I could only catch the first hour live. I was genuinely impressed by Sargon's progress in his thinking and his formulations in this discussion. Thank you AM for hosting it.

I really liked this talk. It helps having a conversation about what a reactionary should be rather than ‘men among ashes’ talking points that characterizes the broader dissident right.

AM, you seem like a genuinely pleasant person. Thank you for starting a channel and godspeed to you!

This should be on the BBC every night at 9pm for the next month so people can remember who they are

In English law, the judges would declare a rule to have existed from "time immemorial" ... thus was the common law created. It is not "commonly" known that Roman law at the time of Cicero was casuistic (case law based like English common law) and grounded if on statutes or custom at all, on the few vague existing statutes such as the lex aquilla, as interpreted by jurists. The Justinian codification was much much later and brought the rules together and codified them. So, just as citizens in a true republic don't need "codes of ethics", a system of law in a rising nation doesn't need to be comprehensive and codified... but as a society reaches decline, comprehensiveness and codification become necessary to maintain some semblance of order in a society without trust, virtue or common morality

50:00 Alfred's response is straight out of the Old Testament like in Kings or Chronicles

14:00 AMs humility is always something to admire

Surprising that Sargon claims that his own understanding of liberalism is original. It sounds like standard Whig history

Cracking stream chaps, well done to all involved!

This is some high Iq conversation. Once I'm finished my studies I'd love to spend some time studying these topics so I may try and have these conversations.

Great discussion! Thanks gents!

Wonderful discussion. Sargon brings up comments about “our circle” rather poignantly as the shift towards NRx and Elite Theory while intellectually stimulating for me is simultaneously disturbing. The consideration for power alone instils in me the same aversion that I have to postmodern theory that has empowered the left. I wish to retain the sentimentality of being English and do not think it is something that should be abandoned to become a “postmodern traditionalist” as AA might call himself. This conversation bridges the gap between the revival of an intellectual right with the consideration of ensuring such a revival is rooted in Englishness or authentic past. The idea of men being among the ruins is still rather abstract, we still have the opportunity as Peter Hitchens describes of running to the hills (not figuratively) and preserving/conserving ideas and history for a time when they are needed again. We are not literally in the same position as the poet of “The Ruin” where we can only imagine what the world was like before because knowledge of the past has genuinely been lost.

31:00 Humanist legalism vs Christian self governance

Thoroughly enjoyed, thanks AM.

Unfortunately Carl's notion of liberalism, which I would correctly ascribe as true liberalism ie natural law & rights, rule of law, free markets, classic economics, property rights, free speech/association/information/self defence & individuality is pretty much dead at this point, & has been for the past hundred years or so. In the minds of the managerial elites liberalism (social democracy) is all about security, harm reduction & political participation in society by as many disparate groups as possible regardless of citizenship status or any other qualifying indicators, standards at this point simply do not matter. All that matters is participation, & participation in their minds is entitlements to government programmes ie education & welfare. This is the literal definition of liberal-democracy, & anyone who questions this, even pivoting to Carl's original & correct definition is basically a fascist. The very worst aspect of all of this is that people accept this new definition, to the point of it being the dominant political formula no one believes in old liberalism they just want free stuff & coddling.

"Maybe it's because I'm English, but I'm hearing the words "absolutism", and "God", and all of this, and just thinking: 'Oh, good, I get to hear about some foreign nonsense now'." Sargon making me laugh like it's 2016 again

Extremely valuable for me, thank you. Discussion is a great way to highlight underlying thought, I learned much here that I had not previously understood.

Something that I wonder, I have heard that the Christianized Anglo-Saxons identified & focused more on the Old Testament (A wandering people conquering their own homeland for example) than other Christian Kingdoms. How much of the Deuteronomic Code of the Old Testament influenced Anglo-Saxon thought as opposed to Catholicism, which seems to be based on ensuring a united empire for an Emperor. I read somewhere that one of the goals of the Norman church was to "Properly Catholicize" the Anglo-Saxon Church.

I like that remark about taking up political office. I dislike career politicians; Boris and Tony; Biden and Thatcher, especially those who know they will achieve wealth through it. However, we must remember the reason for this lot gaining wealth, Chartism.

Excellent discussion. Thank you all for making the effort to shed light on the post-modern mess.

Ok, where's the real Sargon gone? I'd go back to watching him if this was his usual standard. It seems he took this encounter more seriously than his usual outings and probably did a fair bit of preparation..

Sargon traveling down the liberalist to superfascist pipeline

I love streams about English history.

Sargon once again proving the saying "Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the Anglo"

Panama’s authentic reaction is a reaction against neo reaction.

Hope you are doing well AM. Signal kept cutting out on the Kiel canal but enjoying this now. Hope there wasn’t too many trucks in the chat!

Can sajid javid and Humza Yousef understand the hard won liberties of the of the United kingdom's of great Britain just by being born here ?

Carl: "Normies don't understand the nuances of your views on Democracy and Voting" AM: "It's just basic De Maistre..." LOL

Another great video, thanks

Wonderful a treat as always.

