Such an enlightening conversation. I think I'm going to need to watch a few of her other videos. She even had you on the back foot (a little) a few times towards the end.
Our beliefs are ingrained in our minds since childhood, therefore it's extremely difficult almost impossible to give a lifetime of what you've known and learned for something else, so what you do is find ways or relabel things in order to support or reinforce those personal beliefs. Then, there are those who dare to step out of the realm that was given to them and choose to walk their own path. We as humans have to truly question ourselves and ask why do we believe what we believe. Paganism is an umbrella term, you can't use it as a cookie cutter way to explain it, you must be specific to that specific pagan religion. It's not about control, or gaining control, especially greek polytheism. It's about understanding the world around us, understanding ourselves, living just and righteous. Having virtue, feeling the gods in the wind, learning from the stories, being hospitable and always learning and sharing knowledge. There's a certain purity to it, there's honor in it. It gives the same strength and joy the Bible and the Christian God gives there most devoted followers. I don't judge Christians because I know deep down they have good intentions and just want everyone to be saved or turn to God for their own good. I just wish they can grasp the concept or the idea that instead of one truth, there exists many.
I like the way you write very much. Yes, I agree, there is a purity to the pagan way that most Christians do not see. They see only the filth, so to speak, of the sacrificial ram, forgetting that theirs is a ritual so very similar. And most importantly forgetting that keeping this ritual real, in its original form, is a bold confrontation with death. A death, no less, that is much more frightening and real that the one they believe. Please write to me at michael@agr-series.com as I am trying to arrange conversations with some of my viewers.
Respectfully, I'll say that this Christian idea that the old gods are just fallen angels is a big hit of copeium for them. I don't buy it even slightly. Having said that I won't deny the positive influences of Christianity (such as stopping human sacrifices), but I will call them out when they try to deny their negative influences or deny the positive influences of paganism P.S she was a lovely guest, you both touched on so many interesting things. we could have many podcasts just by taking each tangent and speaking on it for an hour
At least this idea is closer to what Medieval Christians would have thought than some of the modern "perennialism" that has pervaded the Church. Dr. Fulton is not only arguing a point, but pointing to a tradition..
Finally started getting to more of the podcasts (now that I got IT to increase my workstation volume). Heh, umm, definitely had to let some of that slide off my back, but I enjoyed your thoughts on the worship of Mary through a comparative mythology lens and its possible roots in pre-Christian religious systems. Her insistence on distinguishing Mary as a not-goddess actually reminded me a little of Otto's book on Dionysus, in which he insists it very important that Dionysus be born of a mortal woman... I haven’t read a lot on the Orphic tradition so maybe I'm missing something, but I wondered if that was truly a big deal in Orphism, or really more of a Catholic influence on his thinking. I guess the conversation made me remember that, because one commenter noted (and I would agree) the influence of Midwestern evangelical tradition on Brown's thinking. Anyway… You make an interesting comment on the snake as a Promethean figure, because I believe in the original Jewish tradition the snake was but an extension of Lilith who actually was a goddess and present as an additional character in the story... Soooo, toward the end do you mean you were feeling converted by the idea that Pico's reinterpretation of Hermeticism ushered in a new age of technological progress for the better, or the idea that nature is ours to control was (and technological progress thereby is) a deal with the devil, or that Hermeticism itself was a deal with the devil, or that his interpretation of Hermeticism was a deal with the devil? ;)
If Mary was placed inside a pagan context she would have qualified as a great Goddess. But that's where Christians are different. And that's where pagans stop listening! Because what I have found in my experience is that a lot of so called "perennialists" - i.e. people who see the "same truths" in all religions - are truly bad conversationalist when it comes to actually listening to what Christians are saying. Christians define and understand themselves as fundamentally different to pagans, despite all the similarities (of which of course they are many). The difference is that for them, there truly is only ONE God, and everything else is a "non-God" by consequence. There is no intermediary between the two, safe, of course, the "exception" of Jesus Christ! Notice how the divinity of Christ has troubled Christian theologians since the very beginning. That's probably because Christianity has inherited a Judaic frame of references in which - ironically - there is no space for a "son of God." while trying to incorporate what is essentially a foreign (dare I say pagan) idea. But despite that, it's only fair to listen to their arguments and try to understand them as they, Christians, do, rather than thinking that we can understand them better than they understand themselves. It's a fundamental intellectual honesty that I believe is greatly missing from a lot of neo-Pagans. As for Dionysus, he was truly a "man-God" within a pantheon that could actually support this idea. So Otto's insistence has nothing to do with Rachel's. It's not a "don't turn anything else into a God" but rather, remember the true nature of this particular God, Dionysus, an Ever-Rising and Ever-Dying God, who necessarily needs a mortal element to fulfill his nature. As for the last part, it's true that I reconsidered certain things I had taken for granted, like the nature of technology. This can be interpreted in many ways and I have not accepted the Christian way so far.
I did not see Campbell as seeing Isis and Mary as one. They represent rather the human impulse towards a maternal deity. I was raised a Catholic, albeit not very rigidly, but Rahel Brown's version of the Virgin's role is quite different from what I understood. Of course all the doctrines of Christianity went through several iterations with regards to the nature of Jesus, Mary and the Trinity before they were somewhat standardized in the 4th Century, bringing them more or less in line with previous Jewish scripture and prophecy. This version became stratified, once Rome made it a state religion. I like your comparing the bible to a library and not a book. I would suggest one step further. It is the fragments of a library of bronze age religious thought among the Semitic peoples. People like Brown have not retained Christianity, but have rather created a new faith in which to believe. She ignores contradictions and cherry picks stories, symbolism and commentaries which support her novel views. Under the old church, she would be guilty of heresy. Many modern Christians, who claim intellectual faith, have become quite adept in these logistical gymnastics. Ultimately, faith is blind.
"Under the old church, she would be guilty of heresy." That is an interesting thought. I can neither affirm or deny it for professor Brown specifically, but it's true that many staunch apologists on the internet would have been considered heretics at a certain point in time. I was actually thinking about this yesterday, believe it or not. I was reading about the Arian heresy back in early Byzantium and I remembered a famous TH-camr that I used to watch: a black conservative pastor by the name of Jesse Lee Peterson, who teaches how true faith is based on the relationship between father and son, and how the earthly father is the door to God. He was asked once whether Jesus was equal to God... and he said no, Jesus is the Son of God - i.e. created by God - and therefore not as great as God. This was precisely the Arian heresy however! And Peterson would have been persecuted in most of Christian history and until Luther.
@@satyricusm In the USA you have various protestant groups that who have heretical Christological doctrines. Jesse Peterson is as was noted above, a modern Arian. You have many Pentecostals in the USA that are Oneness Pentecostals that are modern day Sabellianism which was condemned in Rome in the early 3rd century. There are other groups that are within the protestant camp that embrace doctrines of Christ that argue Christ is not in terms of Divine Nature the same substance as the Father, sort of modern subordination.
