"Philosophers and the birth of National Socialism" - meeting with Professor Stephen Hicks

Meeting with Professor Stephen Hicks at the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk - "Philosophers and the birth of National Socialism".

[@ChopinIsMyBestFriend]

What an incredibly difficult thing to do, having to translate a long winded philosophical discussion in real time. God bless that lady.

[@dreamdiction]

Everything Hicks says about the effect of philosophy on National Socialism equally applies to the responsibility of philosophy for creating Communism. Why was there no Nuremberg Tribunal for Communism?

[@Sunster2000]

Because they were among the winners.

[@acaydia2982]

Because they won

[@ethanschmitt8419]

If this critique is about the lack of emphasis on socialist ideology, then look up Hicks. He’s got a whole book about it

[@sof553]

US dropped two nukes and incinerated 100,000’s of non-combatants men, women and children. One of the worse war crimes in human history. Like everyone else pointed out they weren’t prosecuted because they won.

[@nielsvwinden]

You guys realize democracy was created by a philosopher as well right?

[@paigemccormick6519]

Dr. Hicks, what a beautiful sculpture of thought and language, especially for a foreign-speaking audience.

[@paigemccormick6519]

@Auspician Mine was an honest review. Have you sculpted thought and language for a foreign-speaking audience? P.S. No offense, none taken. :)

[@paigemccormick6519]

@Simon Archbold Point taken. I would not have noticed (and didn't). WWJMD (what would John McWhorter do?).

[@StephenCowley001]

"Revisionism is the great intellectual adventure of the 21st century." - Robert Faurisson.

[@StephenCowley001]

@Jesper Jansen Chomsky defended free speech, whereas Faurisson said that there was no right to say something that could be proved in court to be untrue and so he kept going to court until his death. Faurisson died last year. I don't know of any evidence emerging that he wasn't sincere.

[@intboom]

@@StephenCowley001 It sounds like a rather impractical and stifling way to live, however.

[@Ailsworth]

And in this case we get a redirection, a revision of the revision - a reversion of the revision. All the things spoken about in this talk were well known in the in the 1960s. The revisions began immediately. Thank goodness C. Hitchens's last refinement has run it off the rails, prompting the redirection. Shirer clearly and carefully lays-out the philosophical roots of Nazism in his famous book - but who reads anymore? John Toland too dives pretty deeply into the mind of Hitler, but that was back in the 70s. Hitler aint the same as he used to be, right?

[@dropanukeonusaagain6606]

revisionism of what ?

[@ulisirius9027]

