I could only catch the first hour live. I was genuinely impressed by Sargon's progress in his thinking and his formulations in this discussion. Thank you AM for hosting it.
I really liked this talk. It helps having a conversation about what a reactionary should be rather than ‘men among ashes’ talking points that characterizes the broader dissident right.
In English law, the judges would declare a rule to have existed from "time immemorial" ... thus was the common law created. It is not "commonly" known that Roman law at the time of Cicero was casuistic (case law based like English common law) and grounded if on statutes or custom at all, on the few vague existing statutes such as the lex aquilla, as interpreted by jurists. The Justinian codification was much much later and brought the rules together and codified them. So, just as citizens in a true republic don't need "codes of ethics", a system of law in a rising nation doesn't need to be comprehensive and codified... but as a society reaches decline, comprehensiveness and codification become necessary to maintain some semblance of order in a society without trust, virtue or common morality
Wonderful discussion. Sargon brings up comments about “our circle” rather poignantly as the shift towards NRx and Elite Theory while intellectually stimulating for me is simultaneously disturbing. The consideration for power alone instils in me the same aversion that I have to postmodern theory that has empowered the left. I wish to retain the sentimentality of being English and do not think it is something that should be abandoned to become a “postmodern traditionalist” as AA might call himself. This conversation bridges the gap between the revival of an intellectual right with the consideration of ensuring such a revival is rooted in Englishness or authentic past. The idea of men being among the ruins is still rather abstract, we still have the opportunity as Peter Hitchens describes of running to the hills (not figuratively) and preserving/conserving ideas and history for a time when they are needed again. We are not literally in the same position as the poet of “The Ruin” where we can only imagine what the world was like before because knowledge of the past has genuinely been lost.
Your first paragraph really hit home for me. Putting into a few concise words many of the thoughts that bounce around as I listen to recent AA content. Thank you. I'm still trying to formulate my way out of this. Your comment is a big help.
Unfortunately Carl's notion of liberalism, which I would correctly ascribe as true liberalism ie natural law & rights, rule of law, free markets, classic economics, property rights, free speech/association/information/self defence & individuality is pretty much dead at this point, & has been for the past hundred years or so. In the minds of the managerial elites liberalism (social democracy) is all about security, harm reduction & political participation in society by as many disparate groups as possible regardless of citizenship status or any other qualifying indicators, standards at this point simply do not matter. All that matters is participation, & participation in their minds is entitlements to government programmes ie education & welfare. This is the literal definition of liberal-democracy, & anyone who questions this, even pivoting to Carl's original & correct definition is basically a fascist. The very worst aspect of all of this is that people accept this new definition, to the point of it being the dominant political formula no one believes in old liberalism they just want free stuff & coddling.
Thanks for the time to tap it down. There is nothing of worth passed on, our minds wither enfeebled. Just this discussion is like a pin/nugget in the hay stack. The child will still be born who is capable, inquisitive and intelligent and they need food.
This is some high Iq conversation. Once I'm finished my studies I'd love to spend some time studying these topics so I may try and have these conversations.
Extremely valuable for me, thank you. Discussion is a great way to highlight underlying thought, I learned much here that I had not previously understood.
"Maybe it's because I'm English, but I'm hearing the words "absolutism", and "God", and all of this, and just thinking: 'Oh, good, I get to hear about some foreign nonsense now'." Sargon making me laugh like it's 2016 again
Neither God or absolute monarchies are foreign concepts. You think they are antithetical to Englishness because you are a product of modernity and the revolution of 1688
I like that remark about taking up political office. I dislike career politicians; Boris and Tony; Biden and Thatcher, especially those who know they will achieve wealth through it. However, we must remember the reason for this lot gaining wealth, Chartism.
Something that I wonder, I have heard that the Christianized Anglo-Saxons identified & focused more on the Old Testament (A wandering people conquering their own homeland for example) than other Christian Kingdoms. How much of the Deuteronomic Code of the Old Testament influenced Anglo-Saxon thought as opposed to Catholicism, which seems to be based on ensuring a united empire for an Emperor. I read somewhere that one of the goals of the Norman church was to "Properly Catholicize" the Anglo-Saxon Church.
This fits rather well with something I've heard a couple of times recently. Where the English during the 19th and 20th century to some extent began to view themselves as gods chosen people destined to rule the world.
