You can not have a safe world that lasts, because a safe world creates people who take safety for granted, they don't understand danger and they become vulnerable to it over time.

Why do I have a sudden urge for a picket fence and a grill? 🤔

The two calmest-voiced beards on the internet.

Until maybe about a decade ago, there was a commonly agreed saying in German lands which could be described as liberal democratic systems alone cannot uphold the justification for why it exists. Badly worded by me probably. The basic meaning is that liberal democracy can only be created and upheld through cultural and philosophical beliefs and traditions that are outside of the system hence without those beliefs being kept, liberal democracy cannot function. And this is exactly what has happened and why liberalism for its own sake is doomed.

Differentiating rationalism and empiricism, if we're getting philosophically technical, is gonna become SUPER important.

“You did not have reasonable, rational discussion in your own head about what you’re going to have for breakfast.” Me: spent at least five whole minutes this morning debating whether or not I should have cheese toast v. oatmeal and the pros/cons of both…

I remember walking up Victoria Rd in Swindon a few years ago, and the only English thing I saw was a sign for a Sunday roast, I think it was at Longs Bar. It was really disturbing actually. It wasn't the England I remembered from 25 years before.

It's not irrational or illiberal, to value traditions from the past.

I think Carl is soft-peddalling when he says mass immigration isn't ideological. As I know he knows, Andrew Neather, the speechwriter for Blair and his cabinet ministers, said that Labour did it to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." He is right that its roots and its continuation have been less consciously ideological at the parliamentary level, but politics is increasingly being run from above the party level. The "blank slate" idea is basically an ideologically anyway.

27:50 This was my introduction to where we are today. Anita Sarkeesian. I was into the whole atheism/theism circle on KZfaq and a casual gamer a decade or so ago. The algorithm led me to 'Gamergate' and Anita. This quote from her (in 2014) encapsulates it for me: 'because like when you start learning about systems everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.' I had just scratched the surface on an ideology that was being taught in our institutions since the 90's that slowly took hold of more and more departments like the Borg.

thanks for having a Sargon interview. I always enjoy hearing him discuss his views on modernity. I also look forward to you interviewing people. you do an excellent job and definitely come prepared with questions, counter-points for discussing, etc., etc., awesome video!

"A Bolshevik trapped in a Tesco manager's body" hah, fer sure.

„Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.“

Good show, both of you

Some of the worst things ever made are over thought, over analyzed, and overly complex

Two of my favourite gentlemen. Have enjoyed watching both of you grow over the years. Great conversation, thank you. 😊❤️

Progressive activists like Sarkesian aren't really Karens. Karens are appealing to a shared sense of morality, the activists are forging a new morality.

Great explanation by Carl on his stance. Only thing I don't get is why the, I dunno strawman of "going back" is problematic ... how can't we go back to merit being a thing, personal responsibility, a stable ontology and epistemology, aesthetics, being robust, etc. Those are tried and true ways off doing things, and I just don't understand why Carl does this revolutionary sounding "oh I can't say how the NEW thing is going to be" etc. If your new, dumb tools fail you, going back to your old toolbox is the easiest thing in the world. Javier Miley is doing it right now.

He's not wrong about Feudal voters, i live in Alaska and our congressman just died which is the only reason he wont get elected this year. I've voted against him my entire adult life because he was to old and feeble but it's what Alaskans have always done. Even our senator is the daughter of the last one. Ridiculous

This is terrific stuff, and dovetails with some of the thoughts I've been having lately. Thanks to you both :)

Have you looked into the possibility that uncontrolled invasion is a secretly arranged payment for oil? Or allowed due to bribes or threats? Corrupt people aren't moved by ideology as much as self interest.

The long house, properly embedded in a functional, formally patriarchal, family based community is what Karen should be. A brazen woman appealing directly to the state/managerial class is the hated meme she embodies in late modernity.