It's extremely difficult for some Christians to see past their blinders, sometimes certain faiths limit you to extend your thoughts. I left Christianity for the many contradictions it holds. If one believes all pagan gods are demons, they would be wrong because we know the good some of the pagan gods do, and if they do good, how can they be aligned with the devil. Here's an idea that can maybe, give a sense of understanding, God is the creator of everything is what most will agree on, what if he created gods, before angels, but the gods had their own will like us, rather than like most angels ingrained with the purpose to serve God, the gods some bad and good, or neutral went on into the cosmos. Then the angels were created, but with lucifers revolt many were cast down, during the great war, against the angels and demons, Zeus and the Olympians faced off against the Titans, the devil and his demons cast down to hell, like Cronos and his siblings cast down to Tartarus. Then came the flood in which all cultures have a story, and the father, the son and the holy spirit brought order to the world, like Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, we can wonder the many similarities within cultures compared to Christianity, sadly they get viewed as demonic and or confused or lost. I love my Christian friends and family, but its so difficult to explain or for them to understand paganism. I guess the main thing I disagree with, is that I believe there is more than one way to the divine/God/enlightenment. I believe all gods are true, but I feel that, the ones meant for us, create a sense of spiritual attraction, or a calling that we feel inside. Our spirits tend to draw to these deities, and I think when we listen to what our soul is telling us, it allows us to follow and walk in a path that leads us to attain the greatest spiritual growth and enlightenment we can possibly achieve. Whether it be Jesus, Buda or Zeus.
I am glad you do these interviews. I strongly disagree with the guest and here readings of the Bible. The Adam and Eve story is pretty clear that it’s the knowledge of good and evil that makes them like god’s. The quote is “man has become like one of us knowing good and evil.” So much of what she is talking about comes from a certain evangelical, conservative viewpoint of the Bible. Having been a Christian myself I would have said then that she was from a certain sect of Christianity that was very uneducated in the history and meaning in the original languages. She might just be presenting what so many in the Midwest believe and that’s fine. If this is a theological perspective then I would have to say it’s very shallow. My first year at bible college (Moody bible also In Chicago) her presentations would be seen as simplistic.
Thank you for disagreeing while acknowledging our work. I understand your concerns. And yes, to some degree I also found her interpretation to be a little simplistic. Yet, it's a valid one. One might even say it's the official one, at least to the degree that I have come to know devout Christians. In that respect, it's interesting to hear it from a woman, who is far from your typical male patriarch. Following that of course, it has always been tremendously interesting how it was the Tree of Knowledge rather than say.. the Tree of Power or even the Tree of Evil that cast Man away from Heaven. This was picked up by some Gnostics, like those who wrote the Gospel of Truth, who saw the snake not as evil, but as a Promethean figure.
Looked up the Niceness Creed in Greek, the language seems to have a primitive power not present in the more refined Latin. Oscar Wilde in De Profundis, written in Reading jail, upholds the charm of the gospels in their Koine Greek even after his brilliant studies of the Classics.
Reading the original texts is unparalleled. Notice also the first and last words of these texts. Ancient authors usually made it a point to begin with the most important word. Homer's Iliad begins with "menos", the "rage" of Achilles, which is the steam-engine of the whole story. The Odyssey begins with "andras", "man", and true to its word, it's the Hero's Journey of a man. Plato's Laws, do not begin like modern English translations do, as in "was it a God or a Man who gave you the Laws?" but by the word "God", as it "God was it, or Man...". Neither the Bible nor the Koran actually begin with that word.
Interesting, you learn something every day. What do you make of the first word of Luke, EPEIDHPER, or the short ending of Mark, ephobounto gar, that used to cause much wringing of hands among my NT Professors. One of my regrets is not having the opportunity to learn Greek at a young age, and as an undergraduate we only learned it with a flat English pronunciation, moreover we were told that NT Koine was so different from classical as to be not quite another language, but that meant it was always a dead language, with a lot of primary words not in the NT corpus. I was surprised therefore forty years later when I had a shot at Classical to find it not that different and the small words bringing to life words found only in compound forms in the NT, eg. aichmalotizo from aichmh, I wish I could use Greek script. You are quite right about reading in the original, except that when one is not fluent progress is painfully slow, however in the last twelve or fifteen years I have managed to get through Homer and Plato, only the Laws to go now. In my first year as an undergraduate we only had to pass two exams, St Mark’s Gospel and Plato’s Republic, did they have their priorities right? Yours.
@@robertmuncaster3510 > "What do you make of the first word of Luke," Ἐπειδήπερ must mean "because" or "as," which is identical (almost) to modern Greek. Perhaps there is some context that I am missing, because I do not see where the controversy could lie. > "we were told that NT Koine was so different from classical as to be not quite another language," That's exactly what's so funny about these professors! First they say that modern Greek is another language to ancient Greek, then, you show them a link (the Koini), and they tell you, "oh, but that is yet a different language!" Hahahaha... It's like... imagine a child growing up, and at every stage someone claiming they are nothing like the person they where a year ago, because they are so much bigger now. Ok then... how about HALF a year ago? Or a month ago? Clearly, if take enough "snapshots" you can prove there is no definitive line that, once crossed, you immediately transition into adulthood. Clearly it's a continuum. So for the Greek language. How many intermediary points these professors are expecting to have before they say... "it's ONE language, but it's evolving through time!"
The AV has Forasmuch, I only meant Luke is said to have written the best Greek in the NT but perhaps the first four verses or Prologue form one Logos. St Paul is hard to understand at times because I suspect he thought in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, but then some say he reinvented Christianity into something akin to the Greek Mysteries. How about the first word of Hebrews, polumerws? Anyway we can leave it there. I thought I recognised that laugh, she was on Dellinpole recently.
How is that even a question with a single guest on our show being Christian? I fear that it's a hyper-reaction from your part - and others who've made similar comments. There is absolutely no way of approaching a subject without defining its limits. The limits of paganism, both historical and spiritual, is Christianity. I do not use the term "limits" as "limitations" - but rather, as an organism comes into being through a process of differentiation, through "limiting" itself from its environment, being "other than" its environment. Any study of paganism without an understanding of what exists outside of it has the danger of "reabsorbing" it into the dominant culture which is still Biblical (Christian/Jewish/Islamic).
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I was just trying to get a rise out of you and I am basically thanking you for exploring the topic as I tend to disregard the the christian faith as a copy cat for the most part but this talk made me rethink the original message of the christians before it was perverted for power. I might even crack open the bible tonight. Keep up the good work!
@@adt3030 Forgive me if my answer came out too harsh, but I think that I've been gathering steam so to speak by similar comments from people who felt "betrayed" that I could bring someone like professor Brown on my show. Thank you for your comment and encouragement.
