James, you're a gifted speaker-clear, articulate and eloquent without any of the usual ego-centric posturing. It's always a pleasure listening to, and learning from you. Keep up the good work. 👍
You know, because basically perception it's always filtered by experience, narrations and feelings. So yes, you've always kinda lived a man made perception of reality. Because you made it
I had my finger on this idea in 2008 and you just put it all into a nice package. I had a feeling this woke ideology was based in marxism and that it was a realign. Thank you Sir
Same, I got the first bits and pieces of this in 2009 and thought "Huh... that's weird". In 2016 I still joked about how it all acts like a cult, a religion, and also had an interpretation of what its real god is, though I came to a different conclusion: The God that makes everyone the same. Which I now suppose is a lesser God in this pantheon, one that provides the tool for total equity and annihilation: The Reaper. for the past 5 years I've been extremely sure it is a religion, but hadn't had the chance to the legwork yet, since the repercussions of my own "cancellation" in 2017 took a toll on me. Thank you James Lindsay for your hard and excruciating work, I know how sanity-testing, mind-breaking it is to try to read these mad and deliberately pretentious and confusing texts. It is easier to decode the bible for its true meanings, than this malarky. And thank you to everyone who was on to this all these years and shared your thoughts with others to unveil this sneaky madness seeking world domination and world annihilation after that. We now know that the mass death, the utter destruction, that Socialism brings is not accidental, or the product of incompetence. It is deliberate. It is their tool and their final goal.
I never realized this until James laid it out, but Hegel/Marx's social man who judges all those in history for if they do or did not advance the dialectic is almost identical in formulation to Roko's Basilisk (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_Basilisk ).
Roko's Basilisk may be fiction for now, but the concept of metabeings and furthermore the application of retrospective moralism really ties into with how postmodernist, deconstructionist collectivists interact with society. If I had millions of dollars, I would regularly run symposiums and debates that talk about such things, in an attempt to publicize and democratize good philosophy and government. For now we have Lindsay, but sadly his comprehensive talks are wanting IMO.
What I learned from this lecture is that Marx wholeheartedly embodied the attitude and philosophy of John Milton's Lucifer from Paradise Lost. This is exactly the classical Luciferian animating spirit.
114K Some People want to learn . I was told to consider the Best Team Possible.. I recommend James , He Will provoke you to think & learn . He has used hours to put this together , I can respect that He picked up the torch . Blessings
I get it!!! After listening to almost every episode of New Discourses, it’s finally clicking. James, I thank God for you and your vitally important work bringing light to this topic to the layman (my phone suggested “layperson”, but I guess I have difficulty shedding my reactionary instincts). This garbage is so stupid, yet complex enough that it takes days to communicate it to the average person, who really doesn’t care. That’s what will be difficult. Talk about “doing the work” ha ha.
Speaking of, it should be "woperson" and "person." Ya know, since one is the "default." Wait, should probably be "woperchild" and "perchild," cannot all be "sons." Will assert a default, but sure won't swap it around. That's as good anything else asserting "man" is not "human," and considering the entomology of "person" and "man," et al. ('person' ain't exactly great for "inherent"/"personal" identity)
You could try doing some work, and read Marx yourself. Much of his writing is actually quite clear; not nearly as difficult to apprehend as James posits, and far less obfuscated than James' explanations.
As someone who holds scripture as the highest authority, I think this makes it clear that this is from Satan who is the king of this world and will work towards these pagen ends where the message is the same that it was even he first gave it in the garden. Now realizing that these social theories are actually pagen religions makes it 100% clear what is going on. These seem to be spiritual conflicts now and it shows where the world is going, in it's depravity, against God's truth.
So So So many people have come to realize the truth through James Lindsay. I see SO MANY PEOPLE copy James work and then claim to have worked on it for years. James is the actual truth.
Keep in mind that the decision to style it a "confession of faith" was the League's, not Marx or Engels. Many in the League were still in some respects influenced by the doctrines of Wilhelm Weitling (whose conception of communism was heavily tinged with Christianity and other metaphysical views.) Marx and Engels struggled against such errors, as represented by the production of the Manifesto later on.
I know a guy who graduated ivy league and he might be one of the dumbest people I know. I never understood why until I started listening to James. I have a feeling he is going to be a Little Binger tier lawyer one day.
I worked in an office with someone who had a Master's degree and I outperformed her without any college experience. I also questioned how someone more scholasticly experienced could be so inept, and this is precisely why.
Marxism is essentially cult thinking. I know because I was in a religious cult and they did just what you are describing. In this cult, people who were most approved were those willing to do what they were told to do even it did not appeal to them.
@@decwow he probably seen it ~6 months ago on "Sovereign Nations" channel when it first came out edit: here it is: czcams.com/play/PLZJe-MWy0cYfR8K-64fUyzxy0PZ4YgNFM.html if you don't want to wait on part 3 ;)
Marx was not a moralist - he was skeptical of moral philosophy. He was not an egalitarian. He believed that history is propelled by the forces of production, and that they are influenced by material conditions and social relations.
Everyone is a moralist, even Marx. His entire work is rife with value judgements and discriminations. It's impossible to write about how things "ought" to be without invoking morality. "Ought" implies morality.
Amazing work I'm Christian, so it very vindicating to hear this. Makes the "conspiracy theory" more of a tangible thing in regards to spiritual matter....yes I see how I contradicted myself there. But it's so.
@@eldermillennial8330 Like what? Marx didn't claim to receive golden tablets from divine entities, he sought to examine history and to explain the rise and fall of modes of production on the basis of changes in the material world.
James, I have tried to send you a message through the website but the Contact page requires JavaScript. I wrote a brief essay on Paul Heibert. How else can I send you an email?
In the past, people used to believe that the written word was magical. Superstition influenced beliefs in what people who could write stated. It is fascinating that superstition has not lost its grip even in the 21st century.
Dr James your insights into Marxism are so deep and poignant I'm dying for you to have a conversation with Dr Jordan Peterson. Please find a way to get together and videotape the conversation
"The rulers wanted to fool us, since they saw we were connected with the good. They took the names of the good and gave them to the not good so with names they could trick and rope us to the not good. As though doing us a favor, they took names from the not good and placed them on the good. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to grab those of us who were free and make us eternal slaves." Gnostic Gospel of Philip
@@jason666king its a naturally conspiratorial cult. James highlights the 3 forms of gnostic, many dint realize that Gnostic was an actual cult with hostory spanning over 2.5k years - it just became popular with heretical christianity due to christianities rise to popularity within that time frame. The judeo-christian varient of the mythos is still going to be seen as 'bat shit' to some degree from an Athiest's perspective and James is Atheistic, or at least Areligious. Like myself, however, we both acknowledge religions as being the balance to reason. Too much of either causes problems. We also acknowledge that some religions are objectively better than other's. One of the balances religions tend to provide to reason and logic is that they provide humility. It keeps us humble, even us Atheistic types. Christians, for example, know that they cannot know everything's but have faith in this fact without fear because they know that God does and thru him, your questions can be answered. The original Gnostic cults however claim that one CAN know everything and that we once did - thats inherently arrogant and an example of why despite the lack of beleif in religions or gods, James, myself and others all agree that we'd prefer Christianity as a prominent religion for modern society. This is the whole point of his work - he makes the case that Communism IS a religion but not all religions are of the same. Communism is arrogant and works on absolutes, therefor he suggests that Christianity is objectively a better faith to endorse. Communism will not balance those of us whom are pure Reason with Humility - it actually seeks to destroy Reason alltogether. Hence Communism is very dangerous.
