Suburban to Subversive, Alex Kaschuta
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 04. 2022
- Alex Kaschuta is the host of the Subversive podcast, where she hosts controversial thinkers exploring the 'post-liberal moment'.
She used to work in media in London, where she described herself then as a classic rationalist atheist and feminist. In the last few years she's moved back to Romania, become a mother, and has been exploring more traditionalist perspectives, in her life, and through the conversations on her podcast.
In this conversation with Rebel Wisdom's David Fuller we cover her recent journey, and how it mirrors many others making the turn from rationalist to traditionalist, and what that says about the cultural time we find ourselves in.
Alex's Subversive podcast: alexkaschuta.com/subversive-p...
only just stumbled across this as i didn't get notified sadly, great conversation though and some interesting thoughts and ideas.
Very good to hear her account. Thank you for the great interview. She is phenomenal and you are always a terrific interviewer.
This one felt genuine? Amazing chat.
If intolerance can’t be tolerated then anything can be tolerated - the tolerance paradox
@Mephisto von Jäkelstein Yes, but that would require nuanced thinking. It is so much easier to knock down a strawman.
Nothing to add, I just loved this so much. I would be very grateful to hear more of this type of thing (lots and lots more!) until we start hearing something that breaks through the tensions and comes closer to a synthesis. Thank you for putting this out 💗
Good to see people with unambiguously right leaning perspectives given some exposure on here
Indeed, not just old, stale leftism of the conservative variety.
"right wing" is an anachronistic way of labeling what people like Alex are: the approach to life and societal order entertained here are pre-modern, you'd need to go back to the renaissance to trace it's roots properly. left vs. right wing is still predicated on pretty recent, rationalist assumptions so it's a misnomer to label this as right wing, moreover one of the endeavors here is to abolish this frame as such because it gives a false sense of opposites while in fact some of the crucial features are taken as axiomatic. to think of Alex and her guests as right wing is to have a really superficial understanding of just how different of a value system and outlook on life they are modeling.
@@gavranarh Indeed. Left and right wing are both leftist. The democratic age gave rise to fascism, communism and liberalism, all are flavours of democracy.
@@gavranarh through my modern and admittedly unsophisticated lens a traditionslist looks decidely right leaning....having done some cursory research into the term neoreactionary it seems that some who identify as such claim to be far right wing....let me rephrase...Good to see people who aren't overtly sympathetic with liberalism given some exposure on here...happy now?
Thank you David. Thank you Alex.
great conversation thank you
A person can change, people don't change.
Yes, I think values and needs and energies alter at a greater rate in groups that combine to create 'the mob' - in Julius Caesar Shakespeare has a mob kill a poet mistaken initially as being one of the conspirators, but then quickly discovered to be a poet, after which he is promptly killed by the mob anyway for 'his bad verses'...
How many persons does it take to create people-incapable of change? does the greater # of people prohibit the extent of fundamental value change and/or recognition of a shared agenda beyond basic survival needs of the individual? I fear changes of thought are limited to the internal thinker unless they have the means to influence the masses, which, if this was the case would be a power that would hinder the need for development of innovative thought in the first place and ultimately circles back to the development of stoic thought.
A person can change. Small groups can change if they work intensely.
If an esoteric circle gets close to leadership of a polity - they can set the tone. Religion is the exoteric echo. Liberalism and modernity doesn't understand this.
As a long time viewer, I really appreciate you guys making this video. My main gripe with the IDW/sense-making space has always been its reluctance to criticize liberalism and materialism, which was also the reason why I ultimately left. Hopefully this can open up for some good discussions in the future!
Baby…bath water
My perspective sees critique as what happens after not before. Ive been through this 3 times and my clumsy and lack of skill made the critique move in the first two versions. But if you find it effective, perfect it and then show me so I can understand.
I would want you to define liberalism so I can understand your presuppositions. David put it well, a decent critique of liberalism does not mean the solution is a regression to a traditional God, whether it be a caliphate, a christian nation, etc, etc. As far as a critique of materialism, I'm with you, but I don't know how the bleep to have any such ideas stick at scale.
@@integralmark Did you watch the video?
I don’t trust anyone who labels themselves as anything.
Especially when they change their flavour of the month so readily and rapidly.
You weren't listening. It took her years to get to the position she's in now. No changing "her flavour of the month so readily and rapidly".
Thank you for providing me the new rabbit hole
Surprised that you had Alex on (in a good way) as she swims in some spicy waters! Anyone more interested in these ideas should check out Academic Agent - his channel is my go to for dissident right thought and discussion.
Great conversation from a valuable new perspective
You don’t have ideas ideas have you.
Unless you make a effort to not spread or represent them. Ideas influence actions.
Right now we are Information oversaturated. However it’s fun to play with them.
My idea of a solution is to re invent the tribe. Social connection and people power. There is no influencing the system. We have to build our own systems.
That’s why Rebel Wisdom Rocks! They bring like minded people or people concerned about the sand topics together.
Hmm I’ve gone from rationalist to traditionalist…I wonder if I’ve gone down the spiral (spiral dynamics) I’m meant to be properly woke now if id have moved up! Didn’t happen. I’ve been a Marxist, a post modernist, an devout atheist…now I’m a Christian. Bonkers.
Yes, you do sound bonkers.
Curious…how did you go from Atheist to Christian?
From noting to religion…?
What about that construct made you think, “aha! This is real and I am all in!”?
Truly curious since I struggle whit the NEED for a religion. When I heard hte speaker say, “…now I am a Christian, because what else is there to be…” I scratched my head.