Is this why a lot of Anglo derivative Protestant (Anglican, Methodist, etc) names, especially among non-European converts, are from Old Testament figures, e.g. Josiah, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. In contrast to their paucity among Continentals and Catholics.
Ok, where's the real Sargon gone? I'd go back to watching him if this was his usual standard. It seems he took this encounter more seriously than his usual outings and probably did a fair bit of preparation..
It is a benison to read the thoughts of thinkers past. The mind rejoices to conjure with more than shadows and smoke. It gives me great joy to hear you all discussing the opus and the fruit they bear in your minds and hearts. This is the patriarchy. Without it, the human being would have been born, then died immediately. It is everything that humanity has done, except childbirth.
He DID translate the whole bible, but for some reason he had it translated into Finnish ( Karelian).....That's why nobody talks about that nowadays.....it's weird...
@@adamsomerset9940 I was in a humorous mood while writing that....it's a kind of surreal joke that I made there.....😃😀🤩...maybe if I picked more outlandish language it would be funnier...and more obvious that I was kidding
I am going to praise Sargon for a good faith conversation, but! Sargon is still a "Plebian Nationalist" who only understands topics and thoughts in contradistiction to hes own anglo thinking.
Required viewing for our circles, IMHO, as it's easy for people to trip up when discussing their beliefs out in the wild. It also doubles as a speed track any curious normie looking to understand the ideas and spirit of things on this side of CZcams and Western Civilization moreover.
@@CheckUnderYou Indeed! And if you're a Catholic or at least symphatetic to Christiaity, I think Panama's Hat "Authentic Reactionary" video (part of a series?) is an essential watch, too. Clears the air from semantic confusion very well.
Only in the first part of this but I would agree with Sargon that there are notions in Englishness, in the constitution, bill of rights, customs of goidwill and tolerance that go back a long way in the culture and on the Island of Britain. I say Britain as it existed before Englishness particularly associated with the west of the Country including Wales. Very ancient traditions but also augmented by a very early Christian Tradition which was pre Roman and also centred on Wales and western Britain which I would suggest developed to be included in the sense of Englishness, justice and fairplay. . If you have come across The Bernician and also the writings of Wilson and Blacket and,Britain's Hidden History channel you will understand the sense of this. Our traditions and especially individual culture are, I believe very ancient and much more stable than any on the continent ( or at least they were !)
I feel that Carl is correct. The 'particularism' of the English is something diffuse that can only be understood in its cultural and psychic manifestation. The uniquely temperate island situation is crucial, a psycho-geographical essence, unique in the western European story, you can't get away from that fact. There are no other major European nations or peoples that are completely sea-bound. Why is it that we got up such a navy? Because we are people who look beyond the sea and have the urge top go out and discover what lies beyond it. Complementary to that is our bucolic sensibility, which has also been deeply embedded in our artistic consciousness, even in our political dialogue. From Chaucer to Constable and beyond the greenery yallery has been ever present. Salisbury cathedral is built on a European gothic model, but it could never have been made by a French or German mind. Look at our literature and the philosophical tradition of empiricism, a result of a whimsical or rueful psyche (Shakespeare's obsession with nature as metaphor). Our melancholic side is gentler than the German, our eccentric tendencies also a result of the unique way we interpreted the concept of the gentlemanly code or social expediency.
Something i have been mulling over. Since "reactionary " is a relative term like liberal or conservative. I honestly think the English classic liberal was the reactionary of the Enlightenment. They faced the reality that change was inevitable, but also tried to maintain as much tradition as possible
@@robertmacdonaldch5105 it always seemed to me like it was a preface to the enlightenment not a reaction too it.. liberalism is always cancerous, no matter of what kind. I feel like this distinction between french and english type, while true, is missing the forest for the trees.
@@misterkefir certainly it would be at first because the West was a Christian civilization, but then then French Revolution happened and anyone with a shred of Christian morality was horrified. Here we have a a definite shift to react against the Left side/Humanist later Hagelian, Marxist etc. "Liberalism is always cancerous " is to adopt Hagelian Determinism, which frankly many in this circle have done. Its historical false and ignores all other factors of human society that also contribute to our state of being, particularly faith. Adopting this viewpoint is what is actually "missing for the forest for the trees" because it is ultimately seeking a State solution for everything, that is Statism. So yes the distinction must be made, especially since besides the handful of monarchist (who have no road map) no one actually presents an alternative either for the future or how things "should have gone" had the Enlightenment been stopped.