@@Nurhaal thank you for the thoughtful response. I think "gnosticism" as a subcategory of early Christianity is rather contained. In fact, it was weeded out by Iranaeus and his ilk. You might as well bring up Manichaeism as a faulty belief set. Achilles vs. King Arthur, who wins?
@jason666king James has a video speaking of the Occult. I'd look at that one as it goes over briefly the many cults that exist and how those cults are typically exclusive and secretive (secret societies). They also seem mostly attracted to the Elites/Intelligencia classes of society, which reminds me of Thomas Sowell's critique of the Academic / Intelligencia class - it always seems to be where the bad ideas come from. We can lump Gnostic cults and Communism right up there with 'Bad ideas from the Intelligencia'. Strangely, Thomas Sowell isn't actually nuanced enough to see the connections that I do since I learn a lot of the Occult like James does. It's not Thomas's Forte - but reading his historical works and contrasting with the histories of all these ideologies and occult is an eye opener. Dunno. Both die in their respective final duels. Both deaths are direct results of their character flaw. I'd probably pick Arthur, though, if we were going for realism, since he's probably wielding Excalibur, which is likely to be a Steel blade the size of a Roman Spath. Compared to Achilles' tiny Bronze sword of old leaf pattern, reach always matters most in combat.
Yes, Marx thought that his system was not ideology but ("natural") science. And all of his followers were and are convinced that this is the case. Otherwise their world view would collapse.
Science has two sides: theoretical and applied. The same could be said of alchemy, although given it was not organized in an way like modern science, the comparison isn't good. In any case, most science is indeed done for the purpose of achieving results.
Alchemy is not possible. There is no such science as "applied" alchemy. Even theories, for example the theory of "gravitational lensing", do not get to be called science until they are proveb. Lensing was only a theory, for many decades after Einstein's death, until it was verified astronomically. Nothing gets to be called science until it is proven experimentally. Until that point, they are speculative - or, like alchemy and Marxism, completely baseless fantasies. And actually, we understand enough about the atom, electrons and the periodic table etc to know that alchemy is not possible.
Trying to grok this transformation of meaning and philosophy where Hegelians seem to work all sorts of evil while the villainous Dielectic process seems to be technically true
Hegelian dialectic is technically true? It's not. It rejects the law of non-contradiction as a foundational concept from what I understand. It keeps failing to produce results when tried in reality because it's not true.
Categories are nested and subcomponents have different symbolic identity depending upon scale. It's how they do a lot of the deception, they jump scale without saying so between statements and it's especially applicable to soft sciences like psychology. Hermeticism fascinated and compelled philosophers for a reason. Maybe there's ultimately a Truth and a Perfect Inverted Counterfeit which will do battle one day. But it seems like they're twisting the presumed prisca theologia to do politics.
@@marcus8710 "Categories are nested and subcomponents have different symbolic identity..." Could you give me an example of this? I know they like to equivocate on the names of categories. I once saw a feminist say something like "men hurt me." She could mean "the people who hurt me were all men" or "men as a class hurt me." See the same thing all the time with white people. I also see a switch from qualitative to quantitative whenever convenient. So if we see a disparity in test scores between black and white students, they will take note of that. If we see a disparity in the amount of prep time that white students put in compared to black students, that will be ignored. Or they'll say "there ARE black students who put in the extra prep time, but there's still a difference in average scores." Because of course there are. Do either of these scenarios get at what you're talking about?
Here's an example. The Christian Church consists of many denominations. A unification of these disparate peoples to their core beliefs as One would involve a comparison and contrast, the catharsis and neutralization of oppositions, a granular union of believers who are different, who then unite their churches, which then unite their denominations. This is the only logical process of unification of opposites toward a genuine Telos - which in this case was an origin point and so, obviously, not an arbitrary "Future Man". The conjunction of opposites, the coincidencia opositorum, is also the most powerful conciliatory and healing process through which psychiatric patients are led through toward genuine clinical well-being and wholeness. Everything about psychology, symbolism, and myth from every traditional people group assembles its mental and social well-being according to this structure. Perhaps it was co-opted and perverted by these sorcerer types, but if it were not based on technical wisdom, it would not be so powerful.
@@marcus8710 Could you say that in plain English? What is "One"? There is no unification of opposites. What do you mean by "opposites"? Christians have the same core set of beliefs and disagreements on certain doctrines. If the disagreements become great, then people will leave that church, leave that denomination, start a new denomination, or abandon the faith entirely. Do you just mean that people that disagree on certain details can put them aside in deference to some greater point on which they agree?
Now I understand why we had a class back in 1995 called 'Man & Society' ...hated that class..easy, watch hollywood movies (indoctrination) ..barely passed. Thankyou God.
From what you said about "Faust", turned into a hit piece by Marlowe to discredit John Dee according to Francis Yates btw, I checked for a link between Goethe and Swedenborg, and sure enough got a solid hit. Scholars can mock all they want, and I am not a follower of Swedenborg, but Marx matches up like he was a mouth piece for the lower level energies, and a leader for the lower level energies that manifest in others with/as "mental health" issues, (so-called by Hermeticists), that Swedenborg wrote about; the voices dismissed by "Hermeticists" as "supposedly random hallucination" of the demon oppressed/possessed is "always" aimed at destruction and hatred toward humans, religion, and God. It actually makes sense from that point of view from the individual level to the orchestrating level.
Your comment sounds interesting, but I confess that I don't really understand it. Can you elaborate a bit for someone ignorant of that which you speak.
@@timeless9you Thanks, that helps a tiny bit, although to be honest outside the Biblical names (I read the Bible a couple times when I was Christian) most of the names of people or groups you are mentioning are unfamiliar to me if not lost entirely on me, so the significance of whatever connections you are making isn't quite being made for me. You seem to be talking about things, people or groups of which I have little or no knowledge and so contextualizing the meaning is difficult. Outside of Alistair Crowley and Anton Levay, I don't think I know the names of any Occult leaders or groups, historical or contemporary. I keep meaning to read Crowley but still haven't got around to it. Although I did listen to part of an audio book about magic from some guy I heard of from the cartoon Midnight Gospel (which is good btw), who apparently was falsely imprisoned for murder for years, and was endorsed by Pearl Jam and some others when he got out, proven innocent. It seemed like he was basically just describing visualization and breathing exercises, focusing on the moon or body energy or the like. While I think Sam Harris has gone off the deep end in recent years, I tend to agree with him that meditation or visualization in a cave (or prison cell) might be emotionally balancing, but doesn't seem to give you supernatural insight or ability, or in any way actually change the outside world, other than that people probably respond to you better if you are in a better emotional space. Thus my mild curiosity about the book waned into boredom until my attention moved onto other stuff. Still, I feel like there's some intellectual insight in what you are saying that's probably valuable if I knew more background or history of whatever you are saying.
