The Coming Far Right Backlash
video description
1. While there may be instances of left-wing bias in some institutions, it is not accurate to paint the entire left as controlling all major institutions. While the left may have significant influence in some areas, it is not accurate to paint the entire left as a unified and all-powerful force. The idea that the left controls most major institutions in society is a vague claim that requires more concrete evidence and a comprehensive analysis of the diversity of institutions and their power dynamics. It is essential to recognize that different institutions operate under different rules and regulations, and their influence and impact may vary significantly.
2. The suggestion that young men are being pushed towards rebellion due to a lack of incentives within the current system is a controversial statement. It is important to recognize that individuals' motivations and decisions are complex and cannot be reduced to a single factor.
3. The claim that the collapse of birth rates is leading to a potential shift towards family values and conservatism is a narrow perspective that ignores the diversity of family structures and values in modern society. Moreover, it is important to note that declining birth rates are not solely attributed to left-wing values or policies, but are a global demographic trend.
4. The notion of a new conservative religious revolution centered around Christianity that could last thousands of years is a speculative prediction that lacks evidence or support from historical trends.
5. The examples of conservatives being censored while left-wing figures remain on social media require a more nuanced analysis of the specific reasons for such censorship. While there may be instances of bias and unfair treatment, it is important to consider the context and specific rules and policies of each social media platform.
6. The claim that humanity is inherently not good is a controversial and pessimistic view that lacks empirical evidence and fails to recognize the diversity of human experiences and behavior. While there may be instances of harmful behavior, it is not accurate to paint all of humanity as inherently flawed.
7. The argument that healthy societies view their traditions as a castle against the chaos of the world, but most societies are incapable of changing their traditions, leading to fossilization, is a limited and narrow perspective that fails to recognize the diversity of cultural practices and their dynamic nature.
8. The characterization of the modern left as attempting to build a Coalition of losers is a reductive and dismissive characterization that fails to recognize the diversity of groups and individuals that align with left-wing politics. The speaker's claim that the left's Coalition is designed off groups that have failed to end up in the ruling Coalition is also an oversimplification that ignores the complexity of political coalitions and the evolving nature of political ideologies.
9. The argument that the left's agenda of transnational feminine pacifist toxic anti-racist progressivism cannot work due to the gendered nature of society's major institutions is a problematic perspective that fails to recognize the diversity of perspectives and experiences within these institutions.
10. The claim that the left's lack of sense of stability dooms their movement is a simplistic analysis that overlooks the complex social and political factors that contribute to the success or failure of political movements.
Date: 2023-04-11
Related videos
• TED-Ed
Comments and reviews: 14
Alec
I think this is a good discussion, but many of your points on Rome are waaaay off, and I don't like that kind of misinformation.
Describing the end of the Republic as a 'liberal' winning power is miles off, really what made the Republic so insanely powerful for a period of several decades was an economic death spiral.
Slaves put small time farmers out of work --> Small time farmers, lacking income and purpose either themselves or their children join the military --> The military generates a vast quantity of cheap slaves --> Military service guarantees land acquisition when you retire --> Value of lands raises as Slavery becomes more valuable --> Slaves put farmers out of work --> Farmers become soldiers etc etc
Liberalism and Conservatism is meaningless division, what is needed is REFORM. The next phase of politics that takes hold will end up being truly alien to both of the current entrenched parties, simply because these parties are incapable of reforming the society in any coherent way, or getting competent people to run society and make those big changes. The USA's left right split was really originally an Expansionism vs Internal Development party war. That's why you get weird situations in history like the Democrats technically flipping almost every stance they had in a matter of years at one point in history.
What killed the Republic was the LACK of reform under the Gracchi Brothers, and the conservative establishment in the Senate denying any reform, even as massive amounts of farm land fell fallow and unused. The Gracchis were radical and a bit out there, leading to them being assassinated, causing Sulla to put in some levels of their reforms.
Several decades later, surprise surprise, Julius Caesar, a guy who lost everything as a child including much of his family to Sulla's purges idolized the Gracchi's and pushed their reforms to its extremes, once the civil wars died down the vast majority of Caesar's reforms literally stayed intact for decades, and literally for millennia for his Governorship and taxation reforms. What made Rome great was that its society under the Republic was a fine tuned blood soaked machine that brought the most competent people in society up to the very top and gave them the capability to take total control if needed through Dictatorship. The very moment their society was incapable of having a literal revolution fix the problem (as it did several times) and reform was shut down then the Republic was instantly put on life support.