Some interesting insights regarding comparative mythology, and cusps for that. Pretty weak sauce regarding what Christianity is, and sacrifice in Christianity. There’s so much interesting stuff to be said about weekly cannibalizing one’s incarnated God. And the masks… come on! One has to watch 50 shades of Gray one time too many to associate face mask with a gag ball before even realizing it’s just a rational thing to wear during the pandemic.
Thank you for you comment. As for the masks, it's also rational to smoke a cigar for the pleasure of it, but psychoanalysts never tire of telling us how "a cigar is never a cigar." Yet now, as to the facemasks, it seems that symbolism has gone out the window. Just a thought ...
@@AncientGreeceRevisited It astonishes me how every relevant agency of every country was unprepared to deal with pandemic event. One could think, given how pandemics occurred in the history, the last really serious one being Spanish Flu, there are some protocols and procedures in place, adequate reactions being thought at the medical universities as a part of the epidemiology courses. And yet total mismanagement and chaos. But it’s a trap to see patterns where there’s none. Like seeing things in the shape of clouds.
@@tojaojo It's funny how you mentioned that, because I use this example among friends to illustrate how I feel about what's going on. Imagine you are walking by the river (I lived in London for 10 years) and there you see an "installation art" whereby a white canvas has been setup together with a marker, while the instructions invite passers-by to draw a single point on it. A couple of people do so, and then a few more, until there are about 10 dots on the canvas. Someone standing near me begins to shout: "It's the Mona Lisa!". I nod to my friend and make a hand-sign that he's crazy. I mean, 10 dots and it's the Mona Lisa?! Common! Then, a few more dots, and a few more, and lo and behold, about 50 dots in and I begin to see the Mona Lisa as well! The more the dots the clearer to pattern becomes. What do I do? It was clearly an exaggeration to see this figure with only 10 dots, but now, with about 100 there it's becoming clear. What do I say? I was just making fun of the guy for seeing things. Bottom line, there ARE conspiracy theorists out there, and they believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. But sometimes it's so obvious that something is wrong, that I would fee naïve not to comment it. Any notion of a conspiracy has been so demonized there days that it's the oldest trick in the book: cry wolf enough times and then a real wolf can walk right in with nobody doing a thing.
"... after the... whatever happened on January 6th..." Does a tenured professor at a top tier American university not know terms like "treason", "insurrection" , "far-right domestic terrorism"? I like this channel, and the vast majority of the content you've put out has been of very high quality. You are well-read, well-researched, and are unapologetic about your own positions. But give me a break with these past two guests you've had on. The tyranny and oppression they keep alluding to seems self-generated. If you feel muzzled or oppressed by wearing a mask during a pandemic, that says more about your own limitations as a human and as a citizen than it does about the so-called "tyrannical" governments who are promoting public safety measures. You want to be free? Go live on an island somewhere, grow your own crops, and die alone as free as you want to be. Otherwise, grow up and come to terms with the reality of living with other people during times of crisis and the social concessions that come with the luxury of community.
I appreciate your comments, all of them. But you must understand that life inside of a political community is the only human life there is. This "go live in an island" - as romantic as it sounds to some - is just not feasible. We are still going to be living under the rule of law wherever we are, and that is only human. Within this community however, there are different opinions, and we must first understand them before dismissing them. My opinion is that governments have ceased controls far exceeding what is democratic. I am not alone in this, and you should be somewhat suspicious about the way in which any opinions other than those promoted by the mainstream are being actively censored. To force people to wear masks is to state they are incapable of taking care of themselves. If people cannot decide how to protect their lives, how are they going to decide upon anything else? You said "grow up," but it's exactly the way our governments are treating us that is "childish" - we are treated like children who cannot take care of themselves. Let me know what you think.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Thank you for your thoughtful response. I tend towards agreeing with you on the broad strokes. I’d like to qualify a few points. 1. That governments have seized control in an undemocratic way. 2. That active censorship of non-mainstream opinions is taking place and is cause for suspicion. On the first point - assuming we are talking about western democracies, as has been the case so far in this series - the mere fact that these are all democratic governments gives them a democratic mandate to write laws and enforce them. You can argue that this is a slippery slope and that it can slowly lead to more and more draconian laws, ultimately towards authoritarianism. I grant that possibility. At that point, I will make the argument that to NOT respect that fact as a citizen is the slippery slope and even more of a deviation from a functioning representative democracy, resulting in a further mistrust of institutions and the fragmentation of the social fabric (I believe we are indeed seeing this play out in the West). Let’s not forget that these governments all have terms and can be booted out at the next opportunity. I will add to the very specific point about the masks, simply because it keeps being brought up in these interviews. To my knowledge (I could be wrong - I’m just basing it on my own community where these conversations are also happening and what I see coming from the US and Europe), there are no actual state-imposed laws regarding the wearing of masks - no one is being legally forced by the State, as is being claimed. That being the case, the complaints are thus directed at the social taboo of not wearing them, the decision by private businesses to refuse service to the mask-less, and local (municipal) by-laws, which, strictly speaking, are not the State (I agree on the last point potentially being an overreach by municipalities - they are on shaky legal grounds to impose such by-laws). On the second point, to say that the mainstream media is censoring opinions is a little like saying that a 3 foot tall fence around my house is keeping away burglars. In practice, people are getting their information from more places than just the mainstream outlets now and the mainstream’s political clout has been shown to be diminished with the rise in what has been termed “populism” fueled in part by alternative news sources. Should we be skeptical of what we consume? Always. However, we shouldn’t just take a controversial or contrarian approach just for the sake of thinking we’re skeptical. Otherwise, we may find ourselves truly on the fringes of the ideological bell curve after rejecting the mean by default. That might be a comfortable place for the righteous, but it doesn’t help social cohesion and stable societies to have an over-representation of those ideas. This has already run a bit longer than I expected (sorry about that), but I want to end with a point about rights and obligations. These should be coupled in any community, as I’m sure you would agree. And yet, the sense I get from these discussions is that it’s always about the citizen’s rights without any mention of their obligations. Well, I don’t think the present day consensus opinion on the internal measures taken by free allied countries during WW2 is that curfews, rationing, and higher taxes to fund the welfare state and war effort are perceived as governments at the time seizing too much control, stripping away rights, and then transforming into permanent authoritarian regimes. So if we are in agreement about war being a justified cause for extraordinary measures, why not a pandemic? These both lie on a “crisis spectrum”, so what is the tolerance threshold? It appears as though, for many “Don’t tread on me”-types, their threshold is quite a bit lower than what it ought to be, in my opinion. In lawful societies, we always make sacrifices, trusting in democratic institutions not to run amok (being mindful that they can). We trust those institutions only when we are constantly engaging with them, not when we leave them on their own for years, only to suddenly poke our heads out the window and complain when decisions directly affect us. (I don’t think this is the case for you, but I do think it’s the case for a plurality of citizens in the West nowadays.)