Globalism is taking over the world. Teil 1 : Der subjektlose Prozess der Verwertung des Werts aus Wert mehr Wert zu generieren führt vermittelt durch den stummen Zwang der Konkurrenz zum Prozess des Kapitals zum Weltkapital. Dabei bleiben schwache Nationen auf der Strecke, mittlere werden unterhöhlt, starke bilden Tiefe Staaten aus. Bei diesem Prozess bildet sich eine transnationale Ebene , bestehend aus Multis, Multikultis, NGOs, EU usw.. ( Globalisierung). Globalismus befördert diesen Prozess, bewusst wie bewusstlos. Teil 2 Vermittelt durch den stummen Zwang der Konkurrenz, dem Neid, der Gier, ab er auch dem Wunsch nach Sorgfalt, der ökologischen Rückverfolgbarkeit, der Bekämpfung von Kriminalität, Steuerhinterziehung, dem Wunsch zu kennen was der Konsument wie konsumiert, dem Wunsch nach Kontrolle, der besseren Konsumierbarkeit, der immanenten technischen Entwicklung bedingt auch durch mögliche Kriege usw., wird die Technologie, Information, Konsumption, Produktion zusammengeschaltet gleichgeschaltet und immer mehr werden angeschlossen. Immer mehr wird vercodet und gechipt.Die industrielle Maschinerie verschmilzt mit dem Organischen und der nationalen Staatsmaschine. Alles was hergestellt wird kommt in die Maschine alles was benötigt wird aus der Maschine. Güter fliessen in der Maschine. Alle sind angeschlossen. Überall ist Zentrum. Teil 3 Rückkopplung des Konsums in die Produktion geschieht automatisch. Jeder Wunsch jede Ab- Stimmung wird erfasst und koppelt sich in die Maschine zurück Das Marketing möchte das wie, wann wo und warum kennen. Cookies werden losgeschickt und implementiert. Zentralisierung der Macht führt zum planetaren Kontrollstellen wie im Bankenwesen. Digitalisierung führt zur Abschaffung des Bar- Geldes. Teil 4 Das Warenuniversum des Kapitals und seine Logik ist imperial und total. Alles wird absorbiert, verschiedenes wird verglichen, bedingt durch das Geld, dem Gleichmacher, es ist Vergleichung. Die Egalité ist was sehr kapitalistisches. Das Kapital geht mit der Communis schwanger. Teil 5 Jede Abstimmung immerzu soll da in Perfektion erfasst sein und keine Ab- Stimmung soll verloren gehen. Die Geldmonaden, das formvollendete Individuum soll da schwirren in der Zirkulation, global total. Frei verfügbar soll die Arbeitskraft weltweit verwertet werden können. Nationalstaaten sind heute dafür nur noch hinderlich. Die reine Plutokratie ist durchgesetztes Weltkapital. Radikal imperial. Formvollendete Verhandelbarkeit von allem Abstimmbarkeit über jedes Vegleichbarkeit von allem. D.h. auch Austauschbarkeit. Voilà der Globalfaschismus als vollendete Plutokratie. Dieser kann mehr technokratische, mehr ökofaschistische Züge haben, er kann auch oszillieren. Hängt wohl von der Verlaufsform ab. Teil 6 Vergleichung ist dem Gelde immanent. Irgend ein Schnösel legt ein Sack davon auf den Tisch. Wer Gleichheit ablehnt muss das Geldsystem ablehnen. So liegt in der Unterhölung des Bargeldes immer auch die Kontrolle, der Kontrollwunsch. Die Krise kann zu Reformgeld aber auch zur Weltkastenherrschaft führen. Die Eliten können direkt durchregieren. Voilà, Globalfaschismus als Kastenherrschaft. Teil 7 Die Digitalisierung führt zur weiteren Machtkonzentration aber auch der Abschaffung des Bargeldes. Da alle an die Maschine angeschlossen sind kann theoretisch eben auch die Dazwischenkunft des Geldes ganz abgeschafft werden. Die Leute nehmen sich das was sie benötigen "aus" der Maschine. Was knapp ist wird via Zufallsgeneratoren zugewiesen. Jeder ist qua Geburt oder Zeugung darin. Alle sind schlussendlich eingebetet in die Maschine. Es gibt kein Aussen mehr. Alle Universa und Dimensionen sind all absorbiert für alle Zeit und Ewigkeit bis in alle Ewigkeit. Voilà Globalfaschismus als Communis. Lohnsystem ist auch beseitigt. Zumindest politökonomisch. (Bei-Sein-In). Teil 8 Durch Machtkämpfe können sich Eliten durchsetzen die die Technologien völlig nihilistisch befördern. Es entstehen dystopisch kollektivistische Szenarien. Giger Kunst, Borg, Matrix worin die Technik den Menschen verschlingt und vernutzt. ( In- Sein-Bei). Voilà Globalfaschismus als Dystopie. Teil 9 Und bedingt durch Ordo ab Chaos Strategien, aber auch apolaren Strategien, werden Nationalstaaten geschwächt. Umvolkung bzw. Migrationspakt laufen aus dem Ruder. Der faschistische Islam übernimmt das Szepter. Auch durch Dekadenz ist ein solches Szenario möglich. Voilà der Islamfaschismus. Umma als sklavistisch mafiotisches Dschihad Imperium. Teil 10 Wichtig ist noch folgendes. Die Communis basiert auf Transzendenz auf Entwicklungsfähigkeit. Dazu ist eine Art bewusste Religion/ Spiritualität vonnöten. Dies zur Abgrenzung der Dystopie. Wir wollen den neuen Menschen als Chiborg( Kiborg) nicht Borg. Teil 11 Dies und das. Vermehrung erfolgt kulturell wie von einer gewissen Stabilität aus betrachtet aber auch idealtypisch 1. Monogam, 2.polygam( mit Sexsklaverei und Cousinenehe), 3. Retortenzucht, Eugenik, Euthanasie oder Lebensschutz. 