Sadly, the Right Wing is incapable of any meaningful reforms, and the Left Wing actively wants to take reforms that would deepen our societies current issues. So, who knows how all this stuff is going to end up really, it's going to get crazy for about two decades though.
reply
I think this is a good discussion, but many of your points on Rome are waaaay off, and I don't like that kind of misinformation.
Describing the end of the Republic as a 'liberal' winning power is miles off, really what made the Republic so insanely powerful for a period of several decades was an economic death spiral.
Slaves put small time farmers out of work --> Small time farmers, lacking income and purpose either themselves or their children join the military --> The military generates a vast quantity of cheap slaves --> Military service guarantees land acquisition when you retire --> Value of lands raises as Slavery becomes more valuable --> Slaves put farmers out of work --> Farmers become soldiers etc etc
Liberalism and Conservatism is meaningless division, what is needed is REFORM. The next phase of politics that takes hold will end up being truly alien to both of the current entrenched parties, simply because these parties are incapable of reforming the society in any coherent way, or getting competent people to run society and make those big changes. The USA's left right split was really originally an Expansionism vs Internal Development party war. That's why you get weird situations in history like the Democrats technically flipping almost every stance they had in a matter of years at one point in history.
What killed the Republic was the LACK of reform under the Gracchi Brothers, and the conservative establishment in the Senate denying any reform, even as massive amounts of farm land fell fallow and unused. The Gracchis were radical and a bit out there, leading to them being assassinated, causing Sulla to put in some levels of their reforms.
Several decades later, surprise surprise, Julius Caesar, a guy who lost everything as a child including much of his family to Sulla's purges idolized the Gracchi's and pushed their reforms to its extremes, once the civil wars died down the vast majority of Caesar's reforms literally stayed intact for decades, and literally for millennia for his Governorship and taxation reforms. What made Rome great was that its society under the Republic was a fine tuned blood soaked machine that brought the most competent people in society up to the very top and gave them the capability to take total control if needed through Dictatorship. The very moment their society was incapable of having a literal revolution fix the problem (as it did several times) and reform was shut down then the Republic was instantly put on life support.
Sadly, the Right Wing is incapable of any meaningful reforms, and the Left Wing actively wants to take reforms that would deepen our societies current issues. So, who knows how all this stuff is going to end up really, it's going to get crazy for about two decades though.
reply
education
The disillusionment of the youth towards the system has two responses. The far left want to deconstruct the construct that failed them, to create a utopian one, the far right want to re-construct a romanticised past they believe will meet their aspirations.
Reactionary subcultures that come up trying to change the dominant culture that failed them become toxic as they throw out the good along with the bad. The far left discard the good of the past, the far right the good of any progress.
Nihilism, resentment and rebellion against those that told them to expect beauty, where they found ugliness results in limbically hijacking them. Tired and enraged at the world, people will cope by becoming mental refugees seeking refuge from their mind, rather than an evolution of it. To cope with a complex world, people will stop trying to think through its complexity.
Far right conservatives do this when they revert to the past and tradition as a shortcut to thinking, as do the far left liberals when they use freedom to free themselves of thinking of the consequences of any of their actions. Both are too spent and lack the balanced state needed to create a new but balanced world.
As the pace of change accelerates, people will seek that which never changes as a sanctuary amongst the whirlpool of complexity and change the modern world subjects them to - tradition and religion.
The concern is that people use sanctuaries to sanction themselves from their own evolution. An exhausted mind and soul in a dazed world, seeks relief from the mind and soul rather than holy revolution of it.
The far lefts fire of rage burns any tradition to its ashes, including the wisdom that lit and established those traditions. The far right hold onto the ashes of tradition and religion without the fire of understanding that lit and established them.
The inverse of the slippery slope of freedom the far left love, is the slippery slope of prohibition and control by the far right. Excess of which leads to rigidity, repression, resentment and rebellion, making it less robust as it s a system that needs to be enforced rather than encouraged.
The pendulum swings left to right and doing so in each direction as it gathers momentum to swing the other way.
reply
The disillusionment of the youth towards the system has two responses. The far left want to deconstruct the construct that failed them, to create a utopian one, the far right want to re-construct a romanticised past they believe will meet their aspirations.
