วีดีโอ

To desacralize the world is to allow for people to destroy the nature world and extort it for resources.

th-cam.com/video/_8xxVplUHL8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SxXaQhjanU09RZoM One deeper history of WWI's orgins

Buchanan is basing his historical passages regarding WWI and it's aftermath on the official narratives of the victors. The truth is different.

Wow looking back 6 years and thinking about the wild ride that's about to come.....

First comment 🎉

what rubbish. Why is fascism bad?

Since when is Liberalism, the Ideology of Capitalism Left? Following the Title it must be total rubbish.

So there is a body of historical research on fascism that Goldberg flat out ignores in order to produce this polemic. See the work of Robert O. Paxton as an example.

Oxymoron by a moron

I'm very sympathetic to your position, but have you changed your mind at all since this was recorded?

Oy vey! Jonah Goldberg! I’m sure this book isn’t subversive at all.

If you wanna study syndicalism, study Argentina

>Goldberg

Here's an association for him; Hitler was a vegetarian

Joe Biden is a Fascist

It's all fascism, or fascist (top down) economics, unless your desire socialism (bottom up) economics ... its really pretty simply put in general terms. I started calling western democracies fascism with a happy face over 40 years ago, today we see that mask dropping. However, i Don't agree with the Hitler mustache, nazism was a ideology forced upon the public, like Zionism and Zelenskyism, the idea of supremacy of race. Fascism in it purist form is a gathering of nobles, or wealthy corporations and individuals in collusion with governance, politicians specifically to negate and disguard the mass general public want and will by use of illusion of delusional narratives. But time and time again i see and hear fascism and associated fascist terms to refer to the nazi Hitler imagery, meaning if the governance doesn't look and sound like Hitler and Nazism then all is good and ok. Pretty much from the founding of corporate America over 248 years ago has been fascist at its roots, politics control by wealth by wealthy persons, for wealthy persons, the rest of us are simply workers, artist, educators, etc. Fascism can also be looked at as modified feudalism, everything comes from someplace in history, it reforms and adjusts but soon it returns to its most basic control device, brute force aggression and containment of anything in its smallest form demands change.

I randomly found this book at a goodwill for $2

❤excellent ...i wish we had more deep thinking people on earth..you are a paragon.. listening from toronto. god bless your heart and mind forever more..ps i hate democracy..the rule of the rabble

No one is good, only LORD is good. Because of sin, democracy is the one-way to socialism and to be Communist, German SPD, Nazi, Neo-conservation, or other facis, and all of them will be ancient Greece-Roman, so facis is democracy and socialism and popular and people and social justice. I hope Mr. Trump obey Ten Commandments and Just War theory of Aurelius Augustinus, may LORD has mercy on us.

I remember this book floating around in university

High irony that you would create a video regarding the topic of fascism.

Woodrow Wilson was an authoritarian socialist, but not a Marxist-a short definition of fascism. Jonah Goldberg can be an asshole, but can be a fair critic. Calling Wilson a Fascist is an anachronism, as he was out of office before Mussolini and Gentile staged their takeover of Italy.

It's not like people don't tell you what they want to do. Fundamentalist Christians want a theocracy, and the far left want to control what you can say, or do.

It is good to hear people on the right who remember that the constitution is not a divine document. Far too many Trump supporters have begun saying that God wrote the U.S. Constitution in all seriousness.

🤡💩

If you really want a modern example Liberal Fascism in action, look at the rise and current rule of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, an almost textbook example.

I prefer real fascism to 🏳️‍🌈 any day thanks

Because of clowns like Golberg, we are where we are...

Read this over 15 years ago right before the obama election and proceeded to watch everything in it impress itself into American political culture.

The APL has never left in my opinion

“The real socialists are the fascists.” 🤣🤓

Can you talk about John Zerzan

John Zerzan said that.

Just now, this popped up in my feed, and I had to comment. I can't wait to hear your thoughts on this court historian. For the last eight months or so, i've been hate watching this chick as she plays clean up for the.regime. Having said that, I've been following you and slowly working through your uploads for the last year. I originally found you through a search for material on Durkheim. I consume a lot of stuff on here, and I have to say, I really enjoy your work. I'm one of those people that have to start from the beginning, but I don't know if I can wait for this one. Thank you for what you're doing.