Carl Benjamin Boyce

A very provocative and thoughtful dialogue. While Carl's critique of liberalism may be a bit overly generalized, a number of his insights are useful and valuable. His comments on the US' founding principles echo notions of what David Starkey also asserts, that in particular the Declaration puts forth universalist principles that are overly idealistic and ultimately self-defeating. Carl also suggests that we Americans consider the Constitution as holy writ because we haven't revised it substantially since the beginning. While I am not sure these observations are fundamentally true, they are worth analyzing and responding to. Great work, as always, Mr. Boyce. Thanks.

Carl would be a really cool dad. That history with his son story was wholesome. It's a bit gay he's not a Catholic though 😊

My favorite bearded, blue-eyed GenXers.

I love Carl from the original Sargon days but I think he really ignores that liberalism had to displace Christianity specifically Catholicism to win. Martin Luther was a liberal.

The Americans have a blind spot about how fundamentalist and exclusionary the "pilgrim" fathers were. They were religious fundamentalist who fled the kings accommodation of a olurality if religious systems. From a .anority perspective, they were the oppressors not the oppressed!

That was a thoroughly enjoyable stream, and I'll watch anything that Carl is in

The Benjamins is back

. In 1995, 76% supported it, but by 2002 support had dropped to 56% - death penalty

Once upon a time, I stumbled upon this sassy Brit's KZfaq channel and I'm so glad I did. He makes a lot of sense to me. Also, many years after discovering Sargon of Akkad, I stumbled upon this channel. I'm glad for that, too.

As with most if not all ideologies they can go to extreme.

17:20 There actually are objective, rationally discernable foundations for morality: The motive states of sentient being are the ontological basis of moral value _(good/bad),_ and the Principle of Reciprocity delineates the epistemological parameters of ethical correctness _(right/wrong)._ It's not a matter of compulsively minimizing harm across the board, or blindly adhering to the arbitrary dictates of a designated authority(s). It's about understanding the nature of good & bad and right & wrong for one's self, so as to exercise moral agency through the choices one makes with that knowledge.

"We haven't been a religious people for centuries" He means like around one?

Any social system that embraces materialism is doomed to fail.

Thoroughly enjoyable. Thank you, Ben.

The fact that the coming UK elections are happening on the 4th of July is a level of synchronicity that convinces me we live in a simulation.

The elite type politicians don’t mingle with their real constituents and therefore lose touch, but you could are Carl is in touch with his constituents; his children. This keeps him grounded in the real world

34:12 The whole "defense of meritocracy" part, is the part that's completely good. Edit: and formation of hierarchies can just as easily occur, sort of bottom-up instead of top-down, sure definitely yes.

If Carl's argument is that we can't be assign to consent in all times for all times, and being reasonable. Then I agree. But I don't see this as what people are currently taking classical liberalism as.

Some points Carl has made - Liberalism doesn't accept there are other moral frameworks, yet it is the moral framework, which is based on utilitarianism harm reduction - Most moralities are born around upholding some sort of divine principle, given by god through their sacred texts. People have to behave in certain ways to be religiously proper, harm is not a concern - Purpose of the liberal view is the render the universe a result of purely mechanical forces - Nature wants to hurt you and is unfair, getting away from it was generally good. - Civil rights are given by the government and should be free rights,

It's much closer to getting more serious, particularly in regard to serious criticism of liberalism.

Great chat.

1:22:50 Tell me you don't understand the US constitution without telling me you don't understand the US constitution. It was created to be amended as necessary.

34:45 Generally speaking, it's rly only practically possible (usually,) for generations of certain sizes, to do certain things.

Loved this! But I must say I debate and rationalise breakfast choices daily lol and I love having the privilege to do that.

The problem with Carl's appeal to virtue is whose standard of virtue do we use? I agree with Carl's diagnosis of liberalism and its insufficiencies but declaring that "virtue" is the standard is no different than saying that man sets the standard. The reason we must appeal to an authority at some point is because it is clear that there IS an authority above all things. If man could reverse death and alter the laws of reality, man would be the author of virtue.