Reactionary subcultures that come up trying to change the dominant culture that failed them become toxic as they throw out the good along with the bad. The far left discard the good of the past, the far right the good of any progress.
Nihilism, resentment and rebellion against those that told them to expect beauty, where they found ugliness results in limbically hijacking them. Tired and enraged at the world, people will cope by becoming mental refugees seeking refuge from their mind, rather than an evolution of it. To cope with a complex world, people will stop trying to think through its complexity.
Far right conservatives do this when they revert to the past and tradition as a shortcut to thinking, as do the far left liberals when they use freedom to free themselves of thinking of the consequences of any of their actions. Both are too spent and lack the balanced state needed to create a new but balanced world.
As the pace of change accelerates, people will seek that which never changes as a sanctuary amongst the whirlpool of complexity and change the modern world subjects them to - tradition and religion.
The concern is that people use sanctuaries to sanction themselves from their own evolution. An exhausted mind and soul in a dazed world, seeks relief from the mind and soul rather than holy revolution of it.
The far lefts fire of rage burns any tradition to its ashes, including the wisdom that lit and established those traditions. The far right hold onto the ashes of tradition and religion without the fire of understanding that lit and established them.
The inverse of the slippery slope of freedom the far left love, is the slippery slope of prohibition and control by the far right. Excess of which leads to rigidity, repression, resentment and rebellion, making it less robust as it s a system that needs to be enforced rather than encouraged.
The pendulum swings left to right and doing so in each direction as it gathers momentum to swing the other way.
reply
kolkedd
So, I have to say, I've been following your page for a while and think you make a lot of great content. However, I am noticing a trend that as time progresses, you are identifying more as Right wing and as a result of this conviction, I think the quality of your videos is declining. I actually had to start taking notes to record the number of objections I had with your arguments in this video because it was too much to keep up with.
That said, there is a lot here I agree with. I'm very concerned that the western left has no plan, or maybe even desire to acheieve its long-term goals. And that their ineffective fumbling will provoke a harsh right-wing response. So the overall thesis I would largely agree with.
If I were to pinpoint my main criticism with this piece, it revolves heavily around the context and tone of the video. Although you posit yourself as an academic, who merely wants to study and explain the changes in society over time, I think this video protrays something else, perhaps that this topic is too close to the chest. I think the underlying message of this video sounds earily similar to a call to action or worse, a thinly veiled threat. You spend a lot of time justifying the views of these angry young men as you call them, and pit them against the dramatic metaphor or The Leviathan, which serves to anthropmorphise everything wrong with the left. It seems to me that this fits neatly with the type of conspiratorial thinking and rightious indignation that will fuel the right wing violence that you describe, which I also see reflected in your (mostly young, mostly male) comment section.
I can't help but see this video as being written from the perspective of the angry young men about whom you are speaking.
In any case, thank you for making this, it wa thought provoking nonetheless. If you would like to discuss these views in more detail, I would love the opportunity to do so with you.
reply
So, I have to say, I've been following your page for a while and think you make a lot of great content. However, I am noticing a trend that as time progresses, you are identifying more as Right wing and as a result of this conviction, I think the quality of your videos is declining. I actually had to start taking notes to record the number of objections I had with your arguments in this video because it was too much to keep up with.
That said, there is a lot here I agree with. I'm very concerned that the western left has no plan, or maybe even desire to acheieve its long-term goals. And that their ineffective fumbling will provoke a harsh right-wing response. So the overall thesis I would largely agree with.
If I were to pinpoint my main criticism with this piece, it revolves heavily around the context and tone of the video. Although you posit yourself as an academic, who merely wants to study and explain the changes in society over time, I think this video protrays something else, perhaps that this topic is too close to the chest. I think the underlying message of this video sounds earily similar to a call to action or worse, a thinly veiled threat. You spend a lot of time justifying the views of these angry young men as you call them, and pit them against the dramatic metaphor or The Leviathan, which serves to anthropmorphise everything wrong with the left. It seems to me that this fits neatly with the type of conspiratorial thinking and rightious indignation that will fuel the right wing violence that you describe, which I also see reflected in your (mostly young, mostly male) comment section.
I can't help but see this video as being written from the perspective of the angry young men about whom you are speaking.