I think a lot of people have to go through multiple different ideological phases in pursuit of truth before they land on solid ground. Even those raised in the church often drift away for a few years to explore other belief systems before returning.
@@joseyrupert6316 Agreed. It seems almost necessary to be ideologically homeless for a time. How else would we actually learn about how varied the human experience is?
Did anyone say B then P then D?
I love how Alex said she’s become more feminine since becoming a mother than she was in the past. So when she was a self described “feminist” feminism was not one of her personality traits. But now that’s she’s abandoned that ideology she’s embraced her own femininity which might sound paradoxical but it’s an observational reality and it’s actually quite logical.
Feminism didn’t celebrate femininity enough
It is a commonplace that feminism is about women's lives coming to imitate men's, and denying any intrinsic difference between the sexes. The evidence continues to mount up against, of course.
This was a great conversation, I really appreciate it. 👍🏼💕 I like how you both were touching on the wide variety of phenomena we see in individuals and society, without defining them into concrete categories of one thing or the other.
For example, any worldview or framework can be treated as a fundamentalist religion, and can be a hardened stance of identity, even when we don't experience ourself as hard. We can promote that hardened stance through rational arguments for example. And yet we need a guiding world view, narrative, and guiding values to navigate please changing times. I really like how you proposed guiding values for the span of human potential, the worst of us and the best of us. Because even when we do growth work, there are circumstances that will show us our limitations that we hadn't uncovered yet.
I also really resonate with the need, and humanities readiness for a synthesis of rationality and spirituality (which in my view are not separate phenomena, but either can be used as a more hardened worldview or personality structure). A synthesis of left, right. This is the exciting part of our structure is falling apart. They fall apart when they don't work for enough people, and those people gain some power to create a wedge to open it up.
I also appreciate Alex saying that power dynamics will always be there, and the recognition that we see those power dynamics differently depending on how we've been affected by current power structures, and by how we see the fundamental nature of people.
Great conversation. Thanks David and the Rebel Wisdom team.
I keep hearing about all these people who have be challenged by the thinking of Jordan Peterson et al who are now openly exploring traditional forms of Christianity. However I cannot find any IRL. It could be that Wiltshire is as yet untouched by these trends. I would be very interested in linking in with anyone in England on this journey.
I love where this channel is going, David. I like how, as an alternative media source, you haven’t fallen into the trap of the purely anti woke. You have remained balanced and steadfast in the search for truth. Thank you for keeping us all balanced, David, so we don’t go too far down the rabbit hole. And thank you for the guest, she has a very balanced, non-tribal attitude as well. Cheers, mate! ✌️
I thought that Alex would be too out there for this channel so I'm glad to see her on here. I'm amazed what the girl gets away with but I think that it is because people see that she is obviously a decent and reasonable person. This was a very interesting conversation.
Where in Romania?
1. COMMONS - Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, because of bearing a cost to obtain that interest;
2. where that cost may consist in anything from forgoing opportunity for discount, or direct expenditure; where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title.
3. I use this term to refer to the spectrum of physical commons, normative commons, institutional commons, informational commons, demographic and genetic commons.
The problem we face with commons is that without explicitly issued shares, even un-tradable shares,
4. the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation. There is no means of suppression of the abuse of others demonstrated interests (bearing of costs)
5.other than adversarial markets for their construction (houses of commons),
adversarial markets for dispute resolution (courts), and a fully articulated scientific law and constitution,
6. providing the means for regulating the construction of commons and resolution of disputes over commons.
There is no free ride to constant vigilance. P law provides a sufficiently scientific and detailed body of law
I have heard bits and pieces from Curtis Yarvin. Anyone else in this sphere to dig out.
Mutual respect between those who want recognition of their uniqueness and those who defend their rights should be possible. It shouldn't take a war to make the liberals recognise the value of those that some of them painted as oppressors but some of need a reality check. That doesn't mean they can't be recognised once they recognise the importance of the traditionalists.
The value of religion is to override the self interest of the individual. To create higher order goals for individuals that are consistent with the set of rules that lead to a better outcome for the society. Unless the oligarchs and billionaires are converted there's little point in serfs becoming born again theists. If they have no power then their religion is largely irrelevant in the question of what comes after liberalism.
And yet, it often does take war. But then what? Some form of this again?
The individual can offer something transformative, but first the human must transform... Something like that, perhaps.
I'm a Classical Liberal, Rule of Law, Monarchist, and elitist - a little bit closer to adams and hobbes than jefferson and locke. I'm just hostile to the left. It doesn't mean I agree with right-wing thought. I just share aristocratic, paternal, conservative, moral intuitions.
Gardening is the means to understand in life. When working in the garden you avoid utopian thinking. It is obvious that everything you grow does not produce fruit.
Thats a nice point.
Loving the Organic Gardeners ❤️
The Sun Rises
The Sun Sets
The Sun Rises 🙏🏽
Fantastic conversation. I was familiar with her name, I think from something I saw on Twitter. Very glad to get the chance to hear her thoughts.
This is a great conversation because Alex is so far out of the Overton Window and David didn’t do what most liberals would, and grill Alex about being too right wing.
I myself am caught in a kind of tension between liberalism and a logic that, (due to the social justice revolution and perilous situation in the liberal West), leads me to the right of conservatism on many issues.