Citing the ghost of Anita Sarkeesian to Carl might be my favourite Benjamin moment.

Slight, but important correction there, Benjamin: the things we don't choose/ can't choose CAN be valuable. Doesn't mean they are so automatically, as it seems like you were leaning into, perhaps accidentally. Sure, family is foundational for setting us up for life, but it could just as well be bad as it could be good for us. And IF there is value to be found in those "unchosen" things it is - strictly speaking - still up to us to learn to recognize and realize that value because values are "things you (have to) ACT to achieve, or preserve". If values could be realized without any effort on our part we would never be acting sub-optimally, or doing bad.

Both. Yes.

I really like Carl, and have been following him for nearly a decade. I have been subbed to the lotus eaters since its founding,(minus 6 months in protest against the petty tyrant Connor) and I follow what he is saying about the faults of liberalism. As a small "l" libertarian I feel surrounded by midwits who think anarchism is a valid systems. Yet I feel Carl is wanting his cake, and to eat it as well. Our society is good because, it has created such a just and wealthy system based on liberalism. The issue is that people don't understand Liberalism didn't create common law, common law created liberalism. Natural unmanipulated hierarchy is "good" and all, but without the human logical reasoning how do we determine what is "good". Without it there is no way to separate the good of the Christian, and the good of the Muslim, and in absence of the logical, only relying on the habitual leads to "might makes right". When it comes to the West being wed to liberalism, we don't need a divorced, but an understanding that the west is the husband in the relationship and liberalism the subservient wife. When we see something that we "habitually" know as not right, we need to be able to say "NO". At the current moment we have been so manipulated by liberalism, we as a civilisation doubt, and dismiss anything that isn't strictly adherent to liberalism. I see all around me, people have shaken off the fear of being called bad names but still refuses to bad mouth libralism, even when they hate something it produces. (I haven't truly sat down to think about this line of reasoning so I am sure its filled with holes, but this is how I feel right now.)

Two awesome humans Coffee ready sitting in the sun in adelaide …… thank you both for your work ♥️ Are we awake now🕊

I wish these two men would talk to William Keyte of the English Constitution website. He has recently been given publicity by Neil Oliver on GB News.

Even though I find it difficult to argue against Carl's framing, even if he's right, it's too late for me to be deprogrammed from Liberalism. My personality traits wouldn't allow for anything in its place anyway.

This was a good discussion, and it made Carl's exorable march rightward plain. Loved hearing it. BUT even afterwards I was left pondering the specific questions posed by the thumbnail, and ultimately I think they are rooted in a fallacy. Did we fail Liberalism? Not possible. Liberalism as an ideology is a tool to be used as we see fit and discarded when not appropriate for the task or a better tool is available. We should not assign any kind of loyalty to concepts, which is exactly the behavior that leads to the march towards absurdity Carl correctly diagnoses modern liberalism with. Did liberalism fail us? Also not possible. Liberalism and all -isms are just mental exercises to help us understand the interactions of involved parties, and are in turn each useful whithin the context they are well suited for. The US founders were correct in blending democratism, republicanism, libertarianism and authoritarianism in so many interdependent ways to try and insure we had the correct tool for any eventuality. We failed by looking at the hammer in our hands and thinking everything was a nail.