In any case, thank you for making this, it wa thought provoking nonetheless. If you would like to discuss these views in more detail, I would love the opportunity to do so with you.
reply
Swaggoffosaur
In 1920, women gained the right to vote. We all know that, but I don't think anybody appreciates how earth-shattering that event really was. In an instant, a country that had been fought for tooth and nail by men was handed over to women. In democracy, the majority rules, and can rig the system for their benefit. Women (+ simps) are the majority voters now, and they always will be. Women, unlike men, have an in-group preference. They are the majority in a country that they will never have to bear arms to defend. They influence 80% of consumer spending, though they make less than half of the money. It sounds awful, but I don't think the leviathan will die while women can still vote.
Nothing crazy is going to happen until the final generation of boomer politicians dies off. Joe Biden is the last gasp of a generation of liberal politicians who were still somewhat palatable to young men - when he gets replaced by a Kamala Harris figure, and when this figure gets elected into high office, all hell is going to break loose. Laws are going to be passed that put the right over the edge (reparations is the most likely candidate. If we're lucky, the military leads an intervention and we find a bloodless way to resolve things. The most bloodless way would be to restrict voting rights. This would contradict one of america's core values that everybody deserves a vote, BUT, if the majority of voters in our democracy vote to oppress young men to the point where it incites violence, there's no other way. unless you forcibly reduce the population of the majority until they're a minority. I hope to god it doesn't come to that.
I hope the next generation of military leaders thinks along these lines. The cynic in me says no, as anybody who is enough of a big shot to lead that institution will have all the money/women they desire, and will be invested in the status quo.
reply
In 1920, women gained the right to vote. We all know that, but I don't think anybody appreciates how earth-shattering that event really was. In an instant, a country that had been fought for tooth and nail by men was handed over to women. In democracy, the majority rules, and can rig the system for their benefit. Women (+ simps) are the majority voters now, and they always will be. Women, unlike men, have an in-group preference. They are the majority in a country that they will never have to bear arms to defend. They influence 80% of consumer spending, though they make less than half of the money. It sounds awful, but I don't think the leviathan will die while women can still vote.
Nothing crazy is going to happen until the final generation of boomer politicians dies off. Joe Biden is the last gasp of a generation of liberal politicians who were still somewhat palatable to young men - when he gets replaced by a Kamala Harris figure, and when this figure gets elected into high office, all hell is going to break loose. Laws are going to be passed that put the right over the edge (reparations is the most likely candidate. If we're lucky, the military leads an intervention and we find a bloodless way to resolve things. The most bloodless way would be to restrict voting rights. This would contradict one of america's core values that everybody deserves a vote, BUT, if the majority of voters in our democracy vote to oppress young men to the point where it incites violence, there's no other way. unless you forcibly reduce the population of the majority until they're a minority. I hope to god it doesn't come to that.
I hope the next generation of military leaders thinks along these lines. The cynic in me says no, as anybody who is enough of a big shot to lead that institution will have all the money/women they desire, and will be invested in the status quo.
reply
education
I build predictive excel modelling for consumer behavior. Sounded boring when I was first asked to do it and no one at that time really had a canned type analysis or form to follow so I just started studying consumer behavior in a variety of markets from real estate to technology to retail to food and I found that the same motivation theory forces shaped any given company's growth trajectory. Where you start out is always with your assumptions, which are all variable and at times very subjective. If you get a single assumption wrong the entire model is garbage as the assumptions are the variables that drive the objective numbers and financial projections. What I'm hearing in this video is a challenge to our leftist institutions' core assumptions re: human behavior and thus the results as they extrapolate have deviated further and further from the desired results. Rather than re-evaluate assumptions on the left they appear to be doubling and tripling down which will cause exponentially worse deviation from reality and results we can see with our own eyes. A model that is unwilling to constantly challenge its original assumptions will never reach that holy grail of true value proposition to its customers but will instead continue to force unwanted items or services on those asked to pay for them. DC is in and of itself a gigantic institution that in large part due to its size is clearly in the deep rut of institutional entropy where nothing really changes because there is a severe lack of synergy and coordinated effort. In such a case of institutional entropy the worst thing you can do is throw more money at it because it will simply result in more people acting in a disjointed and unorganized manner further worsening the entropy.