@@costapapadatos3930 Wow, that is quite the response. At least the tone seems more civil, I will grand you that. As for the points, here are a few scethces. > "the mere fact that these are all democratic governments gives them a democratic mandate to write laws and enforce them." Which is why we have a constitution. Giving governments the right to pass any legislation they see fit is the surest way to abolish democracy, and by directly changing the voting laws, just like Viktor Orbán did in Hungary. It seems to me that if we accept the right to pass any restrictions based on this pandemic, then you must accept Orbán as a democrat, after all, he was voted by the people. Freedom of movement, expression, and assembly are fundamental, and I do not believe that a virus with the death rates of Covid is a valid reason to break them. > "there are no actual state-imposed laws regarding the wearing of masks" If not in your country, then you should count yourself lucky, because where I live they are very much mandatory. Across Europe there have been reports of people being prosecuted for not wearing them. > "In practice, people are getting their information from more places than just the mainstream outlets" When I said "mainstream" I meant Tv Networks + TH-cam + Facebook + Twitter. If you have not been made aware, there was a massive purge on TH-cam targeting those who spoke against the lockdowns, some of them doctors. > "I don’t think the present day consensus opinion on the internal measures taken by free allied countries during WW2 ..." The same measures were taken by the Germans, and those who opposed them were called traitors. You must ask yourself, is this the right war? Is it protecting the many or enriching the few? I think that is a legitimate question. Finally, I think you can agree with me that any measures taken on Covid, or any other matter, must be weighted against NOT taking them. The destruction of property, the unemployment, the depression rates, the irrecoverable loss of freedom (these measures are NOT temporary) must be weighted against the predicted death rates from this disease. Ask yourself this: has this measurement been taken? Have you heard or read an official report supported by significant data that proves that these measures are effective, proportional and less harming than their absence? I sure haven't. Does the way in which the media are talking about this pandemic as something permanent, as "something we have to live with in the foreseeable future," the "new normal," make you a little bit suspicious? And if not, then what exactly would?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Haha, first off, let me just apologize for coming on so strongly in my first comment. It wasn’t actually coming from a combative place. Now to the meat of the matter (sorry for it being longer…) I don’t see how the semantics of Orban being a democrat or not have relevance here. It only matters that, with all the undemocratic qualities he had, the population elected him anyway, so they now reap what they sow given that Hungary perhaps doesn’t have the necessary structures in place to prevent autocrats from gaining power. This is a risk of democracy, contingent upon the weakness of the constitution, and the judiciary to enforce it. Barring that, if you conclude that Orban is not a democrat, then that implies that his supporters are not either. I think that’s tangential to the fact that the insurance against an “undemocratic” democrat like him is an effective judiciary and an engaged citizenry who would have been aware of his views on the press, how he talked about marginalized groups, etc. They could have extrapolated his actions based on history. We can’t claim complete innocence when we vote in governments that turn out to be authoritarian. The red flags are almost always there from the beginning. What of stop signs, or the ability to freely walk onto a highway when there are no cars passing? These are limitations on free movement in the literal sense (I’m only being half-facetious here). You get fined for breaking a law even though you’ve used your own good judgment to make sure no cars are near. Is that an overstep by the state, or is a sweeping law prohibiting walking onto a highway, on the aggregate, beneficial to the safety of the public. I also have to disagree with the point about the inexistence of scientific consensus or significant data showing the effectiveness of measures, which should be the primary driver of policy. You might disagree with that, and that’s fine, but a whole other discussion. As far as I’m concerned it makes no difference, as “nature cannot be fooled”, to borrow from Feynman. There absolutely is consensus on the reduced rates of transmission for the recommended masks and the lower death rates and hospitalizations resulting from curfews and limited gatherings. I can provide academic papers on direct studies as well as meta-analyses if you’d like (whether you trust academia is another matter). The existence of opposing views in the scientific community does nothing to dismiss the majority consensus, however, and purges of these views on platforms owned by private corporations do not constitute tyranny unless we believe these companies are in the pockets of some global government pulling the strings. To be sure, it’s important that there are no studies measuring the total impact wrt depression rates, domestic abuse, etc. that have come as a result of lockdowns. If this is the fundamental point, I completely understand where you’re coming from. When those studies emerge, I will defer to their conclusions to inform my opinion. Unfortunately, to reserve action ONLY until we have ALL the data is impractical, and there are no direct historical precedents upon which to draw here. Given what IS known, it’s a government’s responsibility to act on the available information to the best of its abilities in the goal of protecting its citizens. You asked if this is the right war and if it is protecting the many or enriching the few. I tend to look at it more in terms of protecting the physically vulnerable. You’re right that the result for many has been huge losses in economic stability. So if a government is going to impose that people not go to work, well, that government had better make sure those people are able to live somewhat comfortably while they can’t. And I honestly can’t say I share the same experience with the media I’ve been consuming this past year. Where I do see the things you’ve mentioned is on certain popular outlets that I’m more convinced are sensationalizing for the sake of views and advertising dollars rather than as a concerted effort to undermine democracy - ethically wrong, but basically lazy, pandering journalism. I tend to avoid these, as I think many do, which is actually leading these outlets to produce more garbage in this feedback loop. On a personal note, to answer your last question, if I started getting mixed messages between what was being reported vs. firsthand accounts regarding hospital staffing issues, occupancy rates and so forth, then it would raise an alarm. So far, sadly, this hasn’t been the case, based on acquaintances (nurses, physicians) who have been in the “eye of the storm”. This has led me to sometimes actually feel that the government has been trying to present the situation as better than it actually is to give a false impression of good stewardship. Again, sorry for the huge reply!
@@costapapadatos3930 Thank you for the polite answer. I want to leave you with this: gbdeclaration.org/. It's called The Great Barrington Declaration and its signed by over 50k medical and health professionals. It suggests that "As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity." That is a radical departure from the measures currently taken, which do pretty much the opposite. I can safely bet that you have not heard about this before, the principle reason being that all media apart form those in the fringes (so as not to use the term 'mainstream' again) are promoting a single narrative and give the impression that the current response to Covid has as much consensus among doctors as gravity among physicists. That is simply not true. There have been many voices that were intentionally ignored, downplayed or ridiculed. I too have friends in the medical profession. I spoke with someone who is responsible for Covid testing analysis in the US and what he told me would get my channel banned even if mentioned in the comments here. Farewell, and hope that you will be watching more of our episodes and interviews. I warn you, we will be returning to this subject, but after our conversation I will take you said to heart and put your arguments to the people I interview.
Such an enlightening conversation. I think I'm going to need to watch a few of her other videos. She even had you on the back foot (a little) a few times towards the end.
True true ...
