I have not listened to the AA streams and I can see from some of the comments here and on your telegram that there are specific stressors to this discussion that I am not capturing, but I feel there are a couple of tracks running parallel at the moment, like they are pulling into a station: 1) liberal as a soup we swim in and pointless to deny. 2) right wing as failing to encapsulate Christianity and ethnicity. 3) the dominant tradition of the West being an expression of west-ness. And 4) right wing being a lens of reality that can get trapped in orientalism when developing hypotheses of action.
I appreciate you, Paul, for noticing the station we’ve stopped at and noticing that most in this sphere are shuffling with their bags from one platform to another and that the baggage has different contents than we expected when we boarded.
It has got me thinking. I think the friends of this side are desiring a synthesis of ideas to combat the demonic forces we face. It is helpful to remember that maybe a synthesis is not possible. Maybe it is even a false promise.
I wrote an article many years ago that reminds me of this one, just far less erudite/educated. I think it's important to be grounded in what is before aspiring to what could be. Good read and I look forward to talking to you about this one day! Bless you Paul~
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Paul Fahrenheidt
Haven't watched Pt. II of the Cigar Stream yet.
What I will say is its good for us to have more diversity of thought. We can't descend into a cult where we parrot each other and our 'thought leaders'.
That's basically my problem with AA and his "sphere". I remember he made a video in the beginning of the Ukraine War, where essentially argued, "if you don't agree with whatever I'm on right now (i.e. Anime to Trans Pipeline, The GAE is the source of the pozz and must be destroyed, or the sniveling rrrrrat, Zalensky, must not sit on the rodent throne, or whatever), then according to the 'friend enemy distinction' you are no longer on side. Never mind prior issues -or ideological conformity, it doesn't matter if you supported Brexit, Trump, or didn't get "the jab" -you are not on side unless you on side with what I'm on which is an obfuscating support for Russia that I don't have the integrity to admit openly. I'll use words like 'pro-Truth' instead of saying 'pro-Russia'."
Their takes on the war initially shook me -and I almost walked away, but now I find it oddly amusing -especially as the war goes further against their narrative each day.
I liked hearing you basically call out all the Russia Cope people on the Dissident Right during the Cigar Stream. I know you're not Pro-Ukraine (I am, BTW -not that it matters), but the thing is even actual Russian Nationalists -who have no love for Ukraine either, are more rooted in reality. They know the war is going badly, and they're honest about it. And for a moment AA actually seemed to grasp reality -especially during your conversation with him.
However, now he's back to huffing the cope, after the past two U.Os. Pretty much all it took was Putin having a 'Mission Accomplished' parade after annexing the oblasts, and that old fool Shinobi ranting about "Russia is still winning because of artillery, or whatever" -and AA and Dee are back to normal.
Long comment, but -man, if anyone is calling you a NATO shill for pointing out the reality they can't see with their own eyes -fuck 'em.
Here's the vidya AA made about his view of the 'friend enemy distinction'.
I could be wrong, but I feel he's arguing for -purity spiraling, but essentially 'parroting' the view of whatever he's particularly feels is important.
Was the question of "why I call myself a liberal" answered? Liberalism isn't blue-haired women screeching about feminism. That's something quite different, though directly related. Liberalism is, at its core, the progenitor of ideology. Every political "ism," if not under the umbrella of Liberalism itself, was made possible by liberalism.
I have to take issue with your definition of "right wing". None of the three characteristics you provide have anything to do with the "right wing". If there is anything that unites all right wing political forms from monarchy to the mid century Germans is that they all were regimes who sought to govern in deference to the eternal laws of nature and God. In no way does it follow then that societies must be unchanging an that change is a net negative.
Another thing i have to take issue with is attempt to mesh together liberalism and the supposed ideology of the Aryan tribes. I think that is very dangerous and unproductive to play with concepts like that. Liberalism is well defined political form which manifested itself in various regimes in a concrete period of European history. It has nothing to do with "ethnic ideologies" of Aryan tribes. Kondylis is very good on this topic and i would urge everybody to read his books about the conceptual history of the various modern political forms an they're manifestations.
Distilling right wing ideology into those 3 tenets is interesting, but I'm not quite sure it works. #3 for example, if a fundamental belief of the right wing is that society is unchanging then what is the reason for the existence of the right at all?
Otherwise its an interesting article. You seem to have gotten down to the brass tacks of the most essential conflict in the world right now: the struggle between individualism and collectivism. Its what underlies the conflict between East and West as well as the technological crossroads we find ourselves at.
Good luck reclaiming the word "Liberal" though. I'm not sure thats possible anymore.
I used to be interested in ideology.
Now I'm only interested in outcomes.