reply
I build predictive excel modelling for consumer behavior. Sounded boring when I was first asked to do it and no one at that time really had a canned type analysis or form to follow so I just started studying consumer behavior in a variety of markets from real estate to technology to retail to food and I found that the same motivation theory forces shaped any given company's growth trajectory. Where you start out is always with your assumptions, which are all variable and at times very subjective. If you get a single assumption wrong the entire model is garbage as the assumptions are the variables that drive the objective numbers and financial projections. What I'm hearing in this video is a challenge to our leftist institutions' core assumptions re: human behavior and thus the results as they extrapolate have deviated further and further from the desired results. Rather than re-evaluate assumptions on the left they appear to be doubling and tripling down which will cause exponentially worse deviation from reality and results we can see with our own eyes. A model that is unwilling to constantly challenge its original assumptions will never reach that holy grail of true value proposition to its customers but will instead continue to force unwanted items or services on those asked to pay for them. DC is in and of itself a gigantic institution that in large part due to its size is clearly in the deep rut of institutional entropy where nothing really changes because there is a severe lack of synergy and coordinated effort. In such a case of institutional entropy the worst thing you can do is throw more money at it because it will simply result in more people acting in a disjointed and unorganized manner further worsening the entropy.
reply
yoda
I am concidering centrist Myself as im still fairly young and cant say if i agree with left or right: i see bad and good in both, but if id have to choose id choose right winged politics for fighting against crysis and going fowards to better future.
Modern leftism seems to me it does create crysises more than it does find solution, whike right, while yes, facsim and natsoc itself was creation of Crysis situation in Italy and Germany at its time.
In 1930s America was competley diffrent and had its own Crysis. Id also like to say that im still unsure if Roosevelt was either left or right, but concidering US was trying to be pacifist nation and was dealing with great Depression, wich spread over world, and i honestly blame it for ww2, i think winning world war for second time made US and allies get towards golden age of USA and the West. (late 1940s - 1980/90s.
Also not to forget, great Depression happent after great war and dpanish influenza, that lead to yet another war.
I can see parallels with modern politics here andni can say safely, no good is coming, becoming left aligent in democratic values made us become what we shouldve avoided for another crysis.
Only hope is that either an conservative or either sensefull leftist, like franlkin delano roosvelt, or maybe kennedy, can show into modern american landscape.
I myself being europian, hope such figure shows also into europian Unions politics and slowly Cuts towards the chase and fixes abn rotting corpse, before what i concider an human value, the freedom of speech, gets replaced by either right or left totaliranist regime with marks of either socialism or facism
reply
I am concidering centrist Myself as im still fairly young and cant say if i agree with left or right: i see bad and good in both, but if id have to choose id choose right winged politics for fighting against crysis and going fowards to better future.
Modern leftism seems to me it does create crysises more than it does find solution, whike right, while yes, facsim and natsoc itself was creation of Crysis situation in Italy and Germany at its time.
In 1930s America was competley diffrent and had its own Crysis. Id also like to say that im still unsure if Roosevelt was either left or right, but concidering US was trying to be pacifist nation and was dealing with great Depression, wich spread over world, and i honestly blame it for ww2, i think winning world war for second time made US and allies get towards golden age of USA and the West. (late 1940s - 1980/90s.
Also not to forget, great Depression happent after great war and dpanish influenza, that lead to yet another war.
I can see parallels with modern politics here andni can say safely, no good is coming, becoming left aligent in democratic values made us become what we shouldve avoided for another crysis.
Only hope is that either an conservative or either sensefull leftist, like franlkin delano roosvelt, or maybe kennedy, can show into modern american landscape.
I myself being europian, hope such figure shows also into europian Unions politics and slowly Cuts towards the chase and fixes abn rotting corpse, before what i concider an human value, the freedom of speech, gets replaced by either right or left totaliranist regime with marks of either socialism or facism
reply
BlueJ
5: 34
Just to be clear, when it's said that two human beings are equal it is always despite of their biological, mental and cultural differences. Of course men and women aren't equal in biology and physiology, as different nationalities aren't equal in culture, as different people aren't equal in mind. But we all need to understand that those differences just aren't the focus when referring to the value of human life and human needs. Every human life represents a human life, a life that faces hardships of different kind and suffers from them in different ways. The point was never if we all suffer and experience the same, but if simply we all suffer. And if we are able to suffer we need specific attention and care, as the social mammals we are.