4. Promisk in Kombination mit öffentlichen Ritualen 5. Polyamorie kann durchaus überall auftreten. Ist aber keine feste Struktur. --- Ausserdem kämpft das Lebensschützerische gegen das Bevölkerungsreduktionistische. Das Sexualfeindliche gegen das Sexualfreundliche. Teil 12 Der universale Kampf. Seit es höhere Staatlichkeit oder militärische Kampfkraft gibt, gibt es die Auseinandersetzung ob die Ordnung lokal, gruppenspezifisch, regional zu verbleiben hat oder "überall" zu gelten hat. Dabei ist es einerlei ob etwas partikulares universal ausgebreitet wird oder eine universelle Idee. Da es nicht nur die Erde mit Leben gibt, sondern auch andere Planeten mit Leben und auch höherem Leben, ist davon auszugehen das dieser Grundkonflikt wirklich und wahrhaftig universal ist. Dieser Kampf ist derjenige zwischen Empire/ Global Gouvernance/Weltordnungsidee/ Reichsidee auf der einen Seite und der nationalen Souveränität(Nationalsouveränismus) auf der anderen Seite. Dabei gibt es viele Pläne auf allen Seiten, bewusstes wie unbewusstes agieren. Die Vertreter der Weltordnungsidee agieren dabei selbstverständlich mit allen Mitteln Mitteln, wie auch ihre Gegner. Heute zumeist unipolar oder apolar. Die souveränistischen Akteure zumeist von strikter Souveränität( mit Cheks and Balances und direkter Kommunikation) oder gehen von einem Konzept von Multipolarität aus. Nationale Souveränisten gehen davon aus das es Freihandel nur unter gleichstarken geben kann. Idealtypisch demokratisch, moderate Libertäre wie moderate Sozialisten. Starker Präsident oder Milizkollegium. Der Kapitalismus wird sozial gezähmt, allerdings nicht überwunden. Jede Nation soll ihre eigene Raumfahrt machen. --- Es ist noch hinzuzufügen das es wechselnde Allianzen und Querfronten geben kann. Und auch die Strömungen untereinander sich zum Teil heftig bekämpfen können. Teil 13. Attila Hildmann. Faktisch alles kann globalistisch transformiert werden. Selbst völkisches und partikulares kann umgedreht werden. Deshalb wäre bei Durchsetzung des deutschen Nationalsozialismus umgehend ein globalistischer Transnationalsozialismus geworden. Hildmann verkürzt vieles ist aber unterstützenswert da er das Overton Fenster verschiebt. Hildmann ist wie Kenfm Antizionist. Kenfm hat mehr Einfluss wie ein Hildmann. Zionismus. Ist die Bewegung für Volk und Heimat im Judentum und die Durchsetzung europäisch abendländischer Nationalstaatlichkeit innerhalb des Judentums. Bei allen Allianzen, mit Globalisten Selbsthassern, Islamisten usw., war der Zionismus bis jetzt sehr erfolgreich sich durchzusetzen. Antisemitismus kann man überwinden durch Affirmation der Zirkulation. Zum einen wie Trump durch nationalen Patriotismus und (säkularisierten) Calvinismus. Zum anderen wie es Finanzglobalisten tun, alles in die Zirkulation. Dahin gehört auch der Globalfaschismus der Israel zu Weltisrael (Postzionismus) aufbläst oder die Zirkulation durch die Maschine ersetzt oder diese deckungsgleich macht. (Postkapitalismus) Attila verbleibt auf der subjektiven Handlungsebene und verabsolutiert diese bzw. hängt sich bei Spezialplänen auf. Es ist zwar richtig das es Verantwortlichkeiten gibt, es den universalen Kampf aber eben nicht juckt ob mehr Soros, mehr, Transhumanismus mehr Gates oder Rockefeller dahintersteckt, die Engelwesen auf Sirius juckt das nicht... Es sind eben nicht nur Juden sondern auch Buddhisten, Christen, Synkretisten, Mohammedaner, Nihilisten,Atheisten usw unter den globalistischen Akteuren... Compact Magazin. Communis ist gemeinschaftlich durchgeführter Genuss. Dies gilt überhistorisch. Das marxsche präfaschistische Verständnis verbleibt in erster Linie bürgerlich immanent. Heute wissen wir: Emanzipation führt in den Transhumanismus, ist zwar auch globalfaschistisch, aber wohl dystopisch. Bin zwar kein Identitärer aber ohne Identitäres wird es nicht gehen. War früher eher wachstumskritisch, bzw. für einen Mix, heute neige ich immer mehr zur massiven Steigerung der Energieflussdichte, mindestens bis die Nationen eigene Weltraumsiedlungen haben.Siehe Positionen Dr Blex, Benedict Kaiser, Sieferle, Sellner, Curio, LaRouche.(Spannungsbogen). Quelle zum Globalfaschismus. Kommentarsektion von Kenfm. Dort treten Globalfaschisten hervor. Propagieren aggressiv Reichsidee. Bedrohen AfD, Identitäre, Kenfm und seine Querfronten, Patrioten usw..Sind für (!!!) SAntifa.