You might enjoy three books very much that will help. In Jason Louv's "John Dee and the Empire of Angels" (occult roots of the modern world), Louv explains how John Dee, advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, (whom I believe to be a good magi) was "tapped" by one of these "energies" he had successfully contacted through Enochian means, to build "The British Empire" (I think Dee deferred to the ministering angels showing up in the book of Daniel in trying to figure out what to do when the Spanish Armada was coming for his Queen). Louv also explains that Crowley (also a magi) got his occult knowledge from Dee but had the opposite goals. Crowley also succeeded in contacting one of these things he sketched a drawing of, look up "I was" and "lamb" with "Crowley" and hit images. Another book I think you would find interesting and helpful is the book of Enoch. And third, the book of "Daniel" (KJV version), that tells of two of these "energies" (or angels) visiting him. Daniel was placed over the Magi that King Nebuchadnezzer was going to execute for being frauds. In his leadership, Daniel would have told these magi of the prophecy of the coming Christ child that their progeny came looking for 600 years later, spoken of in the book of Matthew. Who waltzes into town and gets an appointment with King Harrod to discuss "prophecy", except "magi"? A couple years ago, someone had given me the "magi seeking the Christ child" passage to read and comment on in a Christmas service. When I started looking into who the magi were in that story, it opened a whole new world to me and I have been on that rabbit trail since. Every name of every person, place, and thing, and number in the Bible is typology, it also has a meaning; it is never just a label. And then there is the "Hebrew", where the meaning goes down to each letter in the word, in order, forward and backward, plus the number values and their meanings. Not daunting, but very exciting and worthy of pursuing understanding and knowing one can get to the bottom of what is presented.
If the story of Daniel wasn't already exciting enough with the lion's den, the hand writing on the wall, the angles showing up, interpreting the dream, note Daniel was taken into Nebuchadnezzer's palace maybe in his teens. In his old age, knowing the Babylonian captivity would end in 70 years, Daniel would be in his 90s or so when King Cyrus's generals captured Babylon. A couple days later, when Cyrus made his grand entry, elderly Daniel was standing there to hand him a 150 year old scroll that told how Cyrus would take Babylon, that the captured king would soil himself (which he did), that the gates would be held open, which they were, and that "Cyrus" would be captured Israel's shepherd, which he was; naming him by name. Isaiah 46:10 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”
I absolutely love the way Dr. Lindsey explains these ideas, but I must take exception with hus comments about opoids. He is unfortunately incorrect in his characterization of opoids. They are actually the strongest analgesics we know of. Benzodiazapines, like Valium would better fit his description of the "not stopping the pain but making you not care" scenario .
"Marx was a BS-er" - that's what Krzysztof Karoń figured out when working on Marxism during his original "History of Marxism" series and later "Social Knowledge Program". He didn't I believe express it directly this way, but nodded to such realizations in comments to his productions.
1:05:45 - Is "Consciousness" a euphemism for envy - jealousy - focus? Class Consciousness. Critical Consciousness. Moral Consciousness... Seems to be an evolution on that from the Subjective end of the philosophical spectrum...
14:20 The simplest way to interpret this, or at least what inspired it, is that Marx hates his father, his parents in general. Which, given his biography, makes sense - and his manifest Narcissism all the more.
Good vid ; what really epitomises ▪︎ perfect man for perfect society▪︎+ that isn't mentioned , is this generations ( which encompasses the running of society ) flippant attitude to qualative , services which includes health , housing , etc . As said it seems to be society's quiet agreement that so long as one ( as a customer) fills in a questionaire after using the service one time and states that the business's shit doesn't stink , then there is no need for an overview of the buisness from an outside official body ; which gets irritating to keep refusing to fill in paperwork when you don't know the buisness owner from Adam . Perhaps all the unessasary intrusions into peoples lives would evaporate , if this generation , that wants the world to be one big university , would stop trying to squeeze all of society into their fairy-tale utopia and get a grip .
It's kind of unsurprising how well corporatism binds with marxism, as too with feminism. ( Fitting feminists got subsumed: with the same behavior, destruction, use & discard. _Kind of the fate of grifting, is it not._ )
It doesn't "bind with" Marxism. Marx refused to idealize some imaginary "golden age" in the past or to laud small businesses as somehow inherently "better" than larger ones. He instead pointed out that for all the harm associated with large-scale capitalist development, it ultimately lays the groundwork for communism. This does not entail idealizing corporations or adopting "corporatism."
@@IsmailofeRegimeWhy not? Isn't corporatism closer to socialism than capitalism? The state and corporations being a hybrid (as we have today, that people mistakenly blame on capitalism) is the state controlling the means of production via it's centrally planned made up money with deficit spending. That is certainly moving in the direction of Socialism and away from capitalism where we would have free trade and our savings (capital) would fund expansion, as opposed to the state doing it with made up expansionary fiat.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross The term "state-monopoly capitalism" has been used by Lenin and numerous other Marxists to describe the fact that that concentration of capital, an inevitable consequence of capitalist development, leads to these corporations requiring the bourgeois state to more actively intervene to safeguard their interests at home and abroad. It also expedites (and is strengthened by) the waging of imperialist wars. Engels famously argued that ever greater economic crises compel the bourgeois state to resort to centralizing measures, even nationalization, in a doomed bid to save capitalism. To quote him, "the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers - proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." Engels continues: "This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonising of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialised character of the means of production And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole." In other words, the solution is revolution, not to revert to some sort of idealized "pure" capitalism, a longing which, as Engels noted elsewhere, is bred among the petty artisan and shopkeeper afraid that the greater productivity of modern capitalist industry will crush them and also afraid of the working-class movement that will do away with private property altogether.
"The question has previously always been: what is God? and German philosophy has answered the question in this sense: God is man. Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. Not in otherworldly, nonexistent regions, not beyond time and space, not with a “God” immanent in or opposed to the world, is the truth to be found, but much nearer, in man’s own breast. Man’s own substance is far more splendid and sublime than the imaginary substance of any conceivable “God,” who is after all only the more or less indistinct and distorted image of man himself. So when Carlyle follows Ben Jonson in saying, man has lost his soul and is only now beginning to notice the want of it, the right formulation would be: in religion man has lost his own substance, has alienated his humanity, and now that religion, through the progress of history, has begun to totter, he notices his emptiness and instability. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to “God", but to himself." -- Friedrich Engels, review of Carlyle, Past and Present, in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, January, 1844.
1:00 Five to six times you had to go over that? Yeah, I can relate to that. It oscillates around that number. Even when I thought I got the logic down after 3-4 tries to be sure, I realize time and again "wait a minute, the definitions of these words are different, they intentionally have double-meanings, so which one is it here?" Anyone writing their texts like this, outside of making fun puzzles for children's games or some such, is evil.
1:10:00 I don't understand why people would care about being remembered by History if they're A. dead and not able to enjoy it B. overwritten or even written off for "not going far enough" by another (which, by the pattern, always happens) 1:41:00 "History uses people then discards them", oh....