Interesting, but it might also help to define more clearly what you are taking as definitions. For example, what Carl describes as "liberalism" sounds to me like a mix of things from liberalism, libertarianism, progressivism, and general beliefs of humans as blank slates which overlaps into all "-isms", e.g., as well described in Pinker's "The Blank Slate". Yes, there could a whole discussion on the starting platform of a human being from an evolutionary or information theory perspective: instincts, habits, efficiency of consistency, the value and balance of maintaining a well-working machine while also trying new things to improve it (as natural selection itself does). What I tend to term as "liberalism" is starting with laissez-faire libertarianism and adding in a collective mitigation mechanism that we bind ourselves to to balance my individual freedom to do things I want while keeping others from doing things to me that I don't want, and then considering each of them is also a "me" in their own perspective so we need to set those mitigation mechanisms (freedom to/freedom from) optimized across the whole population. That "mitigation mechanism" governs our society to optimize for the thriving of the members bound to it, and hence we call it "government". Part of the "keeping others from doing things to me that I don't want" includes government as "others". That, to me, is the foundation of "liberalism". It's not just maximizing individual freedom, nor is it maximizing some collective function; it is, essentially, aimed at maximizing agreement that the rules we'll limit ourselves to are in our own "generic individual" best interest, meaning not my personal best interest as being born to a rich family, or a poor family, or with great genes, etc. Generally, John Rawls type considerations (which is not the same as utilitarianism). Those optimal rules will include things like maintaining traditions, habits, and stability while also making improvements and progress, and freeing people from tribalistic oppressions -- which are also an unfortunate psychological module that we humans come with that can be evoked, and the mitigations need to deal with limiting, primarily by not evoking tribal psychology. Hence conservatism is not antithetical to liberalism. Conservative and progressive are more opposite: stability vs progress, brake vs accelerator, position vs momentum. Liberalism, to me, is more opposite to authoritarianism. It is is more about consent to be ruled to achieve the balance, and accountability via the regularity of acquiring that consent. That is, democracy is a liberal concept vs monarchy (ruling families) is an authoritarian concept. Libertarianism is liberalism with more weight on individual freedom over optimizing the balance, or perhaps less trust that governments can be held accountable via democratic means so needs to be minimized and controlled. Socialism tends toward forgoing improving the average by minimizing the standard deviation, weighting relative differences at a given time much more heavily than everybody improving over time, and so "progress" isn't about a better life for everyone, but rather a more identical life for everyone, regardless of how good or bad, and regardless of differences in preferences and value between people.

*_"The emotional attachment to the identity of Liberalism"_*

I wish Sargon had explained why Aristotle’s virtues were virtuous. They all are necessary components in a life to flourish. Any rejection of nature and what is necessary to even sustain life will of course lead to death. Any ideology that intentionally avoids these virtues should itself be avoided.

Carl is the best ❤

The Constitution can change. It just requires more work than creating a new bureaucratic agency and then writing a law that lets them fill in the details. The 14th Amendment, for example, was written because the federal government didn't feel that they had the constitutional authority to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That's the way our federal government is supposed to function. If they want to pass a law, that they don't have the constitutional authority to enforce, they just need a two-thirds majority (in both houses of Congress or the state legislatures) to grant themselves the authority. Instead, the Wilson administration introduced the "administrative state" and the Congress proceeded to give up all of their authority and oversight, leaving us with an unaccountable government with a scope far beyond its mandate. The biggest flaw, with The Constitution, is that its only words as long as the people allow it to be undermined and ignored. Nearly every federal politician and bureaucrat has broken their oath to protect and defend The Constitution and has evaded the consequences. You can argue that this is the inevitable result of liberalism but it isn't the inevitable result of The Constitution itself. Perhaps if we'd stayed within constitutional boundaries, we'd end up at a similar place, at least at the state level, but I seriously doubt we'd have as bloated of a federal bureaucracy, if many of those agencies and their legislative authorities required a two-thirds vote to be established.

Didn't imagine my podcasts would intersect like this. Benjamin on Lotus Eaters when?

Always great to catch up with Carl. Such a wonderfully calm and clear thinker. Never seen him get flustered or not own it when does not feel has a good answer. Thanks to you both 🐈

The home office has recently stopped student visas from including visas for all their family to accompany the students into the UK. Students are from India Pakistan proportionally

What I want to know, and i've heard Sargon talk on this a fair amount off the back-end of his Dungeon and Dragons sessions without an answer, is what are the actionable steps towards whatever he's aiming at? The most concrete thing i've heard is "People with Gang tattoos should not get proper due process" which I might agree with in *some* cases. Implicit when you say ~Liberalism must end~ but you have people voting for liberal policies is that you have to enforce a system that doesn't let people guide it that way. We're getting into bop worthy territory here and "Your on paper ideals require you let me bop you 1st" doesn't work on me; we live in a world of the comparative, not the perfect: I will take an accusation of hypocrite if it prevents something worse.