[@vlm5723]

Very unenthusiastic applause from the audience for such an excellent presentation of the subject matter.

[@jkonrad]

No notecards. He knows his sh**

[@TehVaporSnake]

Hicks starts at 4:17

[@chriswaldrop5641]

This is a profound and needed talk in 2020. I believe it highlights the fact the US has been dominated by one political point-of-view for over 50 years. Every major American institution, cultural and public, has been unilaterally controlled by individuals who share a common belief system and more specifically ally and support one political party. Our collective knowledge, access to information and our education has been filtered through their lens and biases. Think about it, the right in America, Republicans, conservatives or libertarians, do not have a voice or significant influence on or in any of these powerful institutions-none of them. Big tech is predominately left wing. Our education system, teacher's unions and universities are predominately left wing. Our court and legal system is predominately left wing. Our federal bureaucracy is predominately left wing. Our current state as a country is in large part a direct result of this post-war system or network of like-minded institutions and individuals. I will take it a step further, all of our inner cities have been controlled uncontested by people who align themselves with this political and social point-of-view. Every high-profile shooting of black men has occurred in parts of the country that have been dominated by these same type of people. They are controlling the narrative because they dominate the news media. They are directing our national conversation on race issues but it is always the fault of America or whites but they have unilaterally controlled much of the black population and the highest concentration of disenfranchised and underperforming black populations. They promised they could solve the problems but their system and policies have failed miserably and they are fighting like mad to retain control and power and seeking to silence anyone, no matter the color, who shines a light on this failed system. The common denominator in all of this is the Democratic Party.

[@jaik195701]

Sarah Henderson it is more malignant

[@NineteenthandLamont]

Lol

[@DarinHibbs1]

you nailed it

[@Weirdomanification]

@@sazzle3312 moderately clever

[@publiusovidius7386]