3:00 this is a very good point by Sargon. The right side of the Enlightenment or English liberals didnt need an all encompassing ideology because their moral framework was still Christianity. Whereas the French/Left side Humanist rejected Christianity
Christianity was rooted deep in the English and British mentality having developed very early on, pre roman. There were Aryan ( or British Bishops) before Roman ones the Church having been established here in the First century probably by Joseph of Aramathea.
People keep saying Christianity like it means something. You're not merely Christian, you're a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, Non Denominational etc. Those differences mean everything and its the reason that Liberalism backed up by Christianity or whatever is completely vacuous because it just freezes this ambiguity.
People might think that's pedantic for the conversation at large, but I think you're right. AA's Christain Council Stream was life changing from me on this question. Sooner or later choosing the right version of the faith to use as a framework will be an imperative.
This. This. And This for the third time! An absolutely fundamental distinction. "Christianity" counted as an undivided whole isn't a thing anymore. And it is like this for at least 500 years.. maybe even 950 if you count the 1054 schism but I think that's stretching it. Thank you for this comment.
@@misterkefirI can’t help but feel genuinely surprised everytime I find out people feel the way you do. The differences in faith between the different denominations are geographical and sometimes cultural at best. They even mirror some of the differences between churches in the Paul’s letters. The desire to cleave the church into multiple pieces is…well what other course is there I suppose? I read about the outright disgusting acts given legitimation by The Roman Catholic Church or the ridiculous reinterpretations espoused by various modern denominations and I’m left to believe Jesus was right when he said the road would be less-traveled.
2:03:22 the Stuart’s weren’t English they were barely a Scottish dynasty Charles II and James II spent most of their young adult lives in exile in France in Louis 16ths court. The failure of the house of Stuart is two fold one they never truly acclimatized to England and the English form of kinship two they were barely Scottish and so were hatred by everyone. I’d go so far to say that the house of Stuart didn’t really exist after 1542 with the death of James V and had become a political cover for the ambitions of the house of Guise through his daughter Mary (queen of Scot’s) to subvert the house of Valois through marriage and claim the throne of England so their blood would rule over all three kingdoms. The failure of Mary as a monarch destroyed Guise’s grand plan leaving behind a dynasty connect by blood to two others but culturally didn’t have much of a clear identity of its own. This contradiction of a Scottish/French royal family ruling over England would cause problems sooner or later no one could have predicted they would happen within a generation After the reign of the first Stuart king of England.
1:58:36 I'm enjoying this a lot, so thank you. One thing though, I feel I need to remind you that religion is not the law of the land. It's often been used as a guidance to those laws but, I can't help but think the angle often being used by those of a religious persuasion, get this backwards. 🤔 IMO people like Sargon get deceived on this. Just because a dominant factor of society at the time had the most effect, it does not mean it's a necessity for something to function. Something about "correlation does not imply causation" kinda thingy, maybe...
@Groyble Womble the lie about what? AA just goes about insinuating that the involvement of Jews in negative historical development is important. That's the most charitable way I can put it. The issue is that this is not a terribly meaningful claim. It's not even a claim, it's an insinuation. It cannot be a lie as it means nothing. This is my issue with this nonsense he keeps going back to. I say, make a claim about Jews and let the debate begin. Leaving it in this vague world of "pattern recognition" just turns Jews into a boogieman, without making a substantive claim about what might or might not connect people of this Tribe to the negative events beyond coincidece.
@Groyble Womble fair enough. But in that case, what's the point of these innuendos that don't have any substance? All this does is fuel the insanity of those incoherently obsessed with this topic. It is for this reason, among others, that AM doesn't do this. If AA has a super coherent exploration of this topic, I'd appreciate a link. I just think AA is going a little nuts with this.
I could only catch the first hour live. I was genuinely impressed by Sargon's progress in his thinking and his formulations in this discussion. Thank you AM for hosting it.
I really liked this talk. It helps having a conversation about what a reactionary should be rather than ‘men among ashes’ talking points that characterizes the broader dissident right.