I have not listened to the AA streams and I can see from some of the comments here and on your telegram that there are specific stressors to this discussion that I am not capturing, but I feel there are a couple of tracks running parallel at the moment, like they are pulling into a station: 1) liberal as a soup we swim in and pointless to deny. 2) right wing as failing to encapsulate Christianity and ethnicity. 3) the dominant tradition of the West being an expression of west-ness. And 4) right wing being a lens of reality that can get trapped in orientalism when developing hypotheses of action.
I appreciate you, Paul, for noticing the station we’ve stopped at and noticing that most in this sphere are shuffling with their bags from one platform to another and that the baggage has different contents than we expected when we boarded.
You’ve cut right to the heart of the issue. Thank you.
It has got me thinking. I think the friends of this side are desiring a synthesis of ideas to combat the demonic forces we face. It is helpful to remember that maybe a synthesis is not possible. Maybe it is even a false promise.
I wrote an article many years ago that reminds me of this one, just far less erudite/educated. I think it's important to be grounded in what is before aspiring to what could be. Good read and I look forward to talking to you about this one day! Bless you Paul~
Haven't watched Pt. II of the Cigar Stream yet.
What I will say is its good for us to have more diversity of thought. We can't descend into a cult where we parrot each other and our 'thought leaders'.
That's basically my problem with AA and his "sphere". I remember he made a video in the beginning of the Ukraine War, where essentially argued, "if you don't agree with whatever I'm on right now (i.e. Anime to Trans Pipeline, The GAE is the source of the pozz and must be destroyed, or the sniveling rrrrrat, Zalensky, must not sit on the rodent throne, or whatever), then according to the 'friend enemy distinction' you are no longer on side. Never mind prior issues -or ideological conformity, it doesn't matter if you supported Brexit, Trump, or didn't get "the jab" -you are not on side unless you on side with what I'm on which is an obfuscating support for Russia that I don't have the integrity to admit openly. I'll use words like 'pro-Truth' instead of saying 'pro-Russia'."
Their takes on the war initially shook me -and I almost walked away, but now I find it oddly amusing -especially as the war goes further against their narrative each day.
I liked hearing you basically call out all the Russia Cope people on the Dissident Right during the Cigar Stream. I know you're not Pro-Ukraine (I am, BTW -not that it matters), but the thing is even actual Russian Nationalists -who have no love for Ukraine either, are more rooted in reality. They know the war is going badly, and they're honest about it. And for a moment AA actually seemed to grasp reality -especially during your conversation with him.
However, now he's back to huffing the cope, after the past two U.Os. Pretty much all it took was Putin having a 'Mission Accomplished' parade after annexing the oblasts, and that old fool Shinobi ranting about "Russia is still winning because of artillery, or whatever" -and AA and Dee are back to normal.
Long comment, but -man, if anyone is calling you a NATO shill for pointing out the reality they can't see with their own eyes -fuck 'em.
I regret my article has not yielded any meaning to you.
1 problem at a time.
Man you're gonna shit when this mocha sparkling skinned white boy shows up in the field and bails you out of a jam.😉😂
This is outstanding 👌. I'm just not up to speed on the conclusion.
https://youtu.be/0P3E-YJRrh4
Here's the vidya AA made about his view of the 'friend enemy distinction'.
I could be wrong, but I feel he's arguing for -purity spiraling, but essentially 'parroting' the view of whatever he's particularly feels is important.
Was the question of "why I call myself a liberal" answered? Liberalism isn't blue-haired women screeching about feminism. That's something quite different, though directly related. Liberalism is, at its core, the progenitor of ideology. Every political "ism," if not under the umbrella of Liberalism itself, was made possible by liberalism.
I have to take issue with your definition of "right wing". None of the three characteristics you provide have anything to do with the "right wing". If there is anything that unites all right wing political forms from monarchy to the mid century Germans is that they all were regimes who sought to govern in deference to the eternal laws of nature and God. In no way does it follow then that societies must be unchanging an that change is a net negative.
Another thing i have to take issue with is attempt to mesh together liberalism and the supposed ideology of the Aryan tribes. I think that is very dangerous and unproductive to play with concepts like that. Liberalism is well defined political form which manifested itself in various regimes in a concrete period of European history. It has nothing to do with "ethnic ideologies" of Aryan tribes. Kondylis is very good on this topic and i would urge everybody to read his books about the conceptual history of the various modern political forms an they're manifestations.
Your definition of right wing and left wing is wrong
Distilling right wing ideology into those 3 tenets is interesting, but I'm not quite sure it works. #3 for example, if a fundamental belief of the right wing is that society is unchanging then what is the reason for the existence of the right at all?
Otherwise its an interesting article. You seem to have gotten down to the brass tacks of the most essential conflict in the world right now: the struggle between individualism and collectivism. Its what underlies the conflict between East and West as well as the technological crossroads we find ourselves at.
Good luck reclaiming the word "Liberal" though. I'm not sure thats possible anymore.
Yeah I’m not sure either how ‘Liberal’ is being defined by Paul.
Is this Paul declaring his belief in NATO?