Our beliefs are ingrained in our minds since childhood, therefore it's extremely difficult almost impossible to give a lifetime of what you've known and learned for something else, so what you do is find ways or relabel things in order to support or reinforce those personal beliefs. Then, there are those who dare to step out of the realm that was given to them and choose to walk their own path. We as humans have to truly question ourselves and ask why do we believe what we believe. Paganism is an umbrella term, you can't use it as a cookie cutter way to explain it, you must be specific to that specific pagan religion. It's not about control, or gaining control, especially greek polytheism. It's about understanding the world around us, understanding ourselves, living just and righteous. Having virtue, feeling the gods in the wind, learning from the stories, being hospitable and always learning and sharing knowledge. There's a certain purity to it, there's honor in it. It gives the same strength and joy the Bible and the Christian God gives there most devoted followers. I don't judge Christians because I know deep down they have good intentions and just want everyone to be saved or turn to God for their own good. I just wish they can grasp the concept or the idea that instead of one truth, there exists many.
I like the way you write very much. Yes, I agree, there is a purity to the pagan way that most Christians do not see. They see only the filth, so to speak, of the sacrificial ram, forgetting that theirs is a ritual so very similar. And most importantly forgetting that keeping this ritual real, in its original form, is a bold confrontation with death. A death, no less, that is much more frightening and real that the one they believe. Please write to me at michael@agr-series.com as I am trying to arrange conversations with some of my viewers.
Great interview! Loved your questions
Respectfully, I'll say that this Christian idea that the old gods are just fallen angels is a big hit of copeium for them. I don't buy it even slightly. Having said that I won't deny the positive influences of Christianity (such as stopping human sacrifices), but I will call them out when they try to deny their negative influences or deny the positive influences of paganism
P.S she was a lovely guest, you both touched on so many interesting things. we could have many podcasts just by taking each tangent and speaking on it for an hour
At least this idea is closer to what Medieval Christians would have thought than some of the modern "perennialism" that has pervaded the Church. Dr. Fulton is not only arguing a point, but pointing to a tradition..
Loved the pact with the devil question.
Always worth my time.
🎉🎉🎉
Great work! I suggest you get Tom Sunic on to talk about philosophy and the relationship between Paganism and Christianity.
Wildest and most interesting podcast I have ever heard! Loved it!
Wow, an encouraging comment if I ever saw one!
Finally started getting to more of the podcasts (now that I got IT to increase my workstation volume). Heh, umm, definitely had to let some of that slide off my back, but I enjoyed your thoughts on the worship of Mary through a comparative mythology lens and its possible roots in pre-Christian religious systems.
Her insistence on distinguishing Mary as a not-goddess actually reminded me a little of Otto's book on Dionysus, in which he insists it very important that Dionysus be born of a mortal woman... I haven’t read a lot on the Orphic tradition so maybe I'm missing something, but I wondered if that was truly a big deal in Orphism, or really more of a Catholic influence on his thinking. I guess the conversation made me remember that, because one commenter noted (and I would agree) the influence of Midwestern evangelical tradition on Brown's thinking. Anyway…
You make an interesting comment on the snake as a Promethean figure, because I believe in the original Jewish tradition the snake was but an extension of Lilith who actually was a goddess and present as an additional character in the story...
Soooo, toward the end do you mean you were feeling converted by the idea that Pico's reinterpretation of Hermeticism ushered in a new age of technological progress for the better, or the idea that nature is ours to control was (and technological progress thereby is) a deal with the devil, or that Hermeticism itself was a deal with the devil, or that his interpretation of Hermeticism was a deal with the devil? ;)
If Mary was placed inside a pagan context she would have qualified as a great Goddess. But that's where Christians are different. And that's where pagans stop listening! Because what I have found in my experience is that a lot of so called "perennialists" - i.e. people who see the "same truths" in all religions - are truly bad conversationalist when it comes to actually listening to what Christians are saying. Christians define and understand themselves as fundamentally different to pagans, despite all the similarities (of which of course they are many). The difference is that for them, there truly is only ONE God, and everything else is a "non-God" by consequence. There is no intermediary between the two, safe, of course, the "exception" of Jesus Christ! Notice how the divinity of Christ has troubled Christian theologians since the very beginning. That's probably because Christianity has inherited a Judaic frame of references in which - ironically - there is no space for a "son of God." while trying to incorporate what is essentially a foreign (dare I say pagan) idea. But despite that, it's only fair to listen to their arguments and try to understand them as they, Christians, do, rather than thinking that we can understand them better than they understand themselves. It's a fundamental intellectual honesty that I believe is greatly missing from a lot of neo-Pagans.
As for Dionysus, he was truly a "man-God" within a pantheon that could actually support this idea. So Otto's insistence has nothing to do with Rachel's. It's not a "don't turn anything else into a God" but rather, remember the true nature of this particular God, Dionysus, an Ever-Rising and Ever-Dying God, who necessarily needs a mortal element to fulfill his nature.
As for the last part, it's true that I reconsidered certain things I had taken for granted, like the nature of technology. This can be interpreted in many ways and I have not accepted the Christian way so far.
@@AncientGreeceRevisitedTo be fair technology is certainly a double-edged sword, whose potential for havoc and destruction only grows as it advances…
👍This was enjoyable!
I did not see Campbell as seeing Isis and Mary as one. They represent rather the human impulse towards a maternal deity.
I was raised a Catholic, albeit not very rigidly, but Rahel Brown's version of the Virgin's role is quite different from what I understood. Of course all the doctrines of Christianity went through several iterations with regards to the nature of Jesus, Mary and the Trinity before they were somewhat standardized in the 4th Century, bringing them more or less in line with previous Jewish scripture and prophecy. This version became stratified, once Rome made it a state religion.
I like your comparing the bible to a library and not a book. I would suggest one step further. It is the fragments of a library of bronze age religious thought among the Semitic peoples.
People like Brown have not retained Christianity, but have rather created a new faith in which to believe. She ignores contradictions and cherry picks stories, symbolism and commentaries which support her novel views. Under the old church, she would be guilty of heresy. Many modern Christians, who claim intellectual faith, have become quite adept in these logistical gymnastics. Ultimately, faith is blind.
"Under the old church, she would be guilty of heresy." That is an interesting thought. I can neither affirm or deny it for professor Brown specifically, but it's true that many staunch apologists on the internet would have been considered heretics at a certain point in time. I was actually thinking about this yesterday, believe it or not. I was reading about the Arian heresy back in early Byzantium and I remembered a famous TH-camr that I used to watch: a black conservative pastor by the name of Jesse Lee Peterson, who teaches how true faith is based on the relationship between father and son, and how the earthly father is the door to God. He was asked once whether Jesus was equal to God... and he said no, Jesus is the Son of God - i.e. created by God - and therefore not as great as God. This was precisely the Arian heresy however! And Peterson would have been persecuted in most of Christian history and until Luther.
What Christians today argue that Christ is "created" ?
@@satyricusm I was referring to him: g.co/kgs/txBGAi
I recommend you read my books, before deciding I should be burned!
@@satyricusm In the USA you have various protestant groups that who have heretical Christological doctrines. Jesse Peterson is as was noted above, a modern Arian. You have many Pentecostals in the USA that are Oneness Pentecostals that are modern day Sabellianism which was condemned in Rome in the early 3rd century. There are other groups that are within the protestant camp that embrace doctrines of Christ that argue Christ is not in terms of Divine Nature the same substance as the Father, sort of modern subordination.