AM, you seem like a genuinely pleasant person. Thank you for starting a channel and godspeed to you!
AM is definitely a 'good egg'. And extremely knowledgable!
More pleasant than me, certainly
In English law, the judges would declare a rule to have existed from "time immemorial" ... thus was the common law created. It is not "commonly" known that Roman law at the time of Cicero was casuistic (case law based like English common law) and grounded if on statutes or custom at all, on the few vague existing statutes such as the lex aquilla, as interpreted by jurists. The Justinian codification was much much later and brought the rules together and codified them. So, just as citizens in a true republic don't need "codes of ethics", a system of law in a rising nation doesn't need to be comprehensive and codified... but as a society reaches decline, comprehensiveness and codification become necessary to maintain some semblance of order in a society without trust, virtue or common morality
Excellent observations 👏👏👏
50:00 Alfred's response is straight out of the Old Testament like in Kings or Chronicles
This should be on the BBC every night at 9pm for the next month so people can remember who they are
The BBC's audience isn't nearly as intelligent as it used to be.
14:00 AMs humility is always something to admire
Wonderful discussion. Sargon brings up comments about “our circle” rather poignantly as the shift towards NRx and Elite Theory while intellectually stimulating for me is simultaneously disturbing. The consideration for power alone instils in me the same aversion that I have to postmodern theory that has empowered the left.
I wish to retain the sentimentality of being English and do not think it is something that should be abandoned to become a “postmodern traditionalist” as AA might call himself. This conversation bridges the gap between the revival of an intellectual right with the consideration of ensuring such a revival is rooted in Englishness or authentic past.
The idea of men being among the ruins is still rather abstract, we still have the opportunity as Peter Hitchens describes of running to the hills (not figuratively) and preserving/conserving ideas and history for a time when they are needed again. We are not literally in the same position as the poet of “The Ruin” where we can only imagine what the world was like before because knowledge of the past has genuinely been lost.
We wish to contest sovereignty
Your first paragraph really hit home for me. Putting into a few concise words many of the thoughts that bounce around as I listen to recent AA content. Thank you. I'm still trying to formulate my way out of this. Your comment is a big help.
Cracking stream chaps, well done to all involved!
Surprising that Sargon claims that his own understanding of liberalism is original. It sounds like standard Whig history
Well, Sargon was a classical Liberal initially and by nature
An English traditionalist is still Liberal just less zealous in effect
Great discussion! Thanks gents!
31:00 Humanist legalism vs Christian self governance
Unfortunately Carl's notion of liberalism, which I would correctly ascribe as true liberalism ie natural law & rights, rule of law, free markets, classic economics, property rights, free speech/association/information/self defence & individuality is pretty much dead at this point, & has been for the past hundred years or so. In the minds of the managerial elites liberalism (social democracy) is all about security, harm reduction & political participation in society by as many disparate groups as possible regardless of citizenship status or any other qualifying indicators, standards at this point simply do not matter. All that matters is participation, & participation in their minds is entitlements to government programmes ie education & welfare. This is the literal definition of liberal-democracy, & anyone who questions this, even pivoting to Carl's original & correct definition is basically a fascist. The very worst aspect of all of this is that people accept this new definition, to the point of it being the dominant political formula no one believes in old liberalism they just want free stuff & coddling.
Thanks for the time to tap it down.
There is nothing of worth passed on, our minds wither enfeebled. Just this discussion is like a pin/nugget in the hay stack.
The child will still be born who is capable, inquisitive and intelligent and they need food.
Thoroughly enjoyed, thanks AM.
This is some high Iq conversation. Once I'm finished my studies I'd love to spend some time studying these topics so I may try and have these conversations.
"IQ"
cringe
Extremely valuable for me, thank you. Discussion is a great way to highlight underlying thought, I learned much here that I had not previously understood.
"Maybe it's because I'm English, but I'm hearing the words "absolutism", and "God", and all of this, and just thinking: 'Oh, good, I get to hear about some foreign nonsense now'."
Sargon making me laugh like it's 2016 again
That’s a modern formulation of Englishness.
England sounds ghey
@@topman8565 Sargon's vision of it is.