It is a benison to read the thoughts of thinkers past. The mind rejoices to conjure with more than shadows and smoke. It gives me great joy to hear you all discussing the opus and the fruit they bear in your minds and hearts. This is the patriarchy. Without it, the human being would have been born, then died immediately. It is everything that humanity has done, except childbirth.

Excellent work chaps

Where does english morality come from?, christendom Carl, christendom.

Alfred the Great did not translate the whole bible, it is likely he translated the first 50 psalms.

Amazing discussion, you three are my favorite creators in this space!

This stream gets my personal stamp of approval. An enjoyable conversation after skipping most of Carl's takes. Cheers, gentlemen!

2:37:08 said just like AA and that video he uses: "CLEAR THEM OUT!"

Only in the first part of this but I would agree with Sargon that there are notions in Englishness, in the constitution, bill of rights, customs of goidwill and tolerance that go back a long way in the culture and on the Island of Britain. I say Britain as it existed before Englishness particularly associated with the west of the Country including Wales. Very ancient traditions but also augmented by a very early Christian Tradition which was pre Roman and also centred on Wales and western Britain which I would suggest developed to be included in the sense of Englishness, justice and fairplay. . If you have come across The Bernician and also the writings of Wilson and Blacket and,Britain's Hidden History channel you will understand the sense of this. Our traditions and especially individual culture are, I believe very ancient and much more stable than any on the continent ( or at least they were !)

I think it’s a good idea when we win and everything’s in its proper place. To blame “cultural Marxism” for continuity’s sake.

Something i have been mulling over. Since "reactionary " is a relative term like liberal or conservative. I honestly think the English classic liberal was the reactionary of the Enlightenment. They faced the reality that change was inevitable, but also tried to maintain as much tradition as possible

an authentic reaction must wrestle w/ a restoration of some manner of serious ritual sacrifice

A nation is not in the institutions, its in the people. Our institutions have gone. We are surely moving to localism and bulkanization now.

I feel that Carl is correct. The 'particularism' of the English is something diffuse that can only be understood in its cultural and psychic manifestation. The uniquely temperate island situation is crucial, a psycho-geographical essence, unique in the western European story, you can't get away from that fact. There are no other major European nations or peoples that are completely sea-bound. Why is it that we got up such a navy? Because we are people who look beyond the sea and have the urge top go out and discover what lies beyond it. Complementary to that is our bucolic sensibility, which has also been deeply embedded in our artistic consciousness, even in our political dialogue. From Chaucer to Constable and beyond the greenery yallery has been ever present. Salisbury cathedral is built on a European gothic model, but it could never have been made by a French or German mind. Look at our literature and the philosophical tradition of empiricism, a result of a whimsical or rueful psyche (Shakespeare's obsession with nature as metaphor). Our melancholic side is gentler than the German, our eccentric tendencies also a result of the unique way we interpreted the concept of the gentlemanly code or social expediency.

I am going to praise Sargon for a good faith conversation, but! Sargon is still a "Plebian Nationalist" who only understands topics and thoughts in contradistiction to hes own anglo thinking.

Carl

3:00 this is a very good point by Sargon. The right side of the Enlightenment or English liberals didnt need an all encompassing ideology because their moral framework was still Christianity. Whereas the French/Left side Humanist rejected Christianity

Celts are our brothers we share the same indoeuropian ancestors. I an part welsh, part irish and part english. I am not mixed race

People keep saying Christianity like it means something. You're not merely Christian, you're a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, Non Denominational etc. Those differences mean everything and its the reason that Liberalism backed up by Christianity or whatever is completely vacuous because it just freezes this ambiguity.

Monarchy F.C. Ultras

2:03:22 the Stuart’s weren’t English they were barely a Scottish dynasty Charles II and James II spent most of their young adult lives in exile in France in Louis 16ths court. The failure of the house of Stuart is two fold one they never truly acclimatized to England and the English form of kinship two they were barely Scottish and so were hatred by everyone. I’d go so far to say that the house of Stuart didn’t really exist after 1542 with the death of James V and had become a political cover for the ambitions of the house of Guise through his daughter Mary (queen of Scot’s) to subvert the house of Valois through marriage and claim the throne of England so their blood would rule over all three kingdoms. The failure of Mary as a monarch destroyed Guise’s grand plan leaving behind a dynasty connect by blood to two others but culturally didn’t have much of a clear identity of its own. This contradiction of a Scottish/French royal family ruling over England would cause problems sooner or later no one could have predicted they would happen within a generation After the reign of the first Stuart king of England.

English Liberalism is the worst, ay?

1:58:36 I'm enjoying this a lot, so thank you. One thing though, I feel I need to remind you that religion is not the law of the land. It's often been used as a guidance to those laws but, I can't help but think the angle often being used by those of a religious persuasion, get this backwards. 🤔 IMO people like Sargon get deceived on this. Just because a dominant factor of society at the time had the most effect, it does not mean it's a necessity for something to function. Something about "correlation does not imply causation" kinda thingy, maybe...

AA for 10 pound says: Da Jooooz done it! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sargon Really ? you can't be serious