You're joking. America is to the far-right of all other developed nations. The only country where people go bankrupt because they have inadequate health insurance. The only country where a right-wing party makes it difficult to vote. There is no liberal bias in media. That's an old trope that is a lie. Corporate media is controlled by billionaires who don't want to pay more taxes or pay higher salaries. Did you miss how they gave Trump millions of dollars worth of free advertising in 2016, covering his rallies without commentary. Did you miss how they exaggerated Hillary's email issue, which turned out to be nothing, while burying the Trump campaign's Russia ties? (And how they now are downplaying all the unsecure communication of Trump and his family.) For 30 years the right has built a hugely powerful right-wing media bubble, that spreads disinformation 24/7. Big tech is not left-wing. Facebook gave right-wing groups free reign to spread disinformation. The top stories trending on Facebook are almost all right-wing. The GOP has turned into a party of white grievance. It's no wonder that they have trouble getting elected in cities, which are diverse. Problems in cities are complex and claiming that Republicans would handle them better is not justified. Right-wing groups have been infiltrating local school boards for decades. They're the ones who want to teach students a sanitized, false version of American history that blocks out all of the difficult aspects of our past. The Supreme Court has not been liberal for decades. Now it's 6-3 far-right conservative. The GOP's Reaganist trickle down economics has not worked and created the greatest wealth disparity in American history. That's where so many of our problems stem from. Including the gentrification of the cities which accelerates homelessness and the crime that accompanies it. You're representative of the whiny victimhood right-wing culture that is out of touch with reality.

[@markdaniel5784]

this is very well presented and articulated material- fascinating and accessible to the lay person- thanks very much

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

The "Anti-Rationalism" is the most interesting aspect pointed out in that brilliant lecture. I always used to think it was mainly only "Anti- Intellectualism"

[@serpentines6356]

Yes, good point. Tons of intellectuals are Marxist. 🤮🤮🤮

[@landofthesilverpath5823]

Yet, neurology is proving the irrationalists correct. Men are not rational. Decisions are ultimately made by emotion and instinct. An important example: people who have traumatic brain injuries sometimes lose function in parts of the brain which cause emotion. In a way, these people have become the ultimate rationalist. There decision making is not clouded by emotion. But what actually happens? There decision making is paralyzed. They've become living embodiments of Buridan's Ass. They cannot make basic decisions in life. It's because there is simply too much information for people to process in the world. Rationalism becomes a never ending game. The brain is evolved for abstract thought to plan ahead, but that is all. The other important things in life are arrived at by insttinct-- a biological process. And we have highly evolved instincts and intuition. Communism was the ultimate attempt for man to rule himself through rationalism alone. And with our latest understanding of how the human mind really works, it's no wonder communism always ends I catastrophe. Any just society will take into account the fundamental emotional and irrational nature of man.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

Dr Hicks is certainly the greatest(Current) American philosopher I've heard. And he really is a breath of fresh air in so far as Jordan Peterson's screeching voice and (indeed) mannerisms are concerned.

[@DarinHibbs1]

I stand with Jordan

[@rickmakdissi199]

This guy is a great story teller

[@rochecr]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this valuable talk

[@lillgnaelle]

This was unbelievable interesting! Thank you so very much for uploading this. I think of a text Peter Oborne wrote a couple a years ago about the euro. He makes an interesting division between the empirical philosophical school of the British compared to the idealistic schools of thought on the continent. The idealististic schools come up with great (theoretical) ideas about a glorious tomorrow if only we have communism/nazism/the euro.(Après nous, le déluge, so to say.) The conservative Brits, beginning w William of Ockham abandon projects if they don't work. Contrary, Napoleon and Hitler insist on attacking Moscow, even when their troops are freezing to death. I also think that that a major difference to German philosophers to British ones is that the Black Death meant servitude/serfdom in eastern Europe (which is defined by the river Elbe = east of Hamburg!?!) and not abolished in Preussia until the beginning of the 19th century, while the labour shortage caused by the Black Death is a major factor in establishing both the late marriage pattern in Western Europe, as well as a foundation for personal freedom. After the Black Death, you simply couldn't treat people like shit in the West. I think slave societies does something to people - foster a slave morality? = focus on the collective, while freedom will focus on the individual. A Swedish librarian, spending time in Berlin in the late 1920s, points out that one reason nazism was so popular in Germany was that it allowed class transgressions. A day out with the nazi party in the 1920s/30s meant that the baron's son and the farmhand had to dig a trench, side by side, as comrades. That meant an awful lot in the extremely hierarchal German society at the time. Another thing professor Hicks, where's Wittgenstein, an Austrian like Hitler, in all of this? This was such fun!