All humans deserve to feel that their needs are equally prioritize and their lifes are equal by the eyes of the group.
No one is equal but everyone deserves the same attention to their needs. Everyone deserves to feel they are not inferior because of their differences. They are human lifes, and that's what matters.
I don't know if it's intentional, but the argument of People aren't equal in value because they have differences totally misses the point and distorts the pretend message with a really narrow perspective on human value.
Thank you for you attention if you read this far and please be free to argue with this comment.
reply
5: 34
Just to be clear, when it's said that two human beings are equal it is always despite of their biological, mental and cultural differences. Of course men and women aren't equal in biology and physiology, as different nationalities aren't equal in culture, as different people aren't equal in mind. But we all need to understand that those differences just aren't the focus when referring to the value of human life and human needs. Every human life represents a human life, a life that faces hardships of different kind and suffers from them in different ways. The point was never if we all suffer and experience the same, but if simply we all suffer. And if we are able to suffer we need specific attention and care, as the social mammals we are.
All humans deserve to feel that their needs are equally prioritize and their lifes are equal by the eyes of the group.
No one is equal but everyone deserves the same attention to their needs. Everyone deserves to feel they are not inferior because of their differences. They are human lifes, and that's what matters.
I don't know if it's intentional, but the argument of People aren't equal in value because they have differences totally misses the point and distorts the pretend message with a really narrow perspective on human value.
Thank you for you attention if you read this far and please be free to argue with this comment.
reply
rederiksen
The framing of Left vs. Right has never been very accurate, and it tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily. This video (which I greatly enjoyed) is about the battle between Social Progressivism and Social Conservatism. The current American political party that is beholden to Social Progressivism (i. e. the Democratic Party) is still largely neoliberal and has a strong economically and fiscally conservative contingent.
The unspoken deal between federal Democrats and Republicans (in the main) is to preserve the economic status quo as much as possible, being that they all live very comfortably off of it ( see investment portfolios and capital gains of Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders.
The point being that it's really just culture war issues that this video deals with, and the Left vs. Right framing often leads people to think in terms of economic and fiscal issues. But, it was in fact the Democratic Party that did away with Bernie Sanders' presidential ambitions in 2020. So, if the Democrats and Republicans are both anti-Socialist, then who's on the Left? Hence my suggestion of Social Progressives vs. Social Conservatives as a more accurate framing for the subject of this video.
reply
The framing of Left vs. Right has never been very accurate, and it tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily. This video (which I greatly enjoyed) is about the battle between Social Progressivism and Social Conservatism. The current American political party that is beholden to Social Progressivism (i. e. the Democratic Party) is still largely neoliberal and has a strong economically and fiscally conservative contingent.
The unspoken deal between federal Democrats and Republicans (in the main) is to preserve the economic status quo as much as possible, being that they all live very comfortably off of it ( see investment portfolios and capital gains of Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders.
The point being that it's really just culture war issues that this video deals with, and the Left vs. Right framing often leads people to think in terms of economic and fiscal issues. But, it was in fact the Democratic Party that did away with Bernie Sanders' presidential ambitions in 2020. So, if the Democrats and Republicans are both anti-Socialist, then who's on the Left? Hence my suggestion of Social Progressives vs. Social Conservatives as a more accurate framing for the subject of this video.
reply
STANLEY
i used to be resentful when i was in uni, now im 26 making a decent amount of money and women are chasing me and my mates down trying hard but we all relaxed focusing on our careers after being shunned for so long. that's what i rate will happen. 18-23 women are going to be extreme feminists then they will go through hard times being single and hating it from 23-28 and at 28 they wake up and stop their crap or stay single. unfortunately we society used to correct unsustainable behavior but now with left being so loud nobody can say anything so we have to wait for people to realize thier own failing. so i rate society will slow down. the average age for losing virginity or starting a family will move up. sometimes men really do need a women to tell us wjhat to do but we are not getting that until 5 years later thanwe used to so we cant afford families until later. but there is still that biological clock that hit women. so i rate there is only so far the left can go before the biological clock limits the movement.
