Video

We will never reach the "post liberal" west so long as European people avoid the JQ.

Review Dune

Everything so relevant in this book now that I was all breathing hard at my work desk. Also the main character holding onto power until the end reminds me of Joe not stepping out of the presidential race until the bitter end too.

Let's consider a kind of "Parvini's wager," analogous to Pascal's wager regarding religious belief: Are we better off adopting Parvini's thesis as true? I think it depends. If it causes us to throw up our arms in despair and give up the fight for democratic rights, then the answer is "no." On the other hand, if it encourages at least some of us to take a deeper look at power structures and how they operate, to better plan and organize our own more effective "counter-elites," leading to a diversification and proliferation of newly organized minorities who then compete with one another for power, and to avoid wasteful strategies that are bound to fail...then it may be quite beneficial, and offers a further step towards democratization.

Viva Franco!

Did you ever read about the hutu/tutsi war crime trials? I think your take as an attorney would be interesting.

Kinda funny if blacks buying haircare products gives us a right wing revolution.

Tucker Carlson today spoke of human freedom and flourishing. You can tell this interview made a mark.

This describes the countrytown of Gurabo, in Santiago, DR, where my parents grew up in, 1950s. My God this explains my family's law-breaking, antisocial behavior.

Tongue cancer? God has a strange sense of humor to be sure.

Anthony Bourdain was not harmed during the making of this motion picture.

Nostalgia is true and practiced by everyone. Therefore we should embrace it. Anti-nostalgia is adopting a leftist frame. Like back when we were libertarians.

Hmm.. Not bad. Two truths (givens): though "things were better before, on every axis", "we cannot go back". So yes, we'll have to find our way forward "by destroying our enemy", while "learning from the past". I'll buy that.

This book is a sea of assertions.

you should repost this to see if you can get more views

The problem with China was Confucianism and the lack of competition, but even with it, it was able to be marginally better than the best in the West, now that there is competition in the form of global geopolitics and the lessening of Confucianism, China can be expected to perform close to its potential best, remove Marxism and residual Confucianism and China will rule the world. I am Chinese and I love Chinese history but even I have my critics when it comes to stasis due to Confucianism.

So true!

Self-delusion is hardly restricted to commies. There's a time and place for a little nostalgia, but now is not the time, and anyway nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

“Fruitlessly dissipating our energies.” Call it what it is-mental/social/political masturbation.

Thanks Charles for the talk today

"Without memory and without the re-enactment of what is remembered, our sense of reality, and with it our self-confidence, would be shattered." Hannah Arendt "The Human Condition"

As Russian film director Tarkovsky said, "Nostalgia is a desire to return to one's childhood." He was, I think, at least partly right,

A lot of overlaps here with the Frankfurt school. Adorno too argued against political nostalgia.

Yes but how? Most men today are menchildren. I married one who is still one at 57

Marcuse was not German. Why uphold the globalist narrative? Let's not be dishonest. Marcuse is of the tribe we cannot name. Bug surprise. Every single time

What do you recommend to teach women then? I have a daughter and a son. I don't want my daughter to limit her job options because I know there are a lot of beta men out there that don't think it is their duty to support a wife, let alone have and support children. There are a LOT of menchildren out there, how do you teach women to recognize them? What options do plain women have?

"immigration relief"

"This (1973) was when narrative control of the Left was not nearly as complete as now." I think it was as complete, but they still allowed some debate on the immigration issue, because they needed to buy time before they had all the components for replacement in place. They didn't have that many NGOs back then, for example. Once that was accomplished, all debate was sunsetted, and they made it impossible to publish anything contrary to their views. The goal since at least 1945 (the legalization of the UN) was to make borders irrelevant and ethno-states a thing of the past.

Very interesting. Here in Russia we have always called the National Socialists "fascists," not "Nazis." I can only assume we do that because of the "socialist" component in the name "National Socialist." God forbid that we stop to think and make any connection.

A. James Gregor's Mussolini's Intellectuals next?

Superb

0:50 "fascist" is always used as an antiwhite slur for anyone who opposes the antiwhite regime and the program of White erasure from the invasion of nonwhite migrants into Western countries, who will serve as antiwhite shock troops.

