The problem is that Classical Liberalism (with or without John Howard's Conservatism) can only work in ethnically homogeneous, culturally cohesive, societies. Robert Putman's research, reported in "Bowling Alone", shows that as societies become more multicultural (with mass migration from culturally disparate source countries) vital measures of "social capital" decline and they become less trusting, less tolerant, less happy, less prosperous, and less inclined to invest in public good social spending and national infrastructure. Much as the Whites of the European nation states (and the Western offshoot settler societies like Australia/Canada/NZ/US) would like to continue being tolerant, classical liberal, individualistic, societies, mass migration has taken that option away from them. The Whites must either defend their collective interests or lose power to migrant groups from illiberal societies; whereupon the Whites will face future prospects similar to those of White South African farmers, or Coptic Christians in Egypt. And I say this as the White father of mixed race non-White children, who has no interest whatsoever in advancing the cause of essentially non-existent Western White supremacy. Past and ongoing mass migration in Australia (my home), and the West more broadly, will leave our societies riven with Balkans-style ethnic tension and it will be a disaster for us all--my children included. The great pity is that this could all have been avoided if migration had proceeded more "conservatively" at 1/10 of its post-WW2 pace--and with a strong emphasis on assimilation rather than multiculturalism. And one final point: I don't think Stephen Hicks is correct to simply paint Left- and Right-wing collectivism as being mirror images of one another. Left-wing identity politics is a Cultural Marxist tactic that seeks to collapse Western Capitalist societies. Right-wing identity politics when practiced by Whites confronting demographic replacement, is just the only viable survival strategy available to them--and one that has been forced upon them by the Left-wing push for break neck speed mass migration.
"Calling that charity could sound demeaning." A grown adult asking others to subsidize their existence SHOULD feel demeaning, that's the only way it doesn't turn into a normal habit. Shame may be an unpleasant feeling, but it exists for good reason.
I have been disabled for decades. I have received aid from the govt., for which I am grateful. I've never thought that I truly had a right to this, though legally I did, in some sense. In a deeper sense, a right is something people believe that anyone deserves, impartially, in a just society. When we add compassion to justice, we have a different concept of a right, that varies according to circumstance and the degree of compassion pursued. This concept of a right is valid but more complex, and is the basis for disabled people to claim this or that right, which is indeed debatable when the cost is high. However we conceptualize rights, they will at times collide (e.g., unmodified free speech can conflict with a right to a fair legal trial.). There is a just way to balance the (apparent?) opposition of rights.
We may not quite go along with Mr Hicks. Except, he's, of course, one among quite a few with varied views to share with the eminently amenable John Anderson from which views we can formulate our own understandings. What is definite, at least for me, is the charming lady always appearing at the conclusion of John Anderson's conversations who leaves one comfortably satisfied that these not overlong tête-à-têtes between John Anderson and his guests, as particular TH-cams by contrast are endlessly turgid, are worthy, wise and authoritative of a sharing of and for truths. Thanx John, and to 'the charming lady at the end' :-)
Every national culture has deep connection with land and climate. All other cultures are simply fashion, commerce or intellectual construct of Enlightenment. It is impossible to create new national culture nowadays.
you missed out the moderate conservatives - the middle does not just consist of "liberals" with a monopoly of rationality and morality and the "right" does not just consist of rabid anti-individual nationalists. That is plain prejudice.
That's your remark? This guy is obviously gifted at distilling and articulating large concepts. I sent the whole hour to my father to get him "up to speed" on today's intellectual landscape, as we're attacked by these insane leftists.
For most leftists they put anything they don't like on the "right" even when it clearly belongs on the left. Even though Nazi's were socialists and Democrats LOVED Nazis in the 1930s, exposure of the death camps gave them a bad name so the left insisted the Nazis were on the right.
@@thermalreboot nationalism, racism, social darwinism, anti-internationalism, anti-egalitariansim, banned workers' rights, banned communist party, banned democratic party, DESPISED communism. Nazis were more right than left. Their economy wasn't even especially socialististic, and it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's not what people remember about the Nazis. Their economy worked nicely and generally left capitalists alone.
@@jamesmcmann8536 I thought like you 25 years ago. Boy were we lied to. Racism is and always was perpetuated by the left. It's now a tool used to further the communist agenda. KKK were democrats. Nazi's were left wing. Fascism, attack on free speech, identity politics, all leftist tactics we see today. The commies who infiltrated academia 70 years ago re-wrote history placing fascism/Nazism on the right. I do agree with you on the economy of Germany tho. Check out Dinish Disouza vids on the roots of liberalism. Study Jordan Peterson and Prager U on the importance of borders / nationalism. Issues that 99% of the world's nations take seriously, while the west is condemned as xenophobic for the desire to preserve our morals and culture.
