Distributist is pretty cool, always liked him

If Endeavour gives monarchist vibes, I have to check them out immediately lol

And yeah I think he is sedevacantist

Endeavour's discussion of Left/Right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJk5fh_g6A0

Endeavour & critique of Enlightenment values:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHuL45NzNTk

Conceptually *and* practically, he is on point.

This guy seems pretty based lol

The second one is too long for me to watch now but I saved it

that first video is immediately contradictory. It references two European philosophies and then insists one of them has a historical basis when both of them are the result of one of many branches in a conversation that has been going on for thousands of years

Further, the ideology that's being listed as the traditional one was at one point revolutionary, which is why *Marx appreciated it as a necessary shift away from the actual tradition of aristocracy*. Marx just didnt think it went far enough

also people have tried to swing the black vote on the basis of pointing out how dem policies have screwed over black communities

>in Canada
The area with the highest concentration of Asian immigrants in my province is pretty much the only Conservative stronghold

The areas with higher Indian populations often vote center-left, with the whitest of white areas voting for the furthest left party or the center left, with some exceptions

we dont do exit polling so FPTP results are the closest you can get here

@Beemann you said what I always say, regarding conserving the revolution. This is how America is defined. But I don't see how this cuts against his point

The bill of rights, all of those freedoms wrapped in one package, that's insanely revolutionary

Also, regarding the thousand some odd year conversation, are you a neoplatonist by chance?

his point is that the right is based on western tradition, but both socialism and capitalism are inherently revolutionary and are both inherently a part of western history. Your typical Dem isn't a communist, even with that in mind
Also the Great Conversation is just in reference to the family tree of Western Philosophy

how basically you start with Greece and read your way forward, through the Old Testament, through the various literary eras, into the modern age. Some of these authors (like Nietzsche, Hayek, etc) will directly name people/ideologies their work is a response to

Well, I'd argue even western philosophy isn't so properly grounded to make it more important than context. But that aside I agree. The Greek schools of thought have starting points, and to look at a byproduct or a 'system image' of them and call it purely contextual would be categorically incorrect. However those images still inform and influence people as if they were grounded in and of themselves, in a vacuum. Not everyone knows our history, and not everyone is rationalistic; I think the best thing for most of humanity is that we're logically inconsistent. It's a good thing we can be above our idiotic thoughts

hm? I'm saying that they're separating two western philosophies that are hundreds of years old into "wants to destroy western civ" and "is the western tradition"

Western civilization is full of those dialectical tensions though

Philosophy

But I see your critique. I think Endeavour needs to go further backwards

I dont think it actually is about going backwards to be honest. I think ultimately you have people on both sides who dont respect the tradition of American philosophy, and then you have two factions who think theyre doing their best to uphold those traditions in different, contradictory ways

Often because they think the founding fathers wouldnt have agreed with (insert later thing) or because they think something is a low priority

Sure, and what I'm saying is this is par for the course in western civilization. And perhaps that's his point as well, but I have just come across this dude so I don't know for sure

On one side you have people who devalue the 2nd amendment, becasue they think the founding fathers couldnt have forseen an m16. On another side you have people who think that dragnet surveillance is okay because the founding fathers couldnt have forseen modern terrorism
And you've still got like 5 other major factions

I'm just basing this off of this one analysis

it might be that he gets it right elsewhere, though I doubt it. His high level assessment is just completely off

Well how high of an assessment are we going for here? 😂 because I'm someone Pro-logos, whereas the West has been anti-logos for quite some time

well a 15 minute video about "left' and "right" is inherently a high level assessment

it's the pseudocode of politics

I see this left/right false dichotomy as the modern scenario of liberalism, whereas you are seeing it as modern tribalism IIRC

I think we're going to agree on most things, but through my lens we've been downhill since the Renaissance

Wouldnt that mean that the United States shouldnt have succeeded?

The french revolution happened so I don't see how anything can't happen

the French Revolution was uphill?

At the paradigmatic level, it's consistent. Regardless of the event or outcomes something can be logically consistent or not

@Abstract Cossack I have many problems with both of those videos. I'm not even sure where i'd begin tho heh.

@everyone

The more people looking will help.

I dont have much of a social media presence.

https://t.co/tX0OqSKU4T