I grew up in London in the 70s and 80s. I am a bisexual who was married to a trans woman. I believe that gay, bi & trans people should have equal rights and be left alone in peace. I want all drugs legalized, tax payer funded healthcare and I oppose racism. I’m a Buddhist and live in Asia and speak the language. So you would think that I’m a staunch liberal with left leaning tendencies and in many ways I am. But my evolution since living in London, being an atheist and getting high every weekend to being a Buddhist in a safe, traditional homogenous culture, has led me to believe the West needs to revive or find an alternative to Christianity. The West needs a return to patriotism, confidence, food and energy independence and military strength and it needs to end mass immigration now and permanently. It also needs to return to the idea that the majority of men and women should get married and have at least two children and most likely have some kind of traditional gender roles.
All of which, by UK standards places me on the far right. Way way way to the right of the Tories.
So I find myself in the strange position of often agreeing with people like Alex and people like Russell Brand. Honestly agreeing with all my left wing friends on the folly of recent military action, the unfairness of crony capitalism, opposition to real racism and my libertine instincts on drugs and sex, whilst quietly thinking the opposite. That what Britain and America need as a matter of survival, is a return to the church, a resurgence of patriotism and traditional roles and lots of fracking and nuclear and the borders to SLAM SHUT permanently.
I believe all of these things simultaneously because I believe on an individual level, sexuality and drugs are a private matter but that a civilization CANNOT survive without a certain amount religion, pride, strength, traditional gender roles and relative homogeneity to keep things stable and cohesive.
So I guess (by UK standards) I am individually left liberal but politically/collectively far right.
I don’t identify as far right and in my adopted Asian home, my right wing views are centrist but in my home town of London the consensus would be I’m basically closer to Oswald Mosley than Tony Benn or the Dalai Lama.
Very interesting David. I don’t watch everything you put out, but this conversation feels like a good summery of where we are and need to go. No, not into neo-reactionary world, but I’ve felt for a long time that these meta political conversations are what we need to have.-- As a pacifist Christian, something like 'liberalism' or 'multi-polarity'--alongside a strong commitment to dialogue and pacifism (to prevent the waring of tribes) is the way forward, rather than some regime that imposes one vision of reality on others.
In his introduction to “Radical Orthodoxy” (a Christian intellectual movement very much in these lines-interview John Milbank) James K A Smith describes how an ontology begets an epistemology which begets a politics. I think our captivity to liberalism and modernism have blinded us to the ways that our rationalist epistemologies hide both an implicit materialist ontology and a liberal politics.
There must be lots of people wanting a podcast on the big picture / philosophy etc illuminating the current situation.
The Great Filter is obvious: care and empathy do not scale. And so, that which makes our cooperation and its vast rewards possible, causes our suicide by failure to suppress the reproduction of those unfit for cooperation in defeat of nature rather than succumbing to her by care
As I'm listening I'm thinking about Portugal's António de Oliveira Salazar. His biography would inform the conversation. We have been there before. I wonder if we can imagine something that fits the challenges of our times. How much time do we have to sort out these many perspectives competing for attention and understanding?
Austerity and human co-operation could prove to be a great liberation. We even talk like machines now.
Interesting.
I wonder how many Ideologies I am going to have in this lifetime and how many I will convinced are 'the way'? And, more importantly, can I accept others Ideologies as good for them and not push mine down their throats? Could there be a piece of information that I have not seen yet that will change everything regarding my thoughts on what we are and why we are here?
Note that the ashkenazi and middle eastern intuition is that credentialed elites should rule, not those who have demonstrated ability to operate large numbers in economy, or military. In other words Harari is advocating rule by rent-seekers.
These kind of conversations are bringing me back to Rebel Wisdom.... after a fantastic start (I was an avid follower) you seemed to have bogged down in defence of the liberal values - which you accept now as narrow and I would also add somewhat shallow- but here you go again from strength to strength..... I will keep coming back, see what you are up to!
1. In democracy at village scale a majority is enough. As the size of the population, division of labor, division of responsibility, division of knowledge and competency increase, democracy requires houses for classes so that we produce a market for commons as we did consumption.
2. Nobility(Territory), Industry, Business, Family are necessary houses. It is not clear that those who cannot at least produce a self-sustaining family should or can contribute to political negotiations - only that they require juridical defense by the courts. Ergo vote=evidence
Self Determination, Rule of Law, Democracy, Federation, Evolution.
-OR-
Oppression, Authoritarianism, Dictatorship, Empire, Stagnation.
Polities, States, and Empires are needed to domesticate using Rule of Law. The result is democracy and federation - let a thousand nations bloom
Democracy is the reward for high trust, and high trust the result of the military's success at creating rule of law. The necessary dependence chain of the luxury of participatory government is a nationalist army, rule of law, professional bureaucracy, and a large middle class
I have found prescriptions on a personal basis are noise not signal.
Regarding David's comment about conservative and liberal views of human nature: We can divide life into three stages: 1) Survival, 2) Illusion, and 3) Happiness. When we are in the survival stage, we cause harm due to natural competition. After survival needs have been met, we move into either illusion or happiness. If we move into illusion, then we think happiness is dependent on gain and so we continue with the survival stage's competition mode to achieve happiness. But if we instead move into stage 3 - the innate happiness and goodwill of being - then we no longer need to compete for happiness because you realise you already have it. So, if you have a negative view of human nature, then you are focusing on life in the survival stage or life in illusion. If you have a positive view of human nature, then you are focusing on life in the happiness stage. Note that most developed democracies have finished with 1, but are stuck in 2, and need to move into 3, and then spread it around the world by helping people to satisfy survival needs and end illusion.