Rome also failed because they had a centralized army that was mobile enough, they should have provincial armies like the byzantines.
reply
i used to be resentful when i was in uni, now im 26 making a decent amount of money and women are chasing me and my mates down trying hard but we all relaxed focusing on our careers after being shunned for so long. that's what i rate will happen. 18-23 women are going to be extreme feminists then they will go through hard times being single and hating it from 23-28 and at 28 they wake up and stop their crap or stay single. unfortunately we society used to correct unsustainable behavior but now with left being so loud nobody can say anything so we have to wait for people to realize thier own failing. so i rate society will slow down. the average age for losing virginity or starting a family will move up. sometimes men really do need a women to tell us wjhat to do but we are not getting that until 5 years later thanwe used to so we cant afford families until later. but there is still that biological clock that hit women. so i rate there is only so far the left can go before the biological clock limits the movement.
Rome also failed because they had a centralized army that was mobile enough, they should have provincial armies like the byzantines.
reply
Dreim
Idk if it s just me but I feel like Whatifalthist vids have became increasingly more ideologically driven which is kind of sad because I learned a lot listening to these. It seems like he s fallen victim to the polarization trap that he speaks about here.
The modern dating marketplace discourse now seems to be imbued in all of them. Even the anecdote he gave about his CEO and celebrity friends being unmarried. I feel like any ounce of critical thinking one would reason this is probably because settling down isn t a very appealing offer to highly successful individuals in their (presumably) 20s or 30s rather than an indictment on modern women being too woke or whatever. The notion that woke culture is why young people aren t starting families is a convenient scapegoat for the very real problem that financial circumstances of most people prevent this from feeling attainable.
Even the point about how woke corporations won t be able to sustain themselves, Whatifalthist never mentioned ESG-investing and how this could play a role in driving decision-making at the companies he mentioned and instead just blamed it on women and minorities.
reply
Idk if it s just me but I feel like Whatifalthist vids have became increasingly more ideologically driven which is kind of sad because I learned a lot listening to these. It seems like he s fallen victim to the polarization trap that he speaks about here.
The modern dating marketplace discourse now seems to be imbued in all of them. Even the anecdote he gave about his CEO and celebrity friends being unmarried. I feel like any ounce of critical thinking one would reason this is probably because settling down isn t a very appealing offer to highly successful individuals in their (presumably) 20s or 30s rather than an indictment on modern women being too woke or whatever. The notion that woke culture is why young people aren t starting families is a convenient scapegoat for the very real problem that financial circumstances of most people prevent this from feeling attainable.
Even the point about how woke corporations won t be able to sustain themselves, Whatifalthist never mentioned ESG-investing and how this could play a role in driving decision-making at the companies he mentioned and instead just blamed it on women and minorities.
reply
Thrombo
Humans need to create better societies by moderating our inbuilt greed.
The problem I see on both sides of the political aisle is that those who rise to the top have a tendency to always want more. There are people who have more wealth and money to last their life time and the life time of their kids and yet distributing the excess to them seems revolting - even though they realize that a struggle free life and removing the need to work hard is detrimental. Feminism was righteous when women could NOT do and act with self-determination in the same capacity as men, but that wasn't enough and it was too tempting to use past injustice to push for more power and more resources.
Injustice begets backlash causing injustice. and we need to set up a society that gives people the right incentives without being overbearing, gives freedoms in conjunction with responsibility and provide chance for intra-group compeptition to boost productivity while retaining a strong capability for group action to fight problems to big for any one of us (like climate change.
Sadly, I don't see many attempts to build a system to carry such a society.
reply
Humans need to create better societies by moderating our inbuilt greed.
The problem I see on both sides of the political aisle is that those who rise to the top have a tendency to always want more. There are people who have more wealth and money to last their life time and the life time of their kids and yet distributing the excess to them seems revolting - even though they realize that a struggle free life and removing the need to work hard is detrimental. Feminism was righteous when women could NOT do and act with self-determination in the same capacity as men, but that wasn't enough and it was too tempting to use past injustice to push for more power and more resources.
Injustice begets backlash causing injustice. and we need to set up a society that gives people the right incentives without being overbearing, gives freedoms in conjunction with responsibility and provide chance for intra-group compeptition to boost productivity while retaining a strong capability for group action to fight problems to big for any one of us (like climate change.