Lol some comments on this video are idiotic at best. Marx pretty much created a framework to understand how capitalism operates, who control it and own it. He isn't responsible for some liberal postmodernist ideology 200 years later.
@@IsmailofeRegime How about the entire premise of Marxism? His theory of man is utterly nonsensical. He thought socialism would arise as the workers seized the means of production (dictatorship of the proletariat), then willingly give up their power as the utopia was naturally ushered in. If that doesn't show a complete ignorance of human nature, I don't know what does. Secondly, the entire notion that mankind naturally sprouts into creative free work when not burdened with the profit motive is absurd. Heck we saw how pathetic and lazy everyone got after just a year in quarantine. Total disconnect with human nature.
I read loads of hegel bc know marx from Hegel. Thank you JL for your help making it easier to joining-up the links. You have a great grift in how to demystify myth.
1:00:19 Treaty of Versailles is a decent factor as well lol A country that resorts to fascism to defend against communists and their subversive ways, is only half wrong.
The introductory paragraphs to “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”, the one that starts with “Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain …”
56:16 "To be human is to be collectivist". In all of this, the real weapon of mass destruction is collectivism. That the individual is his own object to build is not serious; what is serious is that some individuals take as an object all the others as a whole and want to transform them by force. Collectivism does not even require dialectic, because it can arise and be imposed from mere arrogance, presumption and mental laziness.
But those seeking collectivist ends use the dialectic to transmute any, types of social interaction or organization as merely a smaller part of the greater whole that is collectivism, and effectively tries to gaslight by saying we are innately collectivist beings.
The law doesn't apply equally to everyone, because 1) differential enforcement, and 2) protected classes. Their assertion is that past injustices cause the criminals to do bad stuff, so they are the real victims, and the privileged normal citizens should give up their privilege by allowing themselves to be victimized by the criminals and especially protected classes. Thus if you are a criminal, especially a protected class criminal, then you won't be charged or minimally charged and out perhaps the same day, but if you are the law abiding citizen (especially if NOT a protected class), then they throw the mf'ing book at you for defending yourself, and intimidate the jury publicly to get their way if they have to.
What is this perfection Marx talks about if in the end you die and that's it. None of it means anything then. There's no point in doing anything if there's no God, the way I see it.
Good lord at 1:18:23 you just provided a concrete definition of the Marxist side of Foucault's philosophy, at least for me, which is then combined with Nietzsche's criticism and antagonism toward the world in total. Sooo... Foucault is then not the independent iconoclastic thinker he's been out to be!! The left has been repackaging the same ideas for the last 200 years 😮.
Oh yea, leftists despise the idea that they're building upon anyone from the past, even on their own side. They love anything new and revolutionary, so they'll reject the notion that they're in a chain of history at all. They hate history. Except the history of the future. For the Leftist, change and progress are synonymous.
Lindsay's appeal to the Christian God is normally in reference to the western society's foundation in Christianity as well as the Christian churches inherent opposition to the nature of Marxism; i.e. Christianity is a significant obstacle to the machinations of insane (Gnostic) alchemists who actually believe that they can achieve literal magic over humanity. There are people who label themselves as Christian but have no fruit to account for the doctrines that Jesus set. These specific people are functionally agnostic, they don't care to develop their theory and practice of the doctrines.
It seems like a form of learned paranoia. Marx disliked Hegelian Idealism but seems to constantly privilege his own ideas over reality such that even dialectics are about ideas not between idea and reality. Alternatively perhaps he thought he had grasped the reality as being class struggle but again this imposes the idea as axiomatic. He thinks progress is by dialectic but assumes he already knows where this will ultimately lead so what is the point of the dialectic?
30:26 I don't find this to be true. Opiates kill my pain & give me no side effects. I may be the only person for whom opiate painkillers work as intended.
James, you're a gifted speaker-clear, articulate and eloquent without any of the usual ego-centric posturing. It's always a pleasure listening to, and learning from you. Keep up the good work. 👍
Finding out Marxists have very deliberet and different meanings for 'Work' and 'Labor' really casts the British political party in a new light for me
I’m rally enjoying this presentation, James. It helps me understand why it feels like I’m living in a made-up perception of reality. Because I am!
Your last sentence was what I was just about to type hah
You know, because basically perception it's always filtered by experience, narrations and feelings. So yes, you've always kinda lived a man made perception of reality. Because you made it
Reality is real but, technically, every perception of reality is made up.
Clown World
@@Grgrrr But I love hearing the honk
I had my finger on this idea in 2008 and you just put it all into a nice package. I had a feeling this woke ideology was based in marxism and that it was a realign. Thank you Sir
Same, I got the first bits and pieces of this in 2009 and thought "Huh... that's weird". In 2016 I still joked about how it all acts like a cult, a religion, and also had an interpretation of what its real god is, though I came to a different conclusion: The God that makes everyone the same. Which I now suppose is a lesser God in this pantheon, one that provides the tool for total equity and annihilation: The Reaper.
for the past 5 years I've been extremely sure it is a religion, but hadn't had the chance to the legwork yet, since the repercussions of my own "cancellation" in 2017 took a toll on me.
Thank you James Lindsay for your hard and excruciating work, I know how sanity-testing, mind-breaking it is to try to read these mad and deliberately pretentious and confusing texts. It is easier to decode the bible for its true meanings, than this malarky.
And thank you to everyone who was on to this all these years and shared your thoughts with others to unveil this sneaky madness seeking world domination and world annihilation after that.
We now know that the mass death, the utter destruction, that Socialism brings is not accidental, or the product of incompetence. It is deliberate. It is their tool and their final goal.
This one is blowing my mind.
I never realized this until James laid it out, but Hegel/Marx's social man who judges all those in history for if they do or did not advance the dialectic is almost identical in formulation to Roko's Basilisk (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_Basilisk ).
Roko's Basilisk may be fiction for now, but the concept of metabeings and furthermore the application of retrospective moralism really ties into with how postmodernist, deconstructionist collectivists interact with society. If I had millions of dollars, I would regularly run symposiums and debates that talk about such things, in an attempt to publicize and democratize good philosophy and government. For now we have Lindsay, but sadly his comprehensive talks are wanting IMO.
@@drlca6601 they be pagans
And you just doomed everyone that didn't know what Roko's basilisk is...
@@flappyturtlesnatch My point is that you're already doomed by Roko's Basilisk. It's called Marxist Historicism.
I love this guy.
Mind bending. I note that the propositional phrase "of good and evil" was left off when discussing "the tree of(the) knowledge" .
What I learned from this lecture is that Marx wholeheartedly embodied the attitude and philosophy of John Milton's Lucifer from Paradise Lost.
This is exactly the classical Luciferian animating spirit.
Wonderful presentation…Thank you Dr. Lindsay
Yes! Used to read 4-5 times as well as “code” would not connect until I ruminated on.for some time. Great podcasts!
Ruminated. Nice word!
114K Some People want to learn . I was told to consider the Best Team Possible.. I recommend James , He Will provoke you to think & learn . He has used hours to put this together , I can respect that He picked up the torch . Blessings
Why are you capitalizing "He" when referring to James Lindsay?
It seems that every modern dictator is just angry at the world that rejected them.