Regarding David's comment about "the space left by religion": It's a cart before the horse issue. It's not that we innately lack meaning. Life is already innately meaningful. The problem is that we have been distracted away from innate meaning. So instead of Religion or something else filling the supposed space, we just need to get rid of the distractions.
The social and personal intersect in education systems. On the national level Tomas Bjorkman has stuff on (on his reading) the history of Scandinavia.
I don't take the term "LARPing" to mean doing something which isn't strictly speaking necessary. That seems to be the definition Alex is using.
For example, working out at a gym is not LARPing because no aspect of it is in denial of reality or cause and effect. It would be LARPing if one were to paint foam weights silver and pretend that one was exercising.
If moving to the country or growing a garden pleases you aesthetically, how is it LARPing?
Alex seems to be saying that anything outside a tribal pre-agricultural society is LARPing. I don't agree. I don't think that changing one's lifestyle and observing cause and effect in reference to that change is LARPing.
Yikes... She went full "Ignorance is bliss" cynicism there at the end. Disappointing.
We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it:
1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity)
2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals.
…. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization,
…. A Professional Military,
…. A Professional Judiciary, and
…. A Treasury of Last Resort.
3) A Market for Commons consisting of:
…. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court
…. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities.
…. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family.
4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners
…. A Militia and Sheriffs
…. Voluntary Civic Organizations
5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy
6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law.
7) Really. You can’t do much better than that for a ‘steady state’. Because under war or stress the organization can switch from market rule to military rule (Fascism), and under plenty the organization can switch from market rule to (contingent and temporary) redistribution.
8) The central probelm with all forms of government is nothing more complex than the demographics of the polity. The larger the demonstrated underclass, the less effective a government and the more risk involved and the more limited are one’s options.
9) The smaller the demonstrated underclass, the more effective a government and the less risk involved and the more plentiful (variable) are one’s options.
Market governments cause a natural eugenic change in the distribution,
10) while creating the greatest adaptability, rate of innovation(competition) and highest standard of living.
But they require a militia or at least a dedicated military to bring into being.
The rationalist tradition brought us chaos theory, Mandelbrot sets, quantum indeterminacy, Godel's incompleteness theorem, computable numbers, black holes, the Big Bang, and Busy Beavers. All of things are thoroughly formal, while prying the door wide open to the inherent and ineluctable limitations of the rationalist perspective.
"Limited" is not a criticism, but one of the highest available compliments.
Does any other approach paint formal lines on where theory must fade away, and empiricism must finally reign supreme?
What I see here is a contrived, overcomplicated, rationalisation of agnosticism and a reversion to a former norm as a response.
Last year's conversation on Reactionary Feminism within Mary Harrington kind of predicted this type of response.
Rationalism and secularism are alive and well.
My work differs from both Christianity (semitic priestly peasantry) and Nietzche (european aryan arsitocracy) in that both Christianity and Nietzche are proposing either-or propositions, while I propose continuing the Thomist synthesis of the masculine-feminine by natural law
Great watch! Do you need religion if you have spirituality?
I was surprised that the word authoritarian never came up in this interview, since Alex’s move towards traditionalism seems to me to be a move towards authoritarianism. It also seems that her world view is skewed by the fact that she thinks “every society has a value system.” No, individuals have value systems. In a liberal democracy, all value systems are legitimate. It used to be in the U.S., at after the end of WWII, that legislators with liberal/progressive values and those with conservative/traditional values would work across the aisle to find their shared values and pass compromise legislation. But the conservative/traditionalist reaction to the civil rights movement of the 1960s led in the 1980s under Reagan, aided by right wing provocateur Rush Limbaugh, to a tribalism on the right where compromise was a dirty word; conservatives didn’t seek out bipartisanship any more and simply pushed through the legislation that they wanted. Democrats, for a time, continued to seek bipartisanship (you can even see faint echoes of it under Biden), but have generally given up and are now pushing legislation that reflects their values. This is also reflected in the so called “woke” movement, where liberals have so tired of conservatives who refuse to recognize the importance of fairness and equal opportunity for all that they have swung too far the other way and are now pushing protections of marginalized groups that undermine their own values. So thanks to the conservative/traditionalists on the right, we now yo-yo back and forth between conservative legislation when the Republicans are in power and liberal legislation when the Democrats are in power. I don’t see this as a failure of liberal democracy as much as a failure of conservatism in breaking the system of bipartisanship that existed post WWII. So Alex’s move to traditionalism and her attempts to renew her Christianity strike me not as moves towards individual freedom, but moves towards authoritarianism. After all, what is the Christian God by a benevolent dictator? And while we might think that the benevolent dictator is the most effective form of government, with humans benevolence is never guaranteed.
Wow... talk about having completely missed the point of the conversation. You woke lot are far more authoritarian than someone like Alex. You should try considering that your world view is entirely wrong. It's a scary. yet necessarily humbling experience, something the woke is sorely lacking.
I thought it was odd that her right to practice Christian traditionalism requires a legal structure where you are allowed to have a different religion than the leader of the country.
I like your point here about compromise being the framework where different people reach mutually compatible values and the end of that in America being caused by the conservative side of the aisle. It always struck me in the Jon Stewart days that the Republicans were not behaving like adults, but instead of fixing it the Dems just went back to kindergarten so now Americans can't have nice things. We see this in Canada as well.