100 reviews later which ones are your top recommendations so far?

I get bugged by loose translations, too. I am curious what you think about Alexander Pope's Iliad and Odyssey. I enjoy it when I tell myself it is a retelling of the stories in wonderful English rather than reading it as a translation. How about you?

wow, I just took a look through your backlog. This looks like an excellent channel of the rarest kind! You are a powerhouse of content creation. I subscribed.

Economists assume that in analyzing the effects we can isolate the effect to being the result of a single variable/factor (causation). I have an accounting degree, bachelor's degree in business and a master's in business (MBA). With that said, Economics, in my view, Adam Smith being its notable father, is a different way of thinking about the world, and money. Adam Smith was a 'Moral Philosopher' first, keep this in mind, and while his work has merit, it contains assumptions that stem from, I believe, a moral theology rooted in naivete about human beings and societies. People are self-interested? yes. But laissez-faire? Hmm The invisible hand assumes 'perfect competition,' among other assumptions about human beings. Economic profit, for instance, is NOT the same as accounting profit. Think about that 'paradigmatically' for just a moment (opportunity cost). As an accountant who is seeing profit on the bottom, line, positive cash flow, a thriving business, I simply could NOT care less about an economist who insists the company, despite all the markers of success, has not yet turned a profited. Without such a perspective, you become myopic and deify economics. Ceteris Paribus is the Economists comforting assumption, even 'crutch,' but it should be a 'warning to all' that economics is NOT a science. [Edit: I realize many Americans are now conditioned to think of America as a great Imperialist Exploiter through various mechanisms, and this attitude has surely caused America's decline. Tariffs, however, in the case here with you, is a 'moral' issue, but for the wealthy nothing is a moral issue. America is currently the most taxed nation of all nations, and the current 'almost' 35 trillion-dollar debt America cannot even provide 'debt service' for is in partly due to over taxation of Americans by its own government. Keep in mind, anything the media attaches a 'moral' to you can expect to be a non-issue for those controlling international trade. If they are doing it, it benefits the rich, you don't matter... just be moral. The 'moral' perspective is for you, and authors who will spread the moral-word, to keep the people in a state of moralizing (not thinking), and a state of emotion marked by a guilt-anxiety. One only needs to look in the right places and they will find Tarriffs are a game of international trade, not a moral issue. Another Good Vid! Thank you!

17:20 On human groupishness, from a modern Bio-Anthropological PoV: th-cam.com/video/PDDsQ7otAbE/w-d-xo.html

Herder was a guy, like most true Romanticists, who hated all 'manuals.' If you don't tell a Romanticist how to 'feel' about data or give them a mystery, they react with great aversion to the information. We see this today with women who 'believe' they will lock down a man who is 6 feet tall, or taller, handsome, and earns a half-a-million dollars or more per year. When modern women are shown the 'probability' of this type of man 'existing,' which is something like .00001, they still 'believe' they will find him, and lock him down. Hope is not a strategy, but it does anesthetize one from the unfeeling, expository nature of science and facts that can be 'painful' for people. People tend to avoid pain. So, male Romanticists are of the same delusional mindset, especially when it comes to their ideas about females. Most of the Romanticists were men, who had a low capacity to attract women in their lives. Keep this in mind. This impacted greatly their 'world view.' Women rejecting them was confusing to these Romanticists, as purported female notions often didn't match their behavior (as is still often true today). But instead of admitting women had mating patterns (biological programming) and trying to understand those patterns (establishing a kind of manual), they chose to make their necessity a 'virtue,' remain 'idealistic,' and turn women into an unsolvable mystery (the feminine mystique). Thank you for the video, and analysis.

I didn't find Rollo May's The Cry For Myth to be all that in tune with reality to be honest, but more interested in setting the stage to advance his own personal myth, which he held as an immutable truth. I won't disclose that myth here, to encourage people to read this work, and discover this myth for themselves, or not. But I would reveal here Rollo believed myth to be like the 'structure' of a home, out of sight, and crucial to the stability of society. I disagree with him, as Myth's are a 'feature' of a society and not a 'structural aspect,' and as such we have seen many myths over time rise and then give way to other myths depending on the nature of humankinds' orientation toward the world/sky, and humankinds' orientation toward each other. But, worth a read. Thx!