I get it!!! After listening to almost every episode of New Discourses, it’s finally clicking. James, I thank God for you and your vitally important work bringing light to this topic to the layman (my phone suggested “layperson”, but I guess I have difficulty shedding my reactionary instincts). This garbage is so stupid, yet complex enough that it takes days to communicate it to the average person, who really doesn’t care. That’s what will be difficult. Talk about “doing the work” ha ha.
Speaking of, it should be "woperson" and "person." Ya know, since one is the "default." Wait, should probably be "woperchild" and "perchild," cannot all be "sons." Will assert a default, but sure won't swap it around.
That's as good anything else asserting "man" is not "human," and considering the entomology of "person" and "man," et al. ('person' ain't exactly great for "inherent"/"personal" identity)
You could try doing some work, and read Marx yourself. Much of his writing is actually quite clear; not nearly as difficult to apprehend as James posits, and far less obfuscated than James' explanations.
@@HimmelsDaemon study of insects? Perhaps you meant etymology
@@shannonm.townsend1232 no is this case entomology is correct
@@lo-fidevil2950 oh you were cognizant; carry on.
As someone who holds scripture as the highest authority, I think this makes it clear that this is from Satan who is the king of this world and will work towards these pagen ends where the message is the same that it was even he first gave it in the garden. Now realizing that these social theories are actually pagen religions makes it 100% clear what is going on. These seem to be spiritual conflicts now and it shows where the world is going, in it's depravity, against God's truth.
Yes. This is a spiritual war against powers and principalities that have grown very influential in this world.
Genius work
EXCELLENT. Thank you!
So So So many people have come to realize the truth through James Lindsay.
I see SO MANY PEOPLE copy James work and then claim to have worked on it for years.
James is the actual truth.
The working name of the Communist Manifesto, the Communist Confession of Faith , is precious.
Keep in mind that the decision to style it a "confession of faith" was the League's, not Marx or Engels. Many in the League were still in some respects influenced by the doctrines of Wilhelm Weitling (whose conception of communism was heavily tinged with Christianity and other metaphysical views.) Marx and Engels struggled against such errors, as represented by the production of the Manifesto later on.
I know a guy who graduated ivy league and he might be one of the dumbest people I know.
I never understood why until I started listening to James.
I have a feeling he is going to be a Little Binger tier lawyer one day.
I worked in an office with someone who had a Master's degree and I outperformed her without any college experience. I also questioned how someone more scholasticly experienced could be so inept, and this is precisely why.
Marxism is essentially cult thinking. I know because I was in a religious cult and they did just what you are describing. In this cult, people who were most approved were those willing to do what they were told to do even it did not appeal to them.
I've finished the video.
Watch it in 4,000X speed???
@@decwow he probably seen it ~6 months ago on "Sovereign Nations" channel when it first came out
edit:
here it is: czcams.com/play/PLZJe-MWy0cYfR8K-64fUyzxy0PZ4YgNFM.html
if you don't want to wait on part 3 ;)
Now you can post the word "first".
Go watch it again
Congrats! Now watch it again... this nonsense is hard when you have a functional brain.
Incredible time to live as all will be fulfilled..... Buckle up and sin not. Be ready.
"the iron law of woke projection". Whoah.
Marx was not a moralist - he was skeptical of moral philosophy. He was not an egalitarian. He believed that history is propelled by the forces of production, and that they are influenced by material conditions and social relations.
Agreed!
Everyone is a moralist, even Marx. His entire work is rife with value judgements and discriminations. It's impossible to write about how things "ought" to be without invoking morality. "Ought" implies morality.
49:00 - anyone else getting Fallen Angel vibes out of this?
Like a War in Heaven?
Amazing work
I'm Christian, so it very vindicating to hear this.
Makes the "conspiracy theory" more of a tangible thing in regards to spiritual matter....yes I see how I contradicted myself there.
But it's so.
Marx and Joe Smith had a few things in common.
@@eldermillennial8330 Like what? Marx didn't claim to receive golden tablets from divine entities, he sought to examine history and to explain the rise and fall of modes of production on the basis of changes in the material world.
@@eldermillennial8330 please name them.
Keep up the voegelin revival
Sincerely,
A polisci/theology grad student
James, I have tried to send you a message through the website but the Contact page requires JavaScript. I wrote a brief essay on Paul Heibert. How else can I send you an email?
In the past, people used to believe that the written word was magical. Superstition influenced beliefs in what people who could write stated. It is fascinating that superstition has not lost its grip even in the 21st century.
James, great work as always!
james
as a mathematician
i find a part of myself in you i guess
i just feel that i wanted to say that
I think he failed math...
1hr 45 mins. Must be a Lindsay clip.
Thank you for explaining and analyzing Marxism. At last I understand how Marx thought, and what he meant in his writings.
I thought reading Hegel was difficult until I tried listening to James explain it for me.
Nice one-liner bro.
@@NoWokeZone-xd1ds ty
Such a British sleight 😂
@@6Sparx9 hiow?
@@shannonm.townsend1232 the mild ambiguity of a tongue in cheek statement that could be taken as either a compliment or insult, it's very British.
This is the most pushback I've seen in a Lindsay video comment section; it feels encouraging.
The suffering I experience is from being forced to mingle with bad people, not working.
Dr James your insights into Marxism are so deep and poignant I'm dying for you to have a conversation with Dr Jordan Peterson. Please find a way to get together and videotape the conversation
They did it
czcams.com/video/bnrdyphape4/video.html
You're in luck, they did that 2 months ago. It's on Jordan's channel.
"The rulers wanted to fool us,
since they saw we were connected with the good.
They took the names of the good
and gave them to the not good
so with names they could trick
and rope us to the not good.
As though doing us a favor,
they took names from the not good
and placed them on the good.
They knew what they were doing.
They wanted to grab those of us who were free
and make us eternal slaves."
Gnostic Gospel of Philip
I think Jim tends to unnecessarily demonize gnosticism. Its beliefs can be abused, wrongly interpreted, etc., but that goes for any worldview.
Woooow that's soooooo deep :P
@@jason666king its a naturally conspiratorial cult. James highlights the 3 forms of gnostic, many dint realize that Gnostic was an actual cult with hostory spanning over 2.5k years - it just became popular with heretical christianity due to christianities rise to popularity within that time frame. The judeo-christian varient of the mythos is still going to be seen as 'bat shit' to some degree from an Athiest's perspective and James is Atheistic, or at least Areligious. Like myself, however, we both acknowledge religions as being the balance to reason. Too much of either causes problems. We also acknowledge that some religions are objectively better than other's. One of the balances religions tend to provide to reason and logic is that they provide humility. It keeps us humble, even us Atheistic types. Christians, for example, know that they cannot know everything's but have faith in this fact without fear because they know that God does and thru him, your questions can be answered. The original Gnostic cults however claim that one CAN know everything and that we once did - thats inherently arrogant and an example of why despite the lack of beleif in religions or gods, James, myself and others all agree that we'd prefer Christianity as a prominent religion for modern society.