Imposing your idea of fairness and equal opportunity is authoritarian. It is authoritarian inside the USA and it is authoritarian internationally. Other people really do not share your values, and your response is simply to insist that they must. Authoritarianism
1. (We evolved FROM Classical Liberalism to Libertarianisn, to AC, to Reaction to P-Law. AC(rothbard) is jewish pale, Hoppe is free-cities Germany, and i'm nationalist anglosphere. Of these only the anglo model is existentially possible
2. Rule of law by natural law, monarchy as via negativa judge of last resort, a managerial cabinent of professionals, houses of government as a market for commons. Meritocratic achievement of voice in those houses. the individual as the target of law, and Family as the target of policy.
3. Perfect government is simply an epistemic organization.
Curtis Yarvin next ! You cannot move from hypocrisy to morality without a dose of amoral realism inbetween....
I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
@@gavranarh Ah well, imagine not having the foremost Western political theorist of our times on the show. You cant make sense of today without him. Good luck!
DavidF saying now was the time for synthesis brought Yarvin to mind and made me smile. AlexK just nodding along with this, all the while knowing what she must know.
I have a rather simple conclusion about these subjects. How is it that a poor carpenter from a tiny town in a backwater province of the Roman Empire, who preached for three years and was executed at the age of 33, became the single most important person in the history of the world? Meditate on that question for a while, and perhaps faith won’t seem so absurd.
Sovereignty and Reciprocity = Responsibility
Individualism = Irresponsibility
I’m lost. Sovereignty and reciprocity means responsibility and individualism means irresponsibility? What do you mean by individualism, then? Perhaps something like freedom from obligation to others?
Self determination by reciprocal insurance of soveriegnty in demonstrated interests, limiting us to reciprocity in display word and deed, is a legal obligation of the individual, whereas individualism is a policy bias of the state. Instead of individualism we should at the very least put family ahead of the individual in our policy, and certainly the commons ahead of the indvidual.
cooperation Between sexes:
1. They are all just women. That is all that they can be. It is what most prefer to be. And truth is irrelevant to women, since that is a matter of contractual constraint and non compromise. They care only for non-conflict( consensus), possibility, consumption.
2. So the journey for men, is to limit women to reciprocity and possibility, not preference, good, or truth.
“I can do that for you”, and “I cannot do that for you”, and “I can only do that for you (when conditions are met)”, are in the vocabulary of women’s understanding.
3. The fact that we added women to the men’s voting pool, but did not provide for them a separate house, as we had the nobility(lords), the property owners people(commons), and the labor (church) is the problem of modernity, not their participation in the market for commons
4. or the market for labor.
Markets force cooperation on means despite incompatibility of ends, and construct compromises. Whereas democracy and false equality create markets for propaganda, deception, and bribery of voters through forcible takings and distributions..
5. When we have opposing reproductive and evolutionary interests, and we have different means of coercion of one another (violence vs seduction), different preferences (numbers versus excellences, equality and consensus vs hierarchy and truth),
6. then the only solution to cooperation that preserves an honest high trust society is a market constructed for the purpose of trade between peoples of different interests.
The market for consumption (Self), the market for fixed capital (home), the market for reproduction (family),
7. the market for production(goods,services, and information),the market for the production of commons(‘govt’),and the market for polities,all regulated by the one law of reciprocity,provides a ‘perfect’ hierarchy of ‘perfect’ institutions, that assist us in achieving our differing goals,
8. with differing abilities, by the service of one another’s means, despite our differing ends.
We had the perfect government, built by the aristocracy, and the failure of the aristocracy to expand the houses to replace the church (family and labor), and to expand the houses to include women,
9. broke the meritocratic hierarchy that for millennia had maximized liberty and prosperity by demonstrated merit, by assisting in incremental, demonstrated loyalty and ability by the product of one’s efforts, and the demonstrated consistency of the intergenerational family as an insurer of individual performance.
10. The one law of reciprocity (tort).
An independent ‘cult’ of the law: the judiciary.
An hereditary monarch as a judge of last resort.
A cabinet of professionals in service of the monarch.
11.A market for the production of commons (non-consumables) consisting of houses for each of the classes: military, judicial, regional (governors), commerce (property), mothers (women), and dependents(underclasses).
That market produces contracts, not legislation or law.
12. All contracts ascend unless vetoed by the military, judiciary or King as judge of last resort.
All funds raised are produced by contract between the houses.
All employees the monarchy serve at the pleasure of the king - without exception.
13. The only ‘Tax’ (non-discretionary cost) for all is 3% of GDP for the military and militia, 1% for the monarchy(use with total discretion), and .01% for the judiciary, raised by the houses
I've been rasing children for 24 years, and I have another 6 more to go.
If you have children, you have very little time to have an existential crisis or have concern about meaning making. Life is consumed by the ordinary tasks of life; food, shelter, clothing, et al.
I think, we moderns have too much time on our hands, and we don't enjoy the small things in like hearth and home, friendship and love, health and order. Children highlight these basic essentials.
I don't see her as going "back" to traditionalism. She says she wants to integrate the best from all and I would assume she is also integrating pluralism or context awareness as well. If this is the case, she is actually growing into a Strategist or Integralist which transcends and includes them all. That is great news. Each of the others are limited on their own. Yes we do need and do have a "hierarchy" of *values*. Wilber has been saying this for decades. It is not until we reach Strategist or Teal that we understand the difference between dominator hierarchies and values hierarchies. Hopefully at some point she will grow into Construct Aware and she will see that all of these ideas are arbitrarily constructed by the human mind. And the constructs themselves influence/create our systems and reality. Then we realize we can change the constructs and change the way reality plays itself out. This is where true freedom begins.
Faint whispers from a possible future
STUDY NATURAL LAW WITH MARK PASSIO.