How do you derive moral ought through reason IF reason is subjective?

Wow, those first 13 and a half minutes... Thank you Carl!

1:23:00 The Constitution provides for its OWN revision. The Founding Fathers actually PREDICTED Carl's argument and accounted for it. HOWEVER, in many cases, the Founding Fathers incorrectly predicted which issue would be a problem. They believed each branch of government would vie for power, greedily attempting to take it from the others. The actual problem we have now is that in many cases, the branches ABDICATE their responsibility. In the case of amending the Constitution, something done on numerous occasions, is that people became too lazy to actually lobby for amendments. Instead, they took the "easy" way out, and passed unconstitutional laws in order to get their way. In most of those cases, the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case. By not hearing the contentions of the people, you cut them off from satisfaction. This is why January 6th happened. NOT because of anything Trump or the Proud Boys said or did, but because SCOTUS told HALF the country that THEIR concerns over the security of "Our Democracy" didn't count. Regardless of the outcome of any potential court case or ruling, it was made very clear ONLY Leftists get to have questions about elections. Only the concerns of Leftists and foreigners count anymore.

Good questions Ben

Benjamin should get Jay Dyer on

last 1:24:00 for Carl. His argument against The Constution is wrong, in that The Constitution pre 1860's rests the authority and powers to deal with contemporary issues rather quickly, 10th amendment, is granted to the states and even earlier at the local level county, town etc... The problem... is that our people are not being taught what it means to be American, and what it means to be [insert your home state]. His philosophy is English and ours is American, our dichotomy is such that our authorities are fundamentaly given/ built into us by nature and thusly by natures God, but Then we make agreements and regulate based off of a ground up perspective where in England It's top down in it's unique English flavour. Our Declaration of Independance is the document which lays out our seperation from the British crown and core Governing philosophies; Which is then tried in the articles of confederation and the Solidified in The Constitution. The other issue is The slow then rapid change of our rights being based in negative rights and liberty, to Positive rights and safety, the real conjuring of the nanny state which is antithetical to the Core philosophy of the constitution, Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness... I believe, without the adherence to individual soverignty and Lived individual Liberties, America falls, Because what else could be more American in my view...

Isn't the independence of the Central Bank what stops politicians from printing money like crazy? I think that's how it works in some countries at least.

I would definitely be careful not to equate "liberal society," with "managerial technocracy".

Good God, guys. How many adverts!

Carl sounds like ke's been reading Heidegger on thrownnss and being-in-the-world, but if not, he might like his critique of liberalism (and communism, marxism, nazism)

@16:00. Ironically your critique on liberalism being "too rational" is actually being addressed by the other extreme of being too cultural. The self correction of modern liberalism is a focus on identity and multiculturalism. Though it still ignores structures that create either quality.

Yes Benjamin, no one ever used reason and logic before 1800, let alone apply them to practical questions such as politics. How can you even think without liberalism? Basic facts might try to disprove you, but Aristotle and Aquinas were liberals! Peak midwitery

1:28:06 I suppose he never heard of constitutional amendments… 🤷‍♀️😂 Wow… he’s smart but he really dropped the ball here. I never heard that type of desperation for Tradition and Constitution… 😓

If all of these things are needing to be done by parliament, and parliament isn't accomplishing this, and you King isn't wiping parliament calling for new elections, doesn't that suggest the King supports the things being done that the people are complaining about?

1:04:39 Touché! There’s no England, there’s no Englishman without Christ! There’s no Christian morals without Christ! What made England possible was the people’s faith in Christ and living that faith daily by adopting the Christian morals! There’s no such thing as life without faith, you’ll exercise faith in something.. It will either be Christ or whatever else the demons around can exploit to dominate you!