Sadly, I don't see many attempts to build a system to carry such a society.
reply
Kevin
Not sure how this works on a macro level. but on a personal level. i was raised that nothing in life is supposed to be 'fair' and no one every promised you that life would be fair. so it is just up to you to do the best you can to work with others around you with reasonable fairness. Now. many years on from that time. i found that i have a pretty even tempered approach to fairness. and a pretty live and let live approach to these things. i never went though a period of time where looking at all the 'unfairness' in the world and being overwhelmed by it. thus over reacting and acting out in rather unproductive ways. so i guess i am saying. it is an issue of expectations and coping. meaning. if you are raised with a more realistic view of what fairness is and what can be attained. then you are better equipped to deal with this 'unfairness' when confronted with it. and can avoid the perils and overreaction that often accompanies being overwhelmed with no real method to cope with what you are experiencing. anyway. hope that makes sense. just sayin.
reply
Not sure how this works on a macro level. but on a personal level. i was raised that nothing in life is supposed to be 'fair' and no one every promised you that life would be fair. so it is just up to you to do the best you can to work with others around you with reasonable fairness. Now. many years on from that time. i found that i have a pretty even tempered approach to fairness. and a pretty live and let live approach to these things. i never went though a period of time where looking at all the 'unfairness' in the world and being overwhelmed by it. thus over reacting and acting out in rather unproductive ways. so i guess i am saying. it is an issue of expectations and coping. meaning. if you are raised with a more realistic view of what fairness is and what can be attained. then you are better equipped to deal with this 'unfairness' when confronted with it. and can avoid the perils and overreaction that often accompanies being overwhelmed with no real method to cope with what you are experiencing. anyway. hope that makes sense. just sayin.
reply
RFM003
So I agree with your statement that we ll see a political crisis in the next couple of decades and that the social order will change but I disagree with your framework. You overstate some aspects like wokeness which is already falling out of fashion, and understate the economic precariousness that a majority of young people are facing. Because of this you do see the backlash to be less organic and more right wing but really the changing social order will be populist. The thing about populism though is that it s very heterodox so you ll see many different parts of the populist coalition push and get their parts of the change enacted one at a time. The rise of the far right that you see is fundamentally true but that s really the result of culture war which draws attention from where we are really getting screwed. Whatif your incredibly intelligent and need to transcend the left right spectrum and start branching out of your ecosystem a little. Your very astute as it is but you have to take a honest look at your framework.
reply
So I agree with your statement that we ll see a political crisis in the next couple of decades and that the social order will change but I disagree with your framework. You overstate some aspects like wokeness which is already falling out of fashion, and understate the economic precariousness that a majority of young people are facing. Because of this you do see the backlash to be less organic and more right wing but really the changing social order will be populist. The thing about populism though is that it s very heterodox so you ll see many different parts of the populist coalition push and get their parts of the change enacted one at a time. The rise of the far right that you see is fundamentally true but that s really the result of culture war which draws attention from where we are really getting screwed. Whatif your incredibly intelligent and need to transcend the left right spectrum and start branching out of your ecosystem a little. Your very astute as it is but you have to take a honest look at your framework.
reply
Horace
I think one faction you're missing is the patriotic nationalist men (who aren't disenfranchised or redpilled as such, and politically the National Conservatives. Those blokes who don't hate themselves, love their country and fly the flag with pride, won't stand for people crapping on it, and don't want it to die. I suspect this may be a rallying cry for those in Gen X who remember better times when we were more confident and self-assured (and it's X's time to now take the reins. Some of my friends (in their 40's) get upset when reflecting on what it was like to grow up in the 70's, 80's and 90's when it was a good thing to be an Aussie. If there is going to be a unifying factor on the right, I think it will be the preservation of our way of life and pride in it's history, customs and culture. As a proud and relatively masculine man, I find this mental state of self-loathing and masochism to be utterly intolerable.
reply
I think one faction you're missing is the patriotic nationalist men (who aren't disenfranchised or redpilled as such, and politically the National Conservatives. Those blokes who don't hate themselves, love their country and fly the flag with pride, won't stand for people crapping on it, and don't want it to die. I suspect this may be a rallying cry for those in Gen X who remember better times when we were more confident and self-assured (and it's X's time to now take the reins. Some of my friends (in their 40's) get upset when reflecting on what it was like to grow up in the 70's, 80's and 90's when it was a good thing to be an Aussie. If there is going to be a unifying factor on the right, I think it will be the preservation of our way of life and pride in it's history, customs and culture. As a proud and relatively masculine man, I find this mental state of self-loathing and masochism to be utterly intolerable.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