It's incredible how the central achievement of liberalism -- building and fortifying the nation-state -- has been utterly swept away and retconned as some reactionary/conservative aspect. For good reason: the implications are very unfortunate for both left and right.
There is zero contradiction in being both a liberal and a militaristic nationalist, e.g. Heinrich von Treitschke, Francesco Crispi, etc. But this realization takes a lot out of the right's polemical edge, as with the left's pacifistic self-conception.
For the better way, plan b etc, I think we need to accept two axioms: every child born deserves to thrive; prevention is better than cure.
On Monarchy:
1. Towards the end you said that a monarch doesn't have the incentive to implement a policy that favours the rich and powerful few at the cost of everyone else. But this contradicts what you said earlier in the video when you said a monarch gathers support from the top down. What better way of gaining the support of the rich and powerful than by granting them favourable monopolies/policies? Those 2 assertions you made are logically inconsistent in my view.
2. The amount of pandering to the aristocracy at the expense of the lower castes would be tempered by the monarch's incentive to maintain and increase the social and capital value of his realm in the long term, whereas in a democracy this is almost completely unhinged and ultimately leads to the liquidation of the commons. The monarch may choose to do this because he may perceive that the long term benefits of granting a particular privilege to the aristocracy, and thus gaining valuable support, probably outweighs whatever the perceived costs of this are to everyone else in the short term. It's a balancing act--the monarch needs to keep both the aristocracy and the common people satisfied if he is to rule effectively.
3. These two ideas can be reconciled by the idea of social forces necessary to rule. A monarchy legitimacy draws heavily from allegiance. The monarch therefore needs to balance all the social forces amongst his subjects thereby, must never appear to be partisan; and gives the social forces room to thrive. This takes the form of patronage networks. The King is patron to the Bishops, the heads of the guilds, the land barons, marshals of the armies e.t.c; who in turn have networks underneath them of which they are patrons; thereby drawing all the different social forces and those dependent on them.
4. A democracy requires the ruling class to control social forces sufficient to win elections. They have special interest groups as their patrons. They are sponsored by their patrons so as to be able to win elections, and thus are servants to their patrons rather than rulers over their subjects. Public Institutions are thus co-opted by private interests.
The leaders of the democracy are clients to social forces that help them win elections. Monarchs are patrons to social forces that allow him to rule his subjects
Of note, Winston Churchill argued for the installation of Wilhelm II as a constitutional monarch and was overruled by Woodrow Wilson. In addition, China is not ethnically homogenous but Chinese culture is prevalent throughout its territory (its complicated) I'd recommend Superpower Interrupted by Michael Schumann for a better idea of what that means because I can't explain it well at all
I think maybe Rebel Wisdom has succumbed to a kind of audience capture and this interview is evidence of it. Certainly David Fuller knows that a lot of his audience is coming in through Twitter. This conversation seems like it is completely head-up-ass involved with subcultures and discourses on Twitter, and seems really out of touch and inaccessible to broader audiences.
I'd suggest to Rebel Wisdom that they put the focus on things of broader interest to people who are not chronically online on Twitter. This channel is at risking of trapping itself in a niche subculture and losing its relevance.
Why US Govt/Constitution is not what you think it is Part 2 🤔🧐:
1) The West relies on federation:sovereignty: meaning self-determination by self-determined means
2) Federation is necessary because the self-determination we refer to as sovereignty, liberty, freedom, can only be achieved by reciprocal insurance by arms - and absence of authority.
3) We do not have a 'bible' of the west that states this openly. The British constitutional narrative was the first to formalize it into an institution. The American constitution was the first to formalize it in writing. But stating it clearly as our foundation is incomplete.
4) Ricardo Duchesne calls our group strategy "Aristocratic Egalitarianism" meaning we are constantly looking for peers to share the burden of preserving our self-determination in sovereignty, liberty, and freedom.
5) But this definition is not philosophical it's legal: Reciprocal defense, insuring the sovereignty of others who do the same, regardless of costs. And to reduce that cost we seek the largest number of sovereign states, w/ most sovereignty, least power distance, authority.
6) As such the organizing principle that results from the FIRST PRINCIPLE OF WESTERN CIV is that we must generate a constant supply of men with ability, agency, and responsibility, through continuous adversarial competition, in a market for defense, rule, governance by the best.
7) And unfortunately there are few if any women that demonstrable are able to do so for intrinsic reasons. Just as there are few if any men able to bear children for intrinsic reasons. Male Systematizing and Loyalty To Bear Costs vs Female Empathizing and Devotion to Consume.
8) We've always had mobility - never had the caste system. Only the trifunctional system.
Warriors, Priests, Judges, the people.
barbarian > slave > serf > fremen > citizen > sovereign
Those who fight (rule), pray (administer), those who work(Labor), slaves, domesticated animals
9) The west depended on citizen soldiery (all able bodied men) and the axe-club, spear, phalanx, bow, rifle. So we have always had rotation despite the dark ages. Today we have classes with little rotation but possible rotation. It's the same across time.
10) Moreover, the aristocracy captured the church, and so the manor for the first son, and the church for the second son, and this way the land could be acquired for the church and stay in family hands. We had courts for the manor, the freemen, the burghers, the nobility, .....
11) The nobles were defeated because feudalism was a temporary necessity given the inability to concentrate military,political, and economic power given the geography, crops,and state of development of the post-roman age. As soon as the north sea germanics rebuilt civ:'economics'
12) The middle class simply replaced the military aristocracy with the english creation of the modern state,by the sequence of empirical agrarian commercial financial industrial,and technological institutions Now new priests are in charge because we let the Jews overthrow the military.