This was a tough listen but I had to make it the end...

a superior political economic system compared to liberalism and communism both of which are degenerate and unsustainable but inferior to distributism/syndicalism/epistocratic republicanism

7:20 Ernst Nolte was NOT a leftist lol this's ret@rded!

America for Americans is not egalitarian and universalist?

Could communist China be a fascist state today because it is strictly a nationalist project unlike the Soviet Union that was supposed to be part of an international movement seeking world domination?

"fascism is not a religious phenomenon." This is rather hard to believe. If one reads Mussolini and Gentile's "the doctrine of fascism", there they say that fascism is fundamentally anti-materialist, that it is an idealist doctrine that posits a spiritual ideal: the nation/people (volk)/race as the highest good. This, they say, is a religious or emotional value, a faith or feeling, a mythos, not some rationalistic material deduction. And with good reason: because a simple look at reality shows that this ideal is based on a lie. The nation is not some unitary, homogenous whole, but a collection of antagonisms and social differences. "fascism is corporate, not totalitarian." Again, Mussolini and Gentile say that corporatism is indeed totalitarian because all of the classes are mediated by the corporate state. The whole idea is that society is an organic total unity and this is represented by the state. The state is the highest sovereign power that represents all past, present and future generations. It serves to perpetuate the people of a nation as a whole and thus the individual is insignificant in relation to this species-ethnic concept, and since the nation is the ideal, individuals have a duty to sacrifice themselves for it, whether through working hard or it times of war. What it demands is a total sacrifice and dedication to the state and the national community the state represents. Corporatism is the total mobilization of all classes, all institutions, of society as a whole for the purpose of national renewal through war.

"the study of fascism by studying what it is not" Imagine if i said, "I have figured out what the anatomy of whales is by studying giraffes, pea soup and trains." This is clearly absurd, but apparently it seems deep and profound when it comes to fascism. You dont look at the thing on its own terms, but rather make a comparison. Not only that, but from the start, he "doesn't look at anything particular about fascism or form any particular theses". This is in total contradiction to the concept that fascism "takes on various forms". You cannot say something is a particular form without having a general concept of what it is a variation of. As if the general cannot be found in the particular! What else is a theory? Its so popular for historians and social scientists to drone on about "how complicated it all is, how much variation there is" about how "this or that state has a different historical development." Yet each of the different states is in fact a state, as the concept implies. They have common principles, and these principles are what a theory explains. The professors can examine the differences between, say, English and German law, or between Italian and German social provisions, until the cows come home. But as long as they insist on denying the concepts of *law* and *state*, or *fascism* in general, the particular analysis of Germany, Italy or any other state has to come out wrong. And wrong it comes out without fail! So, its already a completely irrational contradiction to claim "fascism isnt a unitary phenomenon" and then insist it consists of "various forms". This is like claiming there isnt a unitary general concept of "dog" by listing the different features of various breeds of dog. "No, this isn't fruit, it's a plum and cherry!" It assumes exactly what it wants to deny, and because it proceeds uncritically in regards to its own assumptions, it ends up as a nest of incoherent claims.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and our world ☦ 🙏 🌍 🙏☦

Working on a project right now that touches some on italian fascism, very enthused to here some of my conclusions co-signed by Gottfried, according to you at least. Might have to pick this book up!

It's a made up term by people who are the real fascists

8:26 ecstatic enthusiasm makes much more sense than enthusiastic enthusiasm. Thanks putting in your own subtitles. A worthy endeavor.

Would recommend Stanley Payne's book "A History of Fascism, 1914-1945".

Great channel

“There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.” ― Jonathan Bowden

"greeted with enthusiastic enthusiasm" -- Gottfried might want to re-write that sentence.

Perhaps we should see the 20th century as a time when experimentation with ideology of all kinds reached fever pitch? Like a kind of mass hysteria there really is no way to explain it, or bring much clarity to what happened. If we accept that we might be able to confine the never ending search for an ideal society to the dustbin. Unfortunately, in the first quarter of the 21st century, we still do not seem to have learnt much from the last. We remain like some desert potentate randomly building huge structures in the belief they symbolise the future; when in fact they symbolise the egoism of the past.

Without hesitation.

I see Charles Book Review, I click immediately