@@jamesmcmann8536 I would not accuse them of isolationism. Left and right are just places for chairs. You could say the Nazis allowed more private farming.
the entitlement/right "your productivity belongs to me" how it is different from working in a private firm? Or is it not? th-cam.com/video/-4tvIgJEoXU/w-d-xo.html
Lets see if Hicks has a useful point here: "There are some bad post modern left and right that collide with each other. There is a third type that believes that humans should be decent peaceful and tolerant. If we have principles it has to have good philosophy, what capacities do we have, what weaknesses to we have. Human nature, do you think a powerful capacity for agency to decide, I can push the trigger on my behavior and actions. We do have that capacity to be moral and responsible. That has political implications. We want a government where people can pursue their goals but come together also, and also discuss and compromise, democracy is a do it yourself. If you don't believe in human agency. They can't think or communicate objectively. People are born into economic circumstances. Classes cannot understand each other. Ethnicity that shapes who you are..." [Ok, there are three groups. Two are bad, and one is good. The bad ones don't think people can think or pursue their goals. The bad ones don't believe they control their own responsibility and morals. Wow. These are super bad people Stephen. I mean really bad. My question is this though. Who are they? Let's identify a fourth group, very small, who laments and postulates in very ambiguous ways that there are good people and bad people, but who never identifies who he is talking about and neither ever offers a solution to anything. So I guess in the four groups, two are bad, one is good, and one is a pointless talking head. Que the theme song to The Good The Bad and The Ugly.]
I think there is a word which traverses some of the three categories identified by Stephen Hicks; and that is the category of 'patriot'. Whilst there will be few on the 'globalist' progressive left who would fall into this category, in a World currently organised into independent Nation States, I would have thought this is an important category of person; perhaps exemplified in President Trump: though in not a single British politician.
Appeasement of the conscious minds. Is a good and bad thing. Like everything else in nature and human life. Thats the problem. It is also the nature of humans to unnaturally appease the minds of others consciously or otherwise.
"there is a very distinct third type, and that is the classically liberal, and that needs an updating, hehe" - love that snippet at 1:04.
The problem is that Classical Liberalism (with or without John Howard's Conservatism) can only work in ethnically homogeneous, culturally cohesive, societies. Robert Putman's research, reported in "Bowling Alone", shows that as societies become more multicultural (with mass migration from culturally disparate source countries) vital measures of "social capital" decline and they become less trusting, less tolerant, less happy, less prosperous, and less inclined to invest in public good social spending and national infrastructure. Much as the Whites of the European nation states (and the Western offshoot settler societies like Australia/Canada/NZ/US) would like to continue being tolerant, classical liberal, individualistic, societies, mass migration has taken that option away from them. The Whites must either defend their collective interests or lose power to migrant groups from illiberal societies; whereupon the Whites will face future prospects similar to those of White South African farmers, or Coptic Christians in Egypt. And I say this as the White father of mixed race non-White children, who has no interest whatsoever in advancing the cause of essentially non-existent Western White supremacy. Past and ongoing mass migration in Australia (my home), and the West more broadly, will leave our societies riven with Balkans-style ethnic tension and it will be a disaster for us all--my children included. The great pity is that this could all have been avoided if migration had proceeded more "conservatively" at 1/10 of its post-WW2 pace--and with a strong emphasis on assimilation rather than multiculturalism.
And one final point: I don't think Stephen Hicks is correct to simply paint Left- and Right-wing collectivism as being mirror images of one another. Left-wing identity politics is a Cultural Marxist tactic that seeks to collapse Western Capitalist societies. Right-wing identity politics when practiced by Whites confronting demographic replacement, is just the only viable survival strategy available to them--and one that has been forced upon them by the Left-wing push for break neck speed mass migration.
"Calling that charity could sound demeaning."
A grown adult asking others to subsidize their existence SHOULD feel demeaning, that's the only way it doesn't turn into a normal habit. Shame may be an unpleasant feeling, but it exists for good reason.
Then their are those who are not able to do with out help along the way. EG The disabled. We have a responsibility as humans to give that help.
I have been disabled for decades. I have received aid from the govt., for which I am grateful. I've never thought that I truly had a right to this, though legally I did, in some sense.
In a deeper sense, a right is something people believe that anyone deserves, impartially, in a just society. When we add compassion to justice, we have a different concept of a right, that varies according to circumstance and the degree of compassion pursued. This concept of a right is valid but more complex, and is the basis for disabled people to claim this or that right, which is indeed debatable when the cost is high.
However we conceptualize rights, they will at times collide (e.g., unmodified free speech can conflict with a right to a fair legal trial.). There is a just way to balance the (apparent?) opposition of rights.