It's extremely difficult for some Christians to see past their blinders, sometimes certain faiths limit you to extend your thoughts. I left Christianity for the many contradictions it holds. If one believes all pagan gods are demons, they would be wrong because we know the good some of the pagan gods do, and if they do good, how can they be aligned with the devil. Here's an idea that can maybe, give a sense of understanding, God is the creator of everything is what most will agree on, what if he created gods, before angels, but the gods had their own will like us, rather than like most angels ingrained with the purpose to serve God, the gods some bad and good, or neutral went on into the cosmos. Then the angels were created, but with lucifers revolt many were cast down, during the great war, against the angels and demons, Zeus and the Olympians faced off against the Titans, the devil and his demons cast down to hell, like Cronos and his siblings cast down to Tartarus. Then came the flood in which all cultures have a story, and the father, the son and the holy spirit brought order to the world, like Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, we can wonder the many similarities within cultures compared to Christianity, sadly they get viewed as demonic and or confused or lost. I love my Christian friends and family, but its so difficult to explain or for them to understand paganism. I guess the main thing I disagree with, is that I believe there is more than one way to the divine/God/enlightenment.
I believe all gods are true, but I feel that, the ones meant for us, create a sense of spiritual attraction, or a calling that we feel inside. Our spirits tend to draw to these deities, and I think when we listen to what our soul is telling us, it allows us to follow and walk in a path that leads us to attain the greatest spiritual growth and enlightenment we can possibly achieve. Whether it be Jesus, Buda or Zeus.
I am glad you do these interviews. I strongly disagree with the guest and here readings of the Bible. The Adam and Eve story is pretty clear that it’s the knowledge of good and evil that makes them like god’s. The quote is “man has become like one of us knowing good and evil.”
So much of what she is talking about comes from a certain evangelical, conservative viewpoint of the Bible. Having been a Christian myself I would have said then that she was from a certain sect of Christianity that was very uneducated in the history and meaning in the original languages. She might just be presenting what so many in the Midwest believe and that’s fine. If this is a theological perspective then I would have to say it’s very shallow. My first year at bible college (Moody bible also In Chicago) her presentations would be seen as simplistic.
Thank you for disagreeing while acknowledging our work. I understand your concerns. And yes, to some degree I also found her interpretation to be a little simplistic. Yet, it's a valid one. One might even say it's the official one, at least to the degree that I have come to know devout Christians. In that respect, it's interesting to hear it from a woman, who is far from your typical male patriarch. Following that of course, it has always been tremendously interesting how it was the Tree of Knowledge rather than say.. the Tree of Power or even the Tree of Evil that cast Man away from Heaven. This was picked up by some Gnostics, like those who wrote the Gospel of Truth, who saw the snake not as evil, but as a Promethean figure.
Looked up the Niceness Creed in Greek, the language seems to have a primitive power not present in the more refined Latin.
Oscar Wilde in De Profundis, written in Reading jail, upholds the charm of the gospels in their Koine Greek even after his brilliant studies of the Classics.
Reading the original texts is unparalleled. Notice also the first and last words of these texts. Ancient authors usually made it a point to begin with the most important word. Homer's Iliad begins with "menos", the "rage" of Achilles, which is the steam-engine of the whole story. The Odyssey begins with "andras", "man", and true to its word, it's the Hero's Journey of a man. Plato's Laws, do not begin like modern English translations do, as in "was it a God or a Man who gave you the Laws?" but by the word "God", as it "God was it, or Man...". Neither the Bible nor the Koran actually begin with that word.
Interesting, you learn something every day. What do you make of the first word of Luke, EPEIDHPER, or the short ending of Mark, ephobounto gar, that used to cause much wringing of hands among my NT Professors. One of my regrets is not having the opportunity to learn Greek at a young age, and as an undergraduate we only learned it with a flat English pronunciation, moreover we were told that NT Koine was so different from classical as to be not quite another language, but that meant it was always a dead language, with a lot of primary words not in the NT corpus. I was surprised therefore forty years later when I had a shot at Classical to find it not that different and the small words bringing to life words found only in compound forms in the NT, eg. aichmalotizo from aichmh, I wish I could use Greek script. You are quite right about reading in the original, except that when one is not fluent progress is painfully slow, however in the last twelve or fifteen years I have managed to get through Homer and Plato, only the Laws to go now. In my first year as an undergraduate we only had to pass two exams, St Mark’s Gospel and Plato’s Republic, did they have their priorities right? Yours.
@@robertmuncaster3510 > "What do you make of the first word of Luke,"
Ἐπειδήπερ must mean "because" or "as," which is identical (almost) to modern Greek. Perhaps there is some context that I am missing, because I do not see where the controversy could lie.
> "we were told that NT Koine was so different from classical as to be not quite another language,"
That's exactly what's so funny about these professors! First they say that modern Greek is another language to ancient Greek, then, you show them a link (the Koini), and they tell you, "oh, but that is yet a different language!" Hahahaha... It's like... imagine a child growing up, and at every stage someone claiming they are nothing like the person they where a year ago, because they are so much bigger now. Ok then... how about HALF a year ago? Or a month ago? Clearly, if take enough "snapshots" you can prove there is no definitive line that, once crossed, you immediately transition into adulthood. Clearly it's a continuum. So for the Greek language. How many intermediary points these professors are expecting to have before they say... "it's ONE language, but it's evolving through time!"
The AV has Forasmuch, I only meant Luke is said to have written the best Greek in the NT but perhaps the first four verses or Prologue form one Logos. St Paul is hard to understand at times because I suspect he thought in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, but then some say he reinvented Christianity into something akin to the Greek Mysteries. How about the first word of Hebrews, polumerws? Anyway we can leave it there.
I thought I recognised that laugh, she was on Dellinpole recently.
Niceness Creed, Google correction! Nicene.
is this channel just going to go full christian now? not sure i can follow but thanks for entertaining the ideas.
How is that even a question with a single guest on our show being Christian? I fear that it's a hyper-reaction from your part - and others who've made similar comments. There is absolutely no way of approaching a subject without defining its limits. The limits of paganism, both historical and spiritual, is Christianity. I do not use the term "limits" as "limitations" - but rather, as an organism comes into being through a process of differentiation, through "limiting" itself from its environment, being "other than" its environment. Any study of paganism without an understanding of what exists outside of it has the danger of "reabsorbing" it into the dominant culture which is still Biblical (Christian/Jewish/Islamic).
Amazing, if one podcast could bring people to Christ! It must be the Holy Spirit’s doing!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I was just trying to get a rise out of you and I am basically thanking you for exploring the topic as I tend to disregard the the christian faith as a copy cat for the most part but this talk made me rethink the original message of the christians before it was perverted for power. I might even crack open the bible tonight. Keep up the good work!
