
"natives"? what do you. mean - what is that?
If Obama was running I'm sure the vote would be the other way around. I wouldn't go as far as saying populism is Democracy, but freedom of expression and to gather in groups as opposition is key to Democracy.
Obama was not a populist.
@@rickedwards365 He apparently claimed to be, though.
@@KevinReynolds-sq9qd He questioned what specifically is populist. ua-cam.com/video/QSOWEC1qZRE/v-deo.html
@@rickedwards365he was a populist.