We may not quite go along with Mr Hicks. Except, he's, of course, one among quite a few with varied views to share with the eminently amenable John Anderson from which views we can formulate our own understandings. What is definite, at least for me, is the charming lady always appearing at the conclusion of John Anderson's conversations who leaves one comfortably satisfied that these not overlong tête-à-têtes between John Anderson and his guests, as particular TH-cams by contrast are endlessly turgid, are worthy, wise and authoritative of a sharing of and for truths. Thanx John, and to 'the charming lady at the end' :-)
Great talk
Every national culture has deep connection with land and climate.
All other cultures are simply fashion, commerce or intellectual construct of Enlightenment. It is impossible to create new national culture nowadays.
you missed out the moderate conservatives - the middle does not just consist of "liberals" with a monopoly of rationality and morality and the "right" does not just consist of rabid anti-individual nationalists. That is plain prejudice.
Personal responsibility and the welfare state are in direct competition for the minds of the downtrodden.
To add to my own point, you could say that personal responsibility within a welfare state is an oxymoron.
His definition of the “right” seems clumsy and not articulated well.
That's your remark? This guy is obviously gifted at distilling and articulating large concepts. I sent the whole hour to my father to get him "up to speed" on today's intellectual landscape, as we're attacked by these insane leftists.
For most leftists they put anything they don't like on the "right" even when it clearly belongs on the left. Even though Nazi's were socialists and Democrats LOVED Nazis in the 1930s, exposure of the death camps gave them a bad name so the left insisted the Nazis were on the right.
@@thermalreboot nationalism, racism, social darwinism, anti-internationalism, anti-egalitariansim, banned workers' rights, banned communist party, banned democratic party, DESPISED communism. Nazis were more right than left. Their economy wasn't even especially socialististic, and it wouldn't matter anyway, since it's not what people remember about the Nazis. Their economy worked nicely and generally left capitalists alone.
@@jamesmcmann8536 I thought like you 25 years ago. Boy were we lied to. Racism is and always was perpetuated by the left. It's now a tool used to further the communist agenda. KKK were democrats. Nazi's were left wing. Fascism, attack on free speech, identity politics, all leftist tactics we see today. The commies who infiltrated academia 70 years ago re-wrote history placing fascism/Nazism on the right. I do agree with you on the economy of Germany tho. Check out Dinish Disouza vids on the roots of liberalism. Study Jordan Peterson and Prager U on the importance of borders / nationalism. Issues that 99% of the world's nations take seriously, while the west is condemned as xenophobic for the desire to preserve our morals and culture.
@@jamesmcmann8536 I would not accuse them of isolationism. Left and right are just places for chairs. You could say the Nazis allowed more private farming.
the entitlement/right "your productivity belongs to me" how it is different from working in a private firm? Or is it not?
th-cam.com/video/-4tvIgJEoXU/w-d-xo.html
👍👍👍 👍👍👍
Lets see if Hicks has a useful point here: "There are some bad post modern left and right that collide with each other. There is a third type that believes that humans should be decent peaceful and tolerant. If we have principles it has to have good philosophy, what capacities do we have, what weaknesses to we have. Human nature, do you think a powerful capacity for agency to decide, I can push the trigger on my behavior and actions. We do have that capacity to be moral and responsible. That has political implications. We want a government where people can pursue their goals but come together also, and also discuss and compromise, democracy is a do it yourself. If you don't believe in human agency. They can't think or communicate objectively. People are born into economic circumstances. Classes cannot understand each other. Ethnicity that shapes who you are..."
[Ok, there are three groups. Two are bad, and one is good. The bad ones don't think people can think or pursue their goals. The bad ones don't believe they control their own responsibility and morals. Wow. These are super bad people Stephen. I mean really bad. My question is this though. Who are they? Let's identify a fourth group, very small, who laments and postulates in very ambiguous ways that there are good people and bad people, but who never identifies who he is talking about and neither ever offers a solution to anything. So I guess in the four groups, two are bad, one is good, and one is a pointless talking head. Que the theme song to The Good The Bad and The Ugly.]
I cannot agree with his definition of the "Right"
I think there is a word which traverses some of the three categories identified by Stephen Hicks; and that is the category of 'patriot'. Whilst there will be few on the 'globalist' progressive left who would fall into this category, in a World currently organised into independent Nation States, I would have thought this is an important category of person; perhaps exemplified in President Trump: though in not a single British politician.
Trump is a patriot only to himself.
Just armchair faculty talk;the lunatics are in the streets pal. It’s getting real, very fast.
My thoughts exactly
So Stoicism.
Appeasement of the conscious minds. Is a good and bad thing. Like everything else in nature and human life. Thats the problem. It is also the nature of humans to unnaturally appease the minds of others consciously or otherwise.
'contestation'? Nope, anyone spouting crap like that is doing so to hide a lie.
Great talk