@@FencingBearatPrayer From your lips Rachel to God's ears. -- Great podcast my friend
@@adt3030 Forgive me if my answer came out too harsh, but I think that I've been gathering steam so to speak by similar comments from people who felt "betrayed" that I could bring someone like professor Brown on my show. Thank you for your comment and encouragement.
Some interesting insights regarding comparative mythology, and cusps for that. Pretty weak sauce regarding what Christianity is, and sacrifice in Christianity. There’s so much interesting stuff to be said about weekly cannibalizing one’s incarnated God. And the masks… come on! One has to watch 50 shades of Gray one time too many to associate face mask with a gag ball before even realizing it’s just a rational thing to wear during the pandemic.
Thank you for you comment. As for the masks, it's also rational to smoke a cigar for the pleasure of it, but psychoanalysts never tire of telling us how "a cigar is never a cigar." Yet now, as to the facemasks, it seems that symbolism has gone out the window. Just a thought ...
@@AncientGreeceRevisited It astonishes me how every relevant agency of every country was unprepared to deal with pandemic event. One could think, given how pandemics occurred in the history, the last really serious one being Spanish Flu, there are some protocols and procedures in place, adequate reactions being thought at the medical universities as a part of the epidemiology courses. And yet total mismanagement and chaos.
But it’s a trap to see patterns where there’s none. Like seeing things in the shape of clouds.
@@tojaojo It's funny how you mentioned that, because I use this example among friends to illustrate how I feel about what's going on. Imagine you are walking by the river (I lived in London for 10 years) and there you see an "installation art" whereby a white canvas has been setup together with a marker, while the instructions invite passers-by to draw a single point on it. A couple of people do so, and then a few more, until there are about 10 dots on the canvas. Someone standing near me begins to shout: "It's the Mona Lisa!". I nod to my friend and make a hand-sign that he's crazy. I mean, 10 dots and it's the Mona Lisa?! Common! Then, a few more dots, and a few more, and lo and behold, about 50 dots in and I begin to see the Mona Lisa as well! The more the dots the clearer to pattern becomes. What do I do? It was clearly an exaggeration to see this figure with only 10 dots, but now, with about 100 there it's becoming clear. What do I say? I was just making fun of the guy for seeing things. Bottom line, there ARE conspiracy theorists out there, and they believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. But sometimes it's so obvious that something is wrong, that I would fee naïve not to comment it. Any notion of a conspiracy has been so demonized there days that it's the oldest trick in the book: cry wolf enough times and then a real wolf can walk right in with nobody doing a thing.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited that's a great metaphor, lol. I'll be using it from now.
@@Ζήνων-ζ1ι Glad you liked it. You can use if for a small fee (just kidding)
"... after the... whatever happened on January 6th..." Does a tenured professor at a top tier American university not know terms like "treason", "insurrection" , "far-right domestic terrorism"? I like this channel, and the vast majority of the content you've put out has been of very high quality. You are well-read, well-researched, and are unapologetic about your own positions. But give me a break with these past two guests you've had on. The tyranny and oppression they keep alluding to seems self-generated. If you feel muzzled or oppressed by wearing a mask during a pandemic, that says more about your own limitations as a human and as a citizen than it does about the so-called "tyrannical" governments who are promoting public safety measures. You want to be free? Go live on an island somewhere, grow your own crops, and die alone as free as you want to be. Otherwise, grow up and come to terms with the reality of living with other people during times of crisis and the social concessions that come with the luxury of community.
I appreciate your comments, all of them. But you must understand that life inside of a political community is the only human life there is. This "go live in an island" - as romantic as it sounds to some - is just not feasible. We are still going to be living under the rule of law wherever we are, and that is only human. Within this community however, there are different opinions, and we must first understand them before dismissing them. My opinion is that governments have ceased controls far exceeding what is democratic. I am not alone in this, and you should be somewhat suspicious about the way in which any opinions other than those promoted by the mainstream are being actively censored. To force people to wear masks is to state they are incapable of taking care of themselves. If people cannot decide how to protect their lives, how are they going to decide upon anything else? You said "grow up," but it's exactly the way our governments are treating us that is "childish" - we are treated like children who cannot take care of themselves. Let me know what you think.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Thank you for your thoughtful response. I tend towards agreeing with you on the broad strokes. I’d like to qualify a few points. 1. That governments have seized control in an undemocratic way. 2. That active censorship of non-mainstream opinions is taking place and is cause for suspicion. On the first point - assuming we are talking about western democracies, as has been the case so far in this series - the mere fact that these are all democratic governments gives them a democratic mandate to write laws and enforce them. You can argue that this is a slippery slope and that it can slowly lead to more and more draconian laws, ultimately towards authoritarianism. I grant that possibility. At that point, I will make the argument that to NOT respect that fact as a citizen is the slippery slope and even more of a deviation from a functioning representative democracy, resulting in a further mistrust of institutions and the fragmentation of the social fabric (I believe we are indeed seeing this play out in the West). Let’s not forget that these governments all have terms and can be booted out at the next opportunity. I will add to the very specific point about the masks, simply because it keeps being brought up in these interviews. To my knowledge (I could be wrong - I’m just basing it on my own community where these conversations are also happening and what I see coming from the US and Europe), there are no actual state-imposed laws regarding the wearing of masks - no one is being legally forced by the State, as is being claimed. That being the case, the complaints are thus directed at the social taboo of not wearing them, the decision by private businesses to refuse service to the mask-less, and local (municipal) by-laws, which, strictly speaking, are not the State (I agree on the last point potentially being an overreach by municipalities - they are on shaky legal grounds to impose such by-laws).
On the second point, to say that the mainstream media is censoring opinions is a little like saying that a 3 foot tall fence around my house is keeping away burglars. In practice, people are getting their information from more places than just the mainstream outlets now and the mainstream’s political clout has been shown to be diminished with the rise in what has been termed “populism” fueled in part by alternative news sources. Should we be skeptical of what we consume? Always. However, we shouldn’t just take a controversial or contrarian approach just for the sake of thinking we’re skeptical. Otherwise, we may find ourselves truly on the fringes of the ideological bell curve after rejecting the mean by default. That might be a comfortable place for the righteous, but it doesn’t help social cohesion and stable societies to have an over-representation of those ideas.
This has already run a bit longer than I expected (sorry about that), but I want to end with a point about rights and obligations. These should be coupled in any community, as I’m sure you would agree. And yet, the sense I get from these discussions is that it’s always about the citizen’s rights without any mention of their obligations. Well, I don’t think the present day consensus opinion on the internal measures taken by free allied countries during WW2 is that curfews, rationing, and higher taxes to fund the welfare state and war effort are perceived as governments at the time seizing too much control, stripping away rights, and then transforming into permanent authoritarian regimes. So if we are in agreement about war being a justified cause for extraordinary measures, why not a pandemic? These both lie on a “crisis spectrum”, so what is the tolerance threshold? It appears as though, for many “Don’t tread on me”-types, their threshold is quite a bit lower than what it ought to be, in my opinion. In lawful societies, we always make sacrifices, trusting in democratic institutions not to run amok (being mindful that they can). We trust those institutions only when we are constantly engaging with them, not when we leave them on their own for years, only to suddenly poke our heads out the window and complain when decisions directly affect us. (I don’t think this is the case for you, but I do think it’s the case for a plurality of citizens in the West nowadays.)