*tips fedora*
Neither God or absolute monarchies are foreign concepts. You think they are antithetical to Englishness because you are a product of modernity and the revolution of 1688
I like that remark about taking up political office. I dislike career politicians; Boris and Tony; Biden and Thatcher, especially those who know they will achieve wealth through it. However, we must remember the reason for this lot gaining wealth, Chartism.
Excellent discussion. Thank you all for making the effort to shed light on the post-modern mess.
Something that I wonder, I have heard that the Christianized Anglo-Saxons identified & focused more on the Old Testament (A wandering people conquering their own homeland for example) than other Christian Kingdoms. How much of the Deuteronomic Code of the Old Testament influenced Anglo-Saxon thought as opposed to Catholicism, which seems to be based on ensuring a united empire for an Emperor. I read somewhere that one of the goals of the Norman church was to "Properly Catholicize" the Anglo-Saxon Church.
This fits rather well with something I've heard a couple of times recently. Where the English during the 19th and 20th century to some extent began to view themselves as gods chosen people destined to rule the world.
Is this why a lot of Anglo derivative Protestant (Anglican, Methodist, etc) names, especially among non-European converts, are from Old Testament figures, e.g. Josiah, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. In contrast to their paucity among Continentals and Catholics.
@@ericthegreat7805no because none of these protestant sects have any basis in the early church in England
Carl: "Normies don't understand the nuances of your views on Democracy and Voting"
AM: "It's just basic De Maistre..."
LOL
But Sargon is still right. Who the fuck really knows anything about names other than Plato or a handful of others?
@@giw_jones that was the joke
@@Simon_Alexnder Text alone is trash at communicating tone.
@@giw_jones sure
Wonderful a treat as always.
Another great video, thanks
Ok, where's the real Sargon gone?
I'd go back to watching him if this was his usual standard. It seems he took this encounter more seriously than his usual outings and probably did a fair bit of preparation..
Sargon traveling down the liberalist to superfascist pipeline
Ultrafascist*
I'm assuming this is an Evola joke, right? 😅
UltraMegaSuperFascist, basically a Supervillan at this point.
@@Romulan64 It's an Evola serious!
Ultra Super Fascist!!!
Excellent work chaps
Where does english morality come from?, christendom Carl, christendom.
Panama’s authentic reaction is a reaction against neo reaction.
I'm looking forward to the neo-auth synth reaction 🍻
The best reaction against neoreaction is Carlsbad’s blog
I love streams about English history.
Sargon once again proving the saying "Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the Anglo"
As both an Anglo and a Catholic, I couldn’t agree more.
Can sajid javid and Humza Yousef understand the hard won liberties of the of the United kingdom's of great Britain just by being born here ?
“Won liberties”?
@@topman8565he thinks this is America
Hope you are doing well AM. Signal kept cutting out on the Kiel canal but enjoying this now. Hope there wasn’t too many trucks in the chat!
🚣🍻
🚛
It is a benison to read the thoughts of thinkers past. The mind rejoices to conjure with more than shadows and smoke.
It gives me great joy to hear you all discussing the opus and the fruit they bear in your minds and hearts.
This is the patriarchy. Without it, the human being would have been born, then died immediately. It is everything that humanity has done, except childbirth.
Alfred the Great did not translate the whole bible, it is likely he translated the first 50 psalms.
Yeah, I'm surprised that no-one questioned that assertion..
He DID translate the whole bible, but for some reason he had it translated into Finnish ( Karelian).....That's why nobody talks about that nowadays.....it's weird...
@@holydissolution85 please share a source on this
@@adamsomerset9940 I was in a humorous mood while writing that....it's a kind of surreal joke that I made there.....😃😀🤩...maybe if I picked more outlandish language it would be funnier...and more obvious that I was kidding
I am going to praise Sargon for a good faith conversation, but! Sargon is still a "Plebian Nationalist" who only understands topics and thoughts in contradistiction to hes own anglo thinking.
2:37:08 said just like AA and that video he uses: "CLEAR THEM OUT!"
This stream gets my personal stamp of approval.
An enjoyable conversation after skipping most of Carl's takes. Cheers, gentlemen!
Required viewing for our circles, IMHO, as it's easy for people to trip up when discussing their beliefs out in the wild. It also doubles as a speed track any curious normie looking to understand the ideas and spirit of things on this side of CZcams and Western Civilization moreover.