Blair made the Bank of England independent because independent banks usually have lower interest rates, lower inflation and stable currencies. It removes political interference from monetary policy -- i.e. no tendencies to keep interest rates too low in the run-up to a general election.

The nature conclusion of virtue ethics is aristocracy.

Carl, you praised our civil rights act and then expressed admiration for our freedom of association. The US does not have freedom of association. That was eliminated with the civil rights act.

Vervaeke explains how, the rational/empirical part of thought processes, is essentially one, retrospective stage at the end of a neurocognitive process. An empiricist simply argues, that's the most important stage, when it comes to understanding the world, determining useful information, and the like. In spite of his important and groundbreaking work, I can't say I actually align with Vervaeke myself: he's a pseudo-Heideggarian naturalist, and doesn't actually consider himself to be STRICTLY an empiricist, within the domain of philosophy. So, when anyone starts denying empiricism/rationality (primarily empiricism) as the ultimate basis for broad societal structures, and thus to a significant extent, optimal behavioral modalities, I just be like, bruh. Edit: when you observe, and adjust those habits/sentiments, that's the important part (for sane ppl basically) and that's where rational empiricism kicks in.

Is it 2016 again?

Nothing on James Lindsay blocking Carl on Twitter?

Refering to Uks spirituality, i would say that it is in its land, infrustructure, architecture and archaeology. Briton has buildings, ruins and structures that span from 1000 to 2,000 years if not more. They are surrounded by an ancient legacy. Also, their maticulous lagacy of keeping records than span a millennium. The same way my people have their ancient land structures that represent our history and creation stories. A connection to our ancient stories. As for the left coming up with something new, as a once identified lefty who no longer feels connected to it, NO. After 50 years, i have seen nothing work, implimented by the left on their own. I have however, seen policies that work when there is cooperation btw all parties. If we could drop the idea that left or right are the only options of power, and start working with eachother without those restrictions, Then we have something new.

I listen to the lotus eaters every day

It's all about the benjamins

Managerial capitalism was also an aspect of the growth of the technological scope in terms of managing unprecedented feats in logistics and technology that allowed for servicing the millions of people now part of one whole system. I don’t know if you get certain comfortable aspects of tech without these interested managers moving entire corporations towards these things, but I don’t think some of these things are necessary for a prosperous and moral people. The myth making that justifies liberal democracy is the reasoning backbone behind many of these moves makes it appear to be the only logical direction

My hero

Pale interview milk

Free Kekistan

Yes.

I like Sargon a lot, since back when he was more of a memer, but he doesn't do a great job of explaining his positions, sometimes coming off as overly cagey or even hazy on the details. He seems to always go back to liberalism when discussing his ideas and struggles to define his positions other than how they defer from liberalism. I'm on his side but I can't help but feel he overly romanticizes some aspects of the past and assumes too much about how others feel and think. From a thought leader, which I think Sargon aspires to be, I would rather see more of a crystalized vision for what he would like the future to be, concretely how he wants to get there and be able to define those things without having to rely on those he disagrees with to do so.

We failed. We fucked up. The Classical Liberal ideal came from the right place in people's hearts. For the longest time it worked too. The problem is that, like irresponsible teens inheriting a beautiful piece of property, we've forgotten that maintaining a thing and having a thing are too very different proposals. You have to mow the proverbial lawn, trim the hedges, and repaint the siding if you want to keep what you've got. You have to couple the privilege with responsibility and effort. If we don't get back to that crucial balance again...we're lost.

Is the host on ambien?

'Tradition is whatever you want it to be, and rationality never changes'. I think you gotta condition called, 'not knowing your ass from your elbow'.

Regarding the cream rising, the scum can also rise to the top and will hit you if you fail to call them cream. Sadly.

i disagree with GenX not stepping up to the plate. being GenX myself, i might be biased; however, i think GenXers, by and large, are the ones that i see calling BS on the current state of the woke left and the culture war. i think now is our time for our voice to be heard.