13) It's negative if the middle class can displace the military aristocracy and the rule of law - as they have here in the postwar era.
And they were only able to convert from a balance between the military rulers and aristocracy, the burghers and and financiers,
14) and the craftsmen and laborers becasue of women's entry into the polity and the civil war destruction of state sovereignty,.
NO. Simple economics. It's just that southern economics were still agrarian, and so aristocratic manorialism still persisted.
15) WE outlawed aristocracy in the foundation and we didn't force washington to take the monarchy and the french (bad ideas) were to remove the aristocracy
It really feels to me that the retreat to traditionalism is a response to the lack of creativity of our Problem Space Navigators to come up with new ideas of how we should live our lives.
The retreat to Traditionalism is one of those local cost/benefit maximizations that helps the individual but has an externalized cost of decreased societal cohesion. If you want your Traditional Values to be upheld by the legal framework that you live in, you need some kind of liberal pluralism that prevents your right to practice Christianity from being trampled. I like that one of you mentioned the idea of being able to buy in to Culture X if you didn't like Culture Y that you were currently trapped in, maybe that's a good job for more Localism.
The apocalypticists who claim that liberalism is over seem to be practicing the same patterns of thought as the ultra woke, anti-capitalists and racial nationalists, with anti-capitalists probably being the closest. Homeless people on the streets of San Francisco beside billion dollar tech buildings don't proveably delegitimize the decentralized planning capabilities of capitalism any more than weaponized fragility, empathy and identity delegitimize the tolerance and pluralism of liberalism.
I expect a distribution of people who are too tired to carry on, so they find an off-the-shelf set of values. That is how I think of the rationalists who turn to traditionalism. I Just Wanna Grill, too, but I'm dissatisfied with the cuts of meat I've been presented so far. It will probably take Joshua Citarella and the meme-soaked teens to light the way for us old people who are too poisoned by the shape of Culture Wars 201x
Why is the turn to traditionalism a "retreat"? Aren't you rather pre-judging the argument?
Your channel is interesting, but it definitely has an ‘insider’s’ feel. You use terms like ‘the post liberal moment’ and others with an an assumption that people viewing your videos already know what they mean. No definition.
You can keep doing that, but I think it will isolate you and reduce your reach.
All religions greate guilt.
Get rid of guilt and you have pure religion
How do you get rid of guilt, and still have any notion of right and wrong? There is guilt, but there is also forgiveness and restoration.
@@vaportrails7943 You need to have the holy spirit to see this.
When I was given it I spoke In tounges,
I can't deny this happened.
I didn't know what sin was until the law said though shall not .
The law has been annulled for where there is no law there is no sin.
The righteousness of the law is a free gift if you beleave it it is imputed to you,that's what a saint is.
The sacrifice of the lamb was to forgive the world of sin.
There is no condemnation for those who are in the spirit and not in the flesh this is the 7th day the day of rest,do not work for your salvation it's a free gift.
The eights day is in the spirit, we have to move into that .
Blessed is he that condems himself not in that thing that he allows
Seek the truth ,stay away from all organisations trust in God. This is in brief.
The answer to your question is as Jesus said.Dont do to others as you would not want them to do to you------
God be with you.
Congrats on the Right for catching up to postmodernism and finally paying attention to power, which has been discussed in academia for decades! It’s fashionable to be powerless as the neoreactionaries continue to panic about Wokism.
Right... because Wokeism isn't the new Maoism that is trying to indoctrinate the next generation into pushing the next Marxist revolution in the west. Are you actually paying attention?
Maybe it's time to put psilocybin in our warheads.
Anyone who thinks of themselves as more rational than other people is almost certainly not. Its not confession through projection like many things we see to day. Rather its simply impossible to even vaguely approach the ideal of rationality without understanding not only are human non-rational at a very deep level but that some of our non-rational modalities are actually useful. Human regularly come to very intuitive conclusions that are far more correct, useful and timely than anything viewed as "rational".
Rationalism has always been a trap that plays to one's ego. And the trap is especially bad because it blinds people to involvement of their ego by fooling them into thinking they are rational and therefore above such things.
Is this a rational point?
@@martinzarathustra8604 Only partially at most. Nor is it even possible or desirable for it to be 100% rational. Rationality is limited. Its one tool in your mental toolbox.
But most of all "A fool thinks he is wise, a wise man knows he's a fool."
@@gurneyhalleck1127 How do you know rationality is limited?
Why US Govt/Constitution is not what you think it is 🤔🧐:
1) Germanic political civilization begins with the Frankish nobility's attempt to restore Roman order in Europe in the 600's. Anglo civilization was part of germanic civilization until about 1830 or so b/c of Napoleon's 'total war' on european civilization: The Holy Roman Empire.
2) The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, wasn't roman, and wasn't an empire. It was a confederation of germanic peoples and their micro-states, under an emperor, under manorial law for serfs, germanic rule of law for freemen, church as a weak judiciary for states, and emperor-judge.
3) American history is that of the anglo branch of the germanic people (anglo, scandinavian, low contries, high, middle, and low german, and parts of today's austria, france and poland.)
4) The combination of the Great Fiction of the Enlightenment (the french murder of the aristocracy, seculariazation of the church, and adoption of church mission and bureaucracy), and the 'de-germanification' (French/Jewish) of our education since 1920 or so, ignores our origins.