@@CheckUnderYou Indeed! And if you're a Catholic or at least symphatetic to Christiaity, I think Panama's Hat "Authentic Reactionary" video (part of a series?) is an essential watch, too. Clears the air from semantic confusion very well.
Only in the first part of this but I would agree with Sargon that there are notions in Englishness, in the constitution, bill of rights, customs of goidwill and tolerance that go back a long way in the culture and on the Island of Britain. I say Britain as it existed before Englishness particularly associated with the west of the Country including Wales. Very ancient traditions but also augmented by a very early Christian Tradition which was pre Roman and also centred on Wales and western Britain which I would suggest developed to be included in the sense of Englishness, justice and fairplay. . If you have come across The Bernician and also the writings of Wilson and Blacket and,Britain's Hidden History channel you will understand the sense of this. Our traditions and especially individual culture are, I believe very ancient and much more stable than any on the continent ( or at least they were !)
Amazing discussion, you three are my favorite creators in this space!
I think it’s a good idea when we win and everything’s in its proper place. To blame “cultural Marxism” for continuity’s sake.
I feel that Carl is correct. The 'particularism' of the English is something diffuse that can only be understood in its cultural and psychic manifestation. The uniquely temperate island situation is crucial, a psycho-geographical essence, unique in the western European story, you can't get away from that fact. There are no other major European nations or peoples that are completely sea-bound. Why is it that we got up such a navy? Because we are people who look beyond the sea and have the urge top go out and discover what lies beyond it. Complementary to that is our bucolic sensibility, which has also been deeply embedded in our artistic consciousness, even in our political dialogue. From Chaucer to Constable and beyond the greenery yallery has been ever present. Salisbury cathedral is built on a European gothic model, but it could never have been made by a French or German mind. Look at our literature and the philosophical tradition of empiricism, a result of a whimsical or rueful psyche (Shakespeare's obsession with nature as metaphor). Our melancholic side is gentler than the German, our eccentric tendencies also a result of the unique way we interpreted the concept of the gentlemanly code or social expediency.
Something i have been mulling over. Since "reactionary " is a relative term like liberal or conservative. I honestly think the English classic liberal was the reactionary of the Enlightenment. They faced the reality that change was inevitable, but also tried to maintain as much tradition as possible
you're reaching here "a bit" . .
@@misterkefir how so?
00 a l
@@robertmacdonaldch5105 it always seemed to me like it was a preface to the enlightenment not a reaction too it.. liberalism is always cancerous, no matter of what kind. I feel like this distinction between french and english type, while true, is missing the forest for the trees.
@@misterkefir certainly it would be at first because the West was a Christian civilization, but then then French Revolution happened and anyone with a shred of Christian morality was horrified. Here we have a a definite shift to react against the Left side/Humanist later Hagelian, Marxist etc.
"Liberalism is always cancerous " is to adopt Hagelian Determinism, which frankly many in this circle have done. Its historical false and ignores all other factors of human society that also contribute to our state of being, particularly faith. Adopting this viewpoint is what is actually "missing for the forest for the trees" because it is ultimately seeking a State solution for everything, that is Statism. So yes the distinction must be made, especially since besides the handful of monarchist (who have no road map) no one actually presents an alternative either for the future or how things "should have gone" had the Enlightenment been stopped.
3:00 this is a very good point by Sargon. The right side of the Enlightenment or English liberals didnt need an all encompassing ideology because their moral framework was still Christianity. Whereas the French/Left side Humanist rejected Christianity
This is vacuous because this was a time of total religious upheavel in which Christianity in England became an extremely ambiguous term
Christianity was rooted deep in the English and British mentality having developed very early on, pre roman. There were Aryan ( or British Bishops) before Roman ones the Church having been established here in the First century probably by Joseph of Aramathea.
@@mistymoor7114 very true
A nation is not in the institutions, its in the people.
Our institutions have gone.
We are surely moving to localism and bulkanization now.
an authentic reaction must wrestle w/ a restoration of some manner of serious ritual sacrifice
People keep saying Christianity like it means something. You're not merely Christian, you're a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, Non Denominational etc. Those differences mean everything and its the reason that Liberalism backed up by Christianity or whatever is completely vacuous because it just freezes this ambiguity.