@@costapapadatos3930 Wow, that is quite the response. At least the tone seems more civil, I will grand you that. As for the points, here are a few scethces.
> "the mere fact that these are all democratic governments gives them a democratic mandate to write laws and enforce them."
Which is why we have a constitution. Giving governments the right to pass any legislation they see fit is the surest way to abolish democracy, and by directly changing the voting laws, just like Viktor Orbán did in Hungary. It seems to me that if we accept the right to pass any restrictions based on this pandemic, then you must accept Orbán as a democrat, after all, he was voted by the people. Freedom of movement, expression, and assembly are fundamental, and I do not believe that a virus with the death rates of Covid is a valid reason to break them.
> "there are no actual state-imposed laws regarding the wearing of masks"
If not in your country, then you should count yourself lucky, because where I live they are very much mandatory. Across Europe there have been reports of people being prosecuted for not wearing them.
> "In practice, people are getting their information from more places than just the mainstream outlets"
When I said "mainstream" I meant Tv Networks + TH-cam + Facebook + Twitter. If you have not been made aware, there was a massive purge on TH-cam targeting those who spoke against the lockdowns, some of them doctors.
> "I don’t think the present day consensus opinion on the internal measures taken by free allied countries during WW2 ..."
The same measures were taken by the Germans, and those who opposed them were called traitors. You must ask yourself, is this the right war? Is it protecting the many or enriching the few? I think that is a legitimate question.
Finally, I think you can agree with me that any measures taken on Covid, or any other matter, must be weighted against NOT taking them. The destruction of property, the unemployment, the depression rates, the irrecoverable loss of freedom (these measures are NOT temporary) must be weighted against the predicted death rates from this disease. Ask yourself this: has this measurement been taken? Have you heard or read an official report supported by significant data that proves that these measures are effective, proportional and less harming than their absence? I sure haven't. Does the way in which the media are talking about this pandemic as something permanent, as "something we have to live with in the foreseeable future," the "new normal," make you a little bit suspicious? And if not, then what exactly would?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Haha, first off, let me just apologize for coming on so strongly in my first comment. It wasn’t actually coming from a combative place. Now to the meat of the matter (sorry for it being longer…)
I don’t see how the semantics of Orban being a democrat or not have relevance here. It only matters that, with all the undemocratic qualities he had, the population elected him anyway, so they now reap what they sow given that Hungary perhaps doesn’t have the necessary structures in place to prevent autocrats from gaining power. This is a risk of democracy, contingent upon the weakness of the constitution, and the judiciary to enforce it. Barring that, if you conclude that Orban is not a democrat, then that implies that his supporters are not either. I think that’s tangential to the fact that the insurance against an “undemocratic” democrat like him is an effective judiciary and an engaged citizenry who would have been aware of his views on the press, how he talked about marginalized groups, etc. They could have extrapolated his actions based on history. We can’t claim complete innocence when we vote in governments that turn out to be authoritarian. The red flags are almost always there from the beginning.
What of stop signs, or the ability to freely walk onto a highway when there are no cars passing? These are limitations on free movement in the literal sense (I’m only being half-facetious here). You get fined for breaking a law even though you’ve used your own good judgment to make sure no cars are near. Is that an overstep by the state, or is a sweeping law prohibiting walking onto a highway, on the aggregate, beneficial to the safety of the public. I also have to disagree with the point about the inexistence of scientific consensus or significant data showing the effectiveness of measures, which should be the primary driver of policy. You might disagree with that, and that’s fine, but a whole other discussion. As far as I’m concerned it makes no difference, as “nature cannot be fooled”, to borrow from Feynman. There absolutely is consensus on the reduced rates of transmission for the recommended masks and the lower death rates and hospitalizations resulting from curfews and limited gatherings. I can provide academic papers on direct studies as well as meta-analyses if you’d like (whether you trust academia is another matter). The existence of opposing views in the scientific community does nothing to dismiss the majority consensus, however, and purges of these views on platforms owned by private corporations do not constitute tyranny unless we believe these companies are in the pockets of some global government pulling the strings.
To be sure, it’s important that there are no studies measuring the total impact wrt depression rates, domestic abuse, etc. that have come as a result of lockdowns. If this is the fundamental point, I completely understand where you’re coming from. When those studies emerge, I will defer to their conclusions to inform my opinion. Unfortunately, to reserve action ONLY until we have ALL the data is impractical, and there are no direct historical precedents upon which to draw here. Given what IS known, it’s a government’s responsibility to act on the available information to the best of its abilities in the goal of protecting its citizens.
You asked if this is the right war and if it is protecting the many or enriching the few. I tend to look at it more in terms of protecting the physically vulnerable. You’re right that the result for many has been huge losses in economic stability. So if a government is going to impose that people not go to work, well, that government had better make sure those people are able to live somewhat comfortably while they can’t. And I honestly can’t say I share the same experience with the media I’ve been consuming this past year. Where I do see the things you’ve mentioned is on certain popular outlets that I’m more convinced are sensationalizing for the sake of views and advertising dollars rather than as a concerted effort to undermine democracy - ethically wrong, but basically lazy, pandering journalism. I tend to avoid these, as I think many do, which is actually leading these outlets to produce more garbage in this feedback loop. On a personal note, to answer your last question, if I started getting mixed messages between what was being reported vs. firsthand accounts regarding hospital staffing issues, occupancy rates and so forth, then it would raise an alarm. So far, sadly, this hasn’t been the case, based on acquaintances (nurses, physicians) who have been in the “eye of the storm”. This has led me to sometimes actually feel that the government has been trying to present the situation as better than it actually is to give a false impression of good stewardship. Again, sorry for the huge reply!
@@costapapadatos3930 Thank you for the polite answer. I want to leave you with this: gbdeclaration.org/. It's called The Great Barrington Declaration and its signed by over 50k medical and health professionals. It suggests that "As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity." That is a radical departure from the measures currently taken, which do pretty much the opposite. I can safely bet that you have not heard about this before, the principle reason being that all media apart form those in the fringes (so as not to use the term 'mainstream' again) are promoting a single narrative and give the impression that the current response to Covid has as much consensus among doctors as gravity among physicists. That is simply not true. There have been many voices that were intentionally ignored, downplayed or ridiculed. I too have friends in the medical profession. I spoke with someone who is responsible for Covid testing analysis in the US and what he told me would get my channel banned even if mentioned in the comments here.
Farewell, and hope that you will be watching more of our episodes and interviews. I warn you, we will be returning to this subject, but after our conversation I will take you said to heart and put your arguments to the people I interview.