This is the whole point of his work - he makes the case that Communism IS a religion but not all religions are of the same. Communism is arrogant and works on absolutes, therefor he suggests that Christianity is objectively a better faith to endorse. Communism will not balance those of us whom are pure Reason with Humility - it actually seeks to destroy Reason alltogether. Hence Communism is very dangerous.
@@Nurhaal thank you for the thoughtful response.
I think "gnosticism" as a subcategory of early Christianity is rather contained. In fact, it was weeded out by Iranaeus and his ilk. You might as well bring up Manichaeism as a faulty belief set.
Achilles vs. King Arthur, who wins?
@jason666king James has a video speaking of the Occult. I'd look at that one as it goes over briefly the many cults that exist and how those cults are typically exclusive and secretive (secret societies). They also seem mostly attracted to the Elites/Intelligencia classes of society, which reminds me of Thomas Sowell's critique of the Academic / Intelligencia class - it always seems to be where the bad ideas come from.
We can lump Gnostic cults and Communism right up there with 'Bad ideas from the Intelligencia'. Strangely, Thomas Sowell isn't actually nuanced enough to see the connections that I do since I learn a lot of the Occult like James does. It's not Thomas's Forte - but reading his historical works and contrasting with the histories of all these ideologies and occult is an eye opener.
Dunno. Both die in their respective final duels. Both deaths are direct results of their character flaw.
I'd probably pick Arthur, though, if we were going for realism, since he's probably wielding Excalibur, which is likely to be a Steel blade the size of a Roman Spath. Compared to Achilles' tiny Bronze sword of old leaf pattern, reach always matters most in combat.
Yes, Marx thought that his system was not ideology but ("natural") science. And all of his followers were and are convinced that this is the case. Otherwise their world view would collapse.
Like any cultist, Marx used words to mean different things than the rest of the world. So "ideology" in Marxism is not really ideology.
Comment for traction🎉
at this point it doesn’t seem that complicated now that I’ve studies your work.
Science has two sides: theoretical and applied. The same could be said of alchemy, although given it was not organized in an way like modern science, the comparison isn't good. In any case, most science is indeed done for the purpose of achieving results.
Alchemy is not possible. There is no such science as "applied" alchemy.
Even theories, for example the theory of "gravitational lensing", do not get to be called science until they are proveb. Lensing was only a theory, for many decades after Einstein's death, until it was verified astronomically. Nothing gets to be called science until it is proven experimentally. Until that point, they are speculative - or, like alchemy and Marxism, completely baseless fantasies.
And actually, we understand enough about the atom, electrons and the periodic table etc to know that alchemy is not possible.
Marx sounds like Satan the Devil in Milton’s “Paradise Lost”. We sometimes forget some of the basic literature that influenced writers in the past.
Trying to grok this transformation of meaning and philosophy where Hegelians seem to work all sorts of evil while the villainous Dielectic process seems to be technically true
Hegelian dialectic is technically true? It's not. It rejects the law of non-contradiction as a foundational concept from what I understand. It keeps failing to produce results when tried in reality because it's not true.
Categories are nested and subcomponents have different symbolic identity depending upon scale. It's how they do a lot of the deception, they jump scale without saying so between statements and it's especially applicable to soft sciences like psychology. Hermeticism fascinated and compelled philosophers for a reason. Maybe there's ultimately a Truth and a Perfect Inverted Counterfeit which will do battle one day. But it seems like they're twisting the presumed prisca theologia to do politics.
@@marcus8710
"Categories are nested and subcomponents have different symbolic identity..."
Could you give me an example of this? I know they like to equivocate on the names of categories. I once saw a feminist say something like "men hurt me." She could mean "the people who hurt me were all men" or "men as a class hurt me." See the same thing all the time with white people.
I also see a switch from qualitative to quantitative whenever convenient. So if we see a disparity in test scores between black and white students, they will take note of that. If we see a disparity in the amount of prep time that white students put in compared to black students, that will be ignored. Or they'll say "there ARE black students who put in the extra prep time, but there's still a difference in average scores." Because of course there are.
Do either of these scenarios get at what you're talking about?
Here's an example. The Christian Church consists of many denominations. A unification of these disparate peoples to their core beliefs as One would involve a comparison and contrast, the catharsis and neutralization of oppositions, a granular union of believers who are different, who then unite their churches, which then unite their denominations. This is the only logical process of unification of opposites toward a genuine Telos - which in this case was an origin point and so, obviously, not an arbitrary "Future Man". The conjunction of opposites, the coincidencia opositorum, is also the most powerful conciliatory and healing process through which psychiatric patients are led through toward genuine clinical well-being and wholeness. Everything about psychology, symbolism, and myth from every traditional people group assembles its mental and social well-being according to this structure. Perhaps it was co-opted and perverted by these sorcerer types, but if it were not based on technical wisdom, it would not be so powerful.
@@marcus8710
Could you say that in plain English? What is "One"? There is no unification of opposites. What do you mean by "opposites"? Christians have the same core set of beliefs and disagreements on certain doctrines. If the disagreements become great, then people will leave that church, leave that denomination, start a new denomination, or abandon the faith entirely. Do you just mean that people that disagree on certain details can put them aside in deference to some greater point on which they agree?
...know them by their works 🤔🙏😆
Second time watching this. Yes, it is easier to inderstand (lol) the more you listen to Marxian BS-ing.
Thanks you ❤
Now I understand why we had a class back in 1995 called 'Man & Society' ...hated that class..easy, watch hollywood movies (indoctrination) ..barely passed. Thankyou God.
From what you said about "Faust", turned into a hit piece by Marlowe to discredit John Dee according to Francis Yates btw, I checked for a link between Goethe and Swedenborg, and sure enough got a solid hit. Scholars can mock all they want, and I am not a follower of Swedenborg, but Marx matches up like he was a mouth piece for the lower level energies, and a leader for the lower level energies that manifest in others with/as "mental health" issues, (so-called by Hermeticists), that Swedenborg wrote about; the voices dismissed by "Hermeticists" as "supposedly random hallucination" of the demon oppressed/possessed is "always" aimed at destruction and hatred toward humans, religion, and God. It actually makes sense from that point of view from the individual level to the orchestrating level.
Your comment sounds interesting, but I confess that I don't really understand it. Can you elaborate a bit for someone ignorant of that which you speak.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross
@@timeless9you Thanks, that helps a tiny bit, although to be honest outside the Biblical names (I read the Bible a couple times when I was Christian) most of the names of people or groups you are mentioning are unfamiliar to me if not lost entirely on me, so the significance of whatever connections you are making isn't quite being made for me.
You seem to be talking about things, people or groups of which I have little or no knowledge and so contextualizing the meaning is difficult. Outside of Alistair Crowley and Anton Levay, I don't think I know the names of any Occult leaders or groups, historical or contemporary. I keep meaning to read Crowley but still haven't got around to it.
Although I did listen to part of an audio book about magic from some guy I heard of from the cartoon Midnight Gospel (which is good btw), who apparently was falsely imprisoned for murder for years, and was endorsed by Pearl Jam and some others when he got out, proven innocent. It seemed like he was basically just describing visualization and breathing exercises, focusing on the moon or body energy or the like. While I think Sam Harris has gone off the deep end in recent years, I tend to agree with him that meditation or visualization in a cave (or prison cell) might be emotionally balancing, but doesn't seem to give you supernatural insight or ability, or in any way actually change the outside world, other than that people probably respond to you better if you are in a better emotional space. Thus my mild curiosity about the book waned into boredom until my attention moved onto other stuff.