5) The USA was as german as english,and the declaration and constitution written in both german english, because so many of our people spoke german.
6) So while we tend to think of ourselves as a British country, (we are), we don't realize that the British system is the traditional germanic legal system that survived the Napoleonic destruction German civilization, and imposed the state-dominant, Napoleonic legal code instead.
7) Britain, because of her geography, history, navy, and trade, like the Netherlands, was merely the most politically advanced of the germanic states when the french destroyed traditional germanic civilization.
8) So when the founders settled, founded, and wrote the declaration for, and the constitution for, the united states, it was using the most advanced legal and political system (British), with the 5000 years of germanic legal tradition, and the 1000 years of the holy roman empire.
9) So the united states was organized as another member of the 1000 year history of the germanic peoples and the holy roman empire and it's sattelites (england, scandinavia, germania, north italy, etc).
10) with its principle error being nothing more than George Washington's refusal to be monarch (emperor) over the American 'micro-states' like the Germanic princes, kings and emperors were of the germanic microstates.
11) This failure, and the necessity of creating a 'presidency' as temporary bureaucrat rather than intergenerational monarchy as a judge of last resort, leaving the governance of the states to the people therein, set the future in motion.
12) There is no reason why we cannot devolve the federal government into state(inventory) treasury(finance), military(defense), eliminate the house, convert the senate to the house of governors, and correct washinton's mistake, or just move under the british throne.
13) Because perfect government consists of a monarch as judge of last resort (like Elizabeth today), a professional cabinet, a house of the states, and within each state houses for the classes doing as they may in their common interests.
14) With Military, Treasury, Inter-state judiciary under 'strictly constructed traditional natural law of the european peoples", a Professional Cabinet approve by the governors, and monarchy as the judge of last resort.
15) This is all that is required to return western civilization to its thousands of years of political excellences, with local low power distance, and the optimum incentives for all, and to leave behind the french-catholic and jewish-marxist counter-revolutions against the west.
here we go ... the Jordan Peterson cult in full force
Jordan Peterson? 😂 uhh no
Cool people are into LARPing now? What's next..? Tabletop wargaming?
D'n'D - self actualisation, manifestation and shared world building and storytelling - i'd argue that it truly is as powerful a game as the anti-satanists of 80's middle America really thought it was...for vastly different reasons...
Wait, the rationalist mindset has served us very well? Hahaha! What?!
It has. But only to a point. Everything has it's limits.
I must have gone to a different school of thought then these people. She seems to work the 'Liberal vs Conservative' angle, which makes no sense. It is 'Progressive vs Conservative'. There is a Liberal Left and a Liberal Right. And what does post-Liberalism look like? I see no other option than enforced collectivism beyond Liberalism.
Monarchy, baby!
@@ad2040 : Monarchy... one of the best reasons we Americans will never give up our guns.
@@bobcharles7933 All corporate structures are monarchical. The CEO is an absolute ruler, subject to some oversight by the Board. Nothing epitomizes America more than its corporations. So no, you have monarchy in spades, my fren... Even your POTUS lives in a palace and is treated like a Monarch. In Britain the leader lives in a poky apartment.
@@ad2040 Yarvin is pointing out that for the POTUS now to act like a monarch would be a revolutionary act, like it was when FDR did it.
Midsommar is the best movie I've seen on how moving from nihilism to traditionalism can liberate disoriented depressed souls and provide them with purpose and cosmic bliss (and the soundtrack is phenomenal as well): czcams.com/video/Yj4ooTol1hs/video.html
But it didn't work out as well for her friends. :)
You give the film too much credit there I fear
Recipe for "Based Caesar Word-salad" (trad, not rationalist):
Romanian lettuce, hard-boiled egregores ,fried grey matter marinated in an absence of history, Partisan cheese, subversive suburban heterodox salt, orthodox pepper, all tossed with a homespun neo-reactionary dressing served on a bed of carefully selected and variegated jargon.
This comment stinks to the stratosphere of a judgmental ego. You understand that the point of rebel wisdom is to learn about different perspectives in a non-judgmental and curious way, right?
@@Ajax-wo3gt Thankyou for your curious, non-judgmental input .
@@larsjorgan7964 You're welcome. I hope you learn something from the criticism and develop a little more humility.
So his critique of neoreaction is "it's the current year"
Of course the values that replace liberalism are going to offend the sensibilities of people who are the products of a liberal society.
You also said nothing in your response, just like you accused him of doing. What does that say about you?
liberals may not like it, but if their society crumbles other people will take it over and impose their very illiberal values, so there's a way that the usual knee jerk response is a little silly, either you find a way to fix it or it's gonna happen.
Alex has had a narrow vista. Peterson's 'believe in a God even though one probably does not exist' has been a popular view for decades. We used to discuss this notion (popular in the Church of England) in the 80's in Philosophy groups. His lens is not all that Jungian, I imagine Jungian analysts see him as a bit of a menace! Not fans of Trump and co.
1. The only 'out' Christians have from the Abrahamic method of deceit, is that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier and Jewish prostitute,who after service in the legions, sought to foment rebellion against the new aristocracy and the old priesthood by a conspiracy of familial love.
2. The value of Jesus's teaching is that it made status and character available in 'the new era of reason' to those without military prowess, wealth, cunning, or noble family.
And that Paul is the founder of the cult that created cult of fraud and magic in his name.
3. The Jefferson bible is, as far as I know, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He claims no miracles, no magic, and no divinity, only that he is the son of god as all others were.
He solved the hard problem of empires.
And the Paulians corrupted it into proto-marxism.