Great work, fascinating stuff. You read aloud very well.

Do you have a goodreads account?

auto biography

5 minutes in : Virtue ?? What place does virtue have in the philosophy of materialism other than a utilitarian value of cohesion and social force? None. The basic error or philosophical materialism, is that it CAN have no place in right wing thought even as some "secular" cohesive force. At every turn you HAVE to admit that the post modernists are correct on a social level, because their is no absolute basis for "right action" (there IS no right action, there is only cohesive action, and an agreement between humans, for their mutual personal and collective benefit at any given time). Morality is superior to Humanist ethics even IF it is not the truth (using a materialist viewpoint, not my own) simply to use as a tool to control the masses in a more effective way. Yet IF you believe this, than you again are agreeing with the basic modern Marxist ideology stemming from post modern philosophy that there IS no truth, there is no internal order, just a chaos that appears to have ordered itself to be useful for life's evolution (which it does(and initiated), for no reason whatsoever, for some reason, that we'll endlessly hypothesize about and never know). So without the understanding of the ancient beliefs and WHY they were held, and precisely WHY mysteries schools kept the profane from them becoming mainstream- should be at this point obvious enough, when you look at the world around you and recoil. The modern world is the very creation of materialist philosophy through the lens of marxist philosophy vis a vis post modernism. In the materialist conception of the world, the most well adapted human, is a highly intelligent psychopathy. The only reason to not slaughter and steal from all you encounter for the benefit of your own tribe, is if you would lose, or get caught. Yet most who consider this point would find such an idea absolutely abhorrent, because they don't actually believe in a pure philosophical materialism, and can't because such an idea is simply incorrect, and no elite member of society entertains such notions, or ever has - other than as philosophical inquiry- no one in practice lives this way. I myself experienced what they call a Kundalini awakening the first time I sat to meditate. No one, and no doctrine or scientific attempt to explain what happened to me, and the result, of what I have become, could ever describe away (like with misnomer terms like hallucination or the like) the experience so central to all the mystics of any age. The knowledge, that arrived without study, the understanding of spiritual texts, the siddha - the endless quantification (which is mostly all modern "science" (opposed to Natural Philosophy) can do) can not determine quality. Even Quantum physics has tipped the hat in this regard. The purely rational, is an abomination - people call themselves philosophical materialists, but don't actually know the full implications of what that is, because YOU ARE connected to divine spirit, whether you like it, understand it or not, and cannot be disconnected from that. The 2 emanates from the 1, the 3 emanates from the 1 and 2. There is NO getting around that. The idea that we can just "never know" is pure post modern, anti-western psy-op. The cart does not proceed the horse. Excellent reading sir, and hat tip to you - just trying to dislodge the error (evil of greek thought) came upon by the enlightenment era materialists. Still, if all you are into is Natural Law you're going to be better directed in your life than 99% of people out there - I'm still for all this - I'm just letting you know, that Philosophical Materialism is not an actual stance you can take with any seriousness - it is only a model useful to attempt to gleam information through natural philosophy, as an inquiry tool - not a legitimate worldview.

The Book SUCKS the author NEVER defines the differences, form, nor function of any clan. Not how many composes one AND never really describes the history of particular ones Instead its just a bunch of generalities he says “the rule of the clan “ 30 times per chapter Meanders IN EVERY CHAPTER about things that tell us nothing NOTHING ABOUT CLANS He literally goes on about romeo & juliet WHICH IS ENTIRELY UNINFORMATIVE ABOUT ACTUAL CLANS JUST AN AUTHOR THAT REALLY PISSED OFF because u can tell he is a slob just B.S. ing a book out🤢 But as far as the reviewer ur ok 👍

I came across this just moments ago and thought, how nice! 'Rather unusual to some across anything on William James but amidst the untold number of other presentations featured on TH-cam, I suppose that a moment dedicated to him should not prove all that unusual. I always enjoyed reading the Essay, personal and impersonal, with special preferences for the 18th- and 19th Century British and American writers. To this end, I was always smitten by William James' 1903 piece titled The Ph.D. Octopus.

Physical chemistry is one of his primary textbook subjects. I have studied his phys. chem textbooks for over 25 years.

My favorite number

Thank you for bringing this book to our attention! Happy new year