Still, I feel like there's some intellectual insight in what you are saying that's probably valuable if I knew more background or history of whatever you are saying.
You might enjoy three books very much that will help. In Jason Louv's "John Dee and the Empire of Angels" (occult roots of the modern world), Louv explains how John Dee, advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, (whom I believe to be a good magi) was "tapped" by one of these "energies" he had successfully contacted through Enochian means, to build "The British Empire" (I think Dee deferred to the ministering angels showing up in the book of Daniel in trying to figure out what to do when the Spanish Armada was coming for his Queen). Louv also explains that Crowley (also a magi) got his occult knowledge from Dee but had the opposite goals. Crowley also succeeded in contacting one of these things he sketched a drawing of, look up "I was" and "lamb" with "Crowley" and hit images. Another book I think you would find interesting and helpful is the book of Enoch. And third, the book of "Daniel" (KJV version), that tells of two of these "energies" (or angels) visiting him. Daniel was placed over the Magi that King Nebuchadnezzer was going to execute for being frauds. In his leadership, Daniel would have told these magi of the prophecy of the coming Christ child that their progeny came looking for 600 years later, spoken of in the book of Matthew. Who waltzes into town and gets an appointment with King Harrod to discuss "prophecy", except "magi"? A couple years ago, someone had given me the "magi seeking the Christ child" passage to read and comment on in a Christmas service. When I started looking into who the magi were in that story, it opened a whole new world to me and I have been on that rabbit trail since. Every name of every person, place, and thing, and number in the Bible is typology, it also has a meaning; it is never just a label. And then there is the "Hebrew", where the meaning goes down to each letter in the word, in order, forward and backward, plus the number values and their meanings. Not daunting, but very exciting and worthy of pursuing understanding and knowing one can get to the bottom of what is presented.
If the story of Daniel wasn't already exciting enough with the lion's den, the hand writing on the wall, the angles showing up, interpreting the dream, note Daniel was taken into Nebuchadnezzer's palace maybe in his teens. In his old age, knowing the Babylonian captivity would end in 70 years, Daniel would be in his 90s or so when King Cyrus's generals captured Babylon. A couple days later, when Cyrus made his grand entry, elderly Daniel was standing there to hand him a 150 year old scroll that told how Cyrus would take Babylon, that the captured king would soil himself (which he did), that the gates would be held open, which they were, and that "Cyrus" would be captured Israel's shepherd, which he was; naming him by name. Isaiah 46:10 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”
I absolutely love the way Dr. Lindsey explains these ideas, but I must take exception with hus comments about opoids. He is unfortunately incorrect in his characterization of opoids. They are actually the strongest analgesics we know of. Benzodiazapines, like Valium would better fit his description of the "not stopping the pain but making you not care" scenario .
Wow! I’m familiar with these things and these discourses are very good. I’m impressed.
1:43:51 there’s a regular segment on Bridget Phetasy’s Weekly Dumpster Fire called “Patriarchy So Crafty”
I believe, therefore I am.
Thanks
Interesting that Hegel published his book in 1807, the year Britain abolished the Atlantic Slave trade for those under their dominion.
"Marx was a BS-er" - that's what Krzysztof Karoń figured out when working on Marxism during his original "History of Marxism" series and later "Social Knowledge Program". He didn't I believe express it directly this way, but nodded to such realizations in comments to his productions.
"And so the dialectic progresses" sounds a lot like Amen. And so it is.
This is the way. Winter is Coming.
1:05:45 - Is "Consciousness" a euphemism for envy - jealousy - focus? Class Consciousness. Critical Consciousness. Moral Consciousness... Seems to be an evolution on that from the Subjective end of the philosophical spectrum...
14:20 The simplest way to interpret this, or at least what inspired it, is that Marx hates his father, his parents in general. Which, given his biography, makes sense - and his manifest Narcissism all the more.
Good vid ; what really epitomises
▪︎ perfect man for perfect society▪︎+ that isn't mentioned , is this generations ( which encompasses the running of society ) flippant attitude to qualative , services which includes health , housing ,
etc . As said it seems to be society's quiet agreement that so long as one ( as a customer) fills in a questionaire after using the service one time and states that the business's shit doesn't stink , then there is no need for an overview of the buisness from an outside official body ; which gets irritating to keep refusing to fill in paperwork when you don't know the buisness owner from Adam .
Perhaps all the unessasary intrusions into peoples lives would evaporate , if this generation , that wants the world to be one big university , would stop trying to squeeze all of society into their fairy-tale utopia and get a grip .
Good vid. .👍👍
It's kind of unsurprising how well corporatism binds with marxism, as too with feminism. ( Fitting feminists got subsumed: with the same behavior, destruction, use & discard. _Kind of the fate of grifting, is it not._ )
It doesn't "bind with" Marxism. Marx refused to idealize some imaginary "golden age" in the past or to laud small businesses as somehow inherently "better" than larger ones. He instead pointed out that for all the harm associated with large-scale capitalist development, it ultimately lays the groundwork for communism. This does not entail idealizing corporations or adopting "corporatism."
@@IsmailofeRegimeWhy not? Isn't corporatism closer to socialism than capitalism? The state and corporations being a hybrid (as we have today, that people mistakenly blame on capitalism) is the state controlling the means of production via it's centrally planned made up money with deficit spending. That is certainly moving in the direction of Socialism and away from capitalism where we would have free trade and our savings (capital) would fund expansion, as opposed to the state doing it with made up expansionary fiat.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross The term "state-monopoly capitalism" has been used by Lenin and numerous other Marxists to describe the fact that that concentration of capital, an inevitable consequence of capitalist development, leads to these corporations requiring the bourgeois state to more actively intervene to safeguard their interests at home and abroad. It also expedites (and is strengthened by) the waging of imperialist wars.
Engels famously argued that ever greater economic crises compel the bourgeois state to resort to centralizing measures, even nationalization, in a doomed bid to save capitalism. To quote him, "the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers - proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."
Engels continues: "This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonising of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialised character of the means of production And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole."
In other words, the solution is revolution, not to revert to some sort of idealized "pure" capitalism, a longing which, as Engels noted elsewhere, is bred among the petty artisan and shopkeeper afraid that the greater productivity of modern capitalist industry will crush them and also afraid of the working-class movement that will do away with private property altogether.
"The question has previously always been: what is God? and German philosophy has answered the question in this sense: God is man. Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. Not in otherworldly, nonexistent regions, not beyond time and space, not with a “God” immanent in or opposed to the world, is the truth to be found, but much nearer, in man’s own breast. Man’s own substance is far more splendid and sublime than the imaginary substance of any conceivable “God,” who is after all only the more or less indistinct and distorted image of man himself. So when Carlyle follows Ben Jonson in saying, man has lost his soul and is only now beginning to notice the want of it, the right formulation would be: in religion man has lost his own substance, has alienated his humanity, and now that religion, through the progress of history, has begun to totter, he notices his emptiness and instability. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to “God", but to himself." -- Friedrich Engels, review of Carlyle, Past and Present, in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, January, 1844.