People might think that's pedantic for the conversation at large, but I think you're right. AA's Christain Council Stream was life changing from me on this question. Sooner or later choosing the right version of the faith to use as a framework will be an imperative.
This. This. And This for the third time! An absolutely fundamental distinction. "Christianity" counted as an undivided whole isn't a thing anymore. And it is like this for at least 500 years.. maybe even 950 if you count the 1054 schism but I think that's stretching it. Thank you for this comment.
@@misterkefirI can’t help but feel genuinely surprised everytime I find out people feel the way you do. The differences in faith between the different denominations are geographical and sometimes cultural at best. They even mirror some of the differences between churches in the Paul’s letters. The desire to cleave the church into multiple pieces is…well what other course is there I suppose? I read about the outright disgusting acts given legitimation by The Roman Catholic Church or the ridiculous reinterpretations espoused by various modern denominations and I’m left to believe Jesus was right when he said the road would be less-traveled.
@@matthewblackledge5464there is only one true holy apostolic Catholic Church and none outside of it are saved
Carl
Celts are our brothers we share the same indoeuropian ancestors.
I an part welsh, part irish and part english.
I am not mixed race
You are, bud. C*lts are subhumans that haven't been relevant since Roman times
@@ChromiumCastle Celts and germans both have the same arian lineage.
@@RagingDong And? Africans and Norweigians both have the same lineage from Adam. You're race mixed
@@ChromiumCastle A 800 year seperation of tribes compared to 200'000 plus years seperation of races.
American?
@@RagingDong Yup. And an American that's right. Sorry you had to learn this way. Stick to your own kind
English Liberalism is the worst, ay?
Monarchy F.C. Ultras
2:03:22 the Stuart’s weren’t English they were barely a Scottish dynasty Charles II and James II spent most of their young adult lives in exile in France in Louis 16ths court.
The failure of the house of Stuart is two fold one they never truly acclimatized to England and the English form of kinship two they were barely Scottish and so were hatred by everyone.
I’d go so far to say that the house of Stuart didn’t really exist after 1542 with the death of James V and had become a political cover for the ambitions of the house of Guise through his daughter Mary (queen of Scot’s) to subvert the house of Valois through marriage and claim the throne of England so their blood would rule over all three kingdoms.
The failure of Mary as a monarch destroyed Guise’s grand plan leaving behind a dynasty connect by blood to two others but culturally didn’t have much of a clear identity of its own. This contradiction of a Scottish/French royal family ruling over England would cause problems sooner or later no one could have predicted they would happen within a generation After the reign of the first Stuart king of England.
1:58:36 I'm enjoying this a lot, so thank you.
One thing though, I feel I need to remind you that religion is not the law of the land. It's often been used as a guidance to those laws but, I can't help but think the angle often being used by those of a religious persuasion, get this backwards. 🤔
IMO people like Sargon get deceived on this. Just because a dominant factor of society at the time had the most effect, it does not mean it's a necessity for something to function. Something about "correlation does not imply causation" kinda thingy, maybe...
2:29:20 I may have been overly critical of, Sargon lol...
You have a very modern view of religion
@@topman8565 agreed lol
AA for 10 pound says: Da Jooooz done it! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
If I were a betting man I’d through in my savings with him
@@topman8565 I wouldn't, I hear they control money
@Groyble Womble the lie about what? AA just goes about insinuating that the involvement of Jews in negative historical development is important. That's the most charitable way I can put it.
The issue is that this is not a terribly meaningful claim. It's not even a claim, it's an insinuation. It cannot be a lie as it means nothing. This is my issue with this nonsense he keeps going back to.
I say, make a claim about Jews and let the debate begin. Leaving it in this vague world of "pattern recognition" just turns Jews into a boogieman, without making a substantive claim about what might or might not connect people of this Tribe to the negative events beyond coincidece.
@Groyble Womble fair enough. But in that case, what's the point of these innuendos that don't have any substance? All this does is fuel the insanity of those incoherently obsessed with this topic. It is for this reason, among others, that AM doesn't do this. If AA has a super coherent exploration of this topic, I'd appreciate a link.
I just think AA is going a little nuts with this.
@Groyble Womble I'll put it this way, this vague nonsense is just rabble rousing, not intellectual discussion.
Sargon Really ? you can't be serious