I decide to like whatever job I'm doing. In a sense, I make lemonade from lemons.
Mike Rowe has a line like that. "Don't follow your passion. Do what you're good at, and bring your passion with you."
1:00 Five to six times you had to go over that?
Yeah, I can relate to that. It oscillates around that number. Even when I thought I got the logic down after 3-4 tries to be sure, I realize time and again "wait a minute, the definitions of these words are different, they intentionally have double-meanings, so which one is it here?"
Anyone writing their texts like this, outside of making fun puzzles for children's games or some such, is evil.
1:10:00 I don't understand why people would care about being remembered by History if they're
A. dead and not able to enjoy it
B. overwritten or even written off for "not going far enough" by another (which, by the pattern, always happens)
1:41:00 "History uses people then discards them", oh....
1:14:35. Agreed...👍👍
49:38. Agrees 💯%.. it's fascism as well and I would think, cult-like behavior which I'm starting to think is Narcissist.. IMO
What a heart wrenching episode. She is such an inspiration! Thank you Shawn ❤
Marx seriously has no idea how an actual human being lives, thinks, or wants.
What is that claim based on?
Lol some comments on this video are idiotic at best. Marx pretty much created a framework to understand how capitalism operates, who control it and own it. He isn't responsible for some liberal postmodernist ideology 200 years later.
@@IsmailofeRegime everything Marx ever wrote.
@@Justin-ShalaJC Then you should have no difficulty citing examples.
@@IsmailofeRegime How about the entire premise of Marxism? His theory of man is utterly nonsensical. He thought socialism would arise as the workers seized the means of production (dictatorship of the proletariat), then willingly give up their power as the utopia was naturally ushered in. If that doesn't show a complete ignorance of human nature, I don't know what does.
Secondly, the entire notion that mankind naturally sprouts into creative free work when not burdened with the profit motive is absurd. Heck we saw how pathetic and lazy everyone got after just a year in quarantine. Total disconnect with human nature.
I read loads of hegel bc know marx from Hegel. Thank you JL for your help making it easier to joining-up the links. You have a great grift in how to demystify myth.
Reality is data. Who controls the data controls reality.
Too many uploads lately haha. I can't keep up anymore
1:00:19
Treaty of Versailles is a decent factor as well lol
A country that resorts to fascism to defend against communists and their subversive ways, is only half wrong.
The irony are attempts to portray fascism as "leftist" when time and again it shows itself as a weapon wielded to destroy the working-class movement.
46:16. Interesting 💭🤔💭
I have Marx's book, but based on word search can't find Marx's quote tying back to Genesis Ch. 3 Jim referenced at 37:15. What gives? Can anyone help?
The introductory paragraphs to “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”, the one that starts with “Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain …”
Hegel - vernunft and verstand: this mirror's Aristotle's episteme and phronesis.
We are the Gods that listen to Our own prayers!
That sounds a lot like something Hegel said, and relates to his alchemy......
56:16 "To be human is to be collectivist". In all of this, the real weapon of mass destruction is collectivism. That the individual is his own object to build is not serious; what is serious is that some individuals take as an object all the others as a whole and want to transform them by force. Collectivism does not even require dialectic, because it can arise and be imposed from mere arrogance, presumption and mental laziness.
But those seeking collectivist ends use the dialectic to transmute any, types of social interaction or organization as merely a smaller part of the greater whole that is collectivism, and effectively tries to gaslight by saying we are innately collectivist beings.
Free from contradictions, but not from Stalin.
Israel Anderson does good stuff on religion, worth watching his CZcams channel
To me, the law is the structure, and it applies the same to everyone. If I was looking for "structural" racism I would look at what the law says.
The law doesn't apply equally to everyone, because 1) differential enforcement, and 2) protected classes.
Their assertion is that past injustices cause the criminals to do bad stuff, so they are the real victims, and the privileged normal citizens should give up their privilege by allowing themselves to be victimized by the criminals and especially protected classes.
Thus if you are a criminal, especially a protected class criminal, then you won't be charged or minimally charged and out perhaps the same day, but if you are the law abiding citizen (especially if NOT a protected class), then they throw the mf'ing book at you for defending yourself, and intimidate the jury publicly to get their way if they have to.
I always believed that “Arbeit macht Frei” above the gates of Auschwitz was a sick Nazi joke. Now I appreciate just how sick it was.
Name drop Hegel and Rousseau next time you're with your friends. Receive a world class wedgie.
Scram
I have smart friends, they would engage in that conversation. Don't hang out with losers.
Are ‘cycles’ referenced in Hegel? Seems that it is more a trend for him…
Hello , how does one attend a conference ?
So, is the 1619 project part of the Telos of History? Is history to be rewritten?
Why have people grabbed onto Marx? Because they feel entitled to receive financial support from others and not based on their own efforts.
What is this perfection Marx talks about if in the end you die and that's it. None of it means anything then. There's no point in doing anything if there's no God, the way I see it.
Good lord at 1:18:23 you just provided a concrete definition of the Marxist side of Foucault's philosophy, at least for me, which is then combined with Nietzsche's criticism and antagonism toward the world in total. Sooo... Foucault is then not the independent iconoclastic thinker he's been out to be!! The left has been repackaging the same ideas for the last 200 years 😮.
Oh yea, leftists despise the idea that they're building upon anyone from the past, even on their own side. They love anything new and revolutionary, so they'll reject the notion that they're in a chain of history at all. They hate history. Except the history of the future.
For the Leftist, change and progress are synonymous.
I still find it very strange that Dr. Lindsay is an atheist and talks more about God than most Christians.
Lindsay's appeal to the Christian God is normally in reference to the western society's foundation in Christianity as well as the Christian churches inherent opposition to the nature of Marxism; i.e. Christianity is a significant obstacle to the machinations of insane (Gnostic) alchemists who actually believe that they can achieve literal magic over humanity.
There are people who label themselves as Christian but have no fruit to account for the doctrines that Jesus set. These specific people are functionally agnostic, they don't care to develop their theory and practice of the doctrines.
Gnowledge
Damn, I can really see yself in what Marx said, but unlike him I actually know that I'm just lazy.
38:00 - "When he was like 19... 6 WHOLE years before witing his "real work".
I imagine I will have a chicken dinner so I’m going to throw out the sandwich I have now because it is not a chicken dinner yet.
Karl hanging out in the club claiming sounds an awful lot like Bernie Sanders smh
It seems like a form of learned paranoia. Marx disliked Hegelian Idealism but seems to constantly privilege his own ideas over reality such that even dialectics are about ideas not between idea and reality. Alternatively perhaps he thought he had grasped the reality as being class struggle but again this imposes the idea as axiomatic. He thinks progress is by dialectic but assumes he already knows where this will ultimately lead so what is the point of the dialectic?
@15:07, I'm sensing Marx's daddy issues in this.
30:26 I don't find this to be true. Opiates kill my pain & give me no side effects. I may be the only person for whom opiate painkillers work as intended.