[@catherinemoye3051]

Interesting read

[@seanleith5312]

There is nothing wrong with nationalism, there is everything wrong with extreme nationalism, and everything wrong with globalism. Today, Germany replaces nationalism with globalism with this disgusting woman. Globalism is extreme form of communism, it erases national identity. To correct one form of extreme with another form of extreme, they are equally bad.

[@aakkoin]

Great stuff. I wrote philosophy here in finnish high school 15 years ago (since I didn't know what to do, and philosophy seemed to cover everything, the whole reality, and even beyond material reality). Love the lectures and podcasts out there.

[@alanerkkila4213]

I minored in philosophy in the early eighties and came away with the impression that it was all bullshit. Someone would build a convincing edifice of thought and the next guy would destroy it. It took many years of personal study to find thoughts that are stronger than clouds. Dr. Hicks is one of their greatest expositors.

[@aakkoin]

@@alanerkkila4213 Ootko suomalainen Erkkilä? :D Yes philosophy and even psychology are not considered hard science. Bad teachers I guess, and bad policies, especially the post-modernism has spreaded and poisoned minds. Like mine.

[@Ozgipsy]

This was a great talk, really good. I bet those 2 guys felt stupid for sitting there in the centre of everything.

[@Ozgipsy]

@Auspician yeah, you don’t make a lot of sense.

[@hanimani5596]

Very interesting. Thank you for uploading this.

[@drlobomalo]

NSDAP was (IIRC) the world's first explicitly "Green" party. This likely comes out of a branch of German philosophy (in the broad sense of the term) that is represented by Heidegger at the highest level. NS was not surprisingly made up of elements already existing in German culture and Western culture.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Hunh?

[@TeaParty1776]

Merchants Of Dispair-Robert Zubrin

[@utgfy]

Darwin's influence on Nietzsche is clear, but it's important in this regard to see what the 19th c. idea of evolution was, and not to confuse it with contemporary ideas on evolution. By looking at how the 19th c. emphases in evolutionary theory were wrong (limited), we can also see clearly how Nietzsche went wrong, following them. Speaking generally, the error of the common understanding of evolution in the 19th c. was its emphasis on the individual organism as the key to a species' evolution. Evolution's basic story was that exceptional individuals had traits that made them more suitable for survival, and they eventually passed these on to the species by being able to live longer, dominate, and reproduce more, thus strengthening the species (or at least making it more suitable for its environment.) Lacking from this common story was any stress on group dynamics--how social structures themselves could support individual survival and propagation. Or, to give an example in Nietzschean terms, having a society composed mostly of people with "slave mentality" and a few "masters" might actually be greatly beneficial for the survival of the members of that society (vs., say, a society composed entirely of people competing to be masters, which would be unsettled chaos ["war"].) We also now know that it's not a set of genes as fixed, hardwired, inner mechanics that matters, but rather gene expression, how genes are turned on/off, which has a great deal to do with settled society (family, education, range of experiences, etc.) So you can see clearly how Nietzsche went wrong, emphasizing that all individuals capable of it throw off their yokes, fulfill their potential for power (even if it be at the cost of others), and make the "new man." Instead of seeing the complexity of the human being as a set of interlocked relationships that as a whole benefit everyone, he saw only greater and lesser examples of the species, and following the common understanding of evolution's emphasis on the exceptional individual, was even willing to do away with the "lesser" if it meant our species evolving into a more advanced form. A horrific attitude forged of an incomplete/slanted understanding of evolution.

[@jenpsakiscousin4589]

When they Nazis came to power fully, they supressed Oswald Spengler's writings. They didn't like the fact that he stated that western culture was already finished off. The German title for the decline of the west is "Der Untergang" it doesn't translate well into English, Untergang is more like a past tense, sort of like a "petrification" of the western land. Spengler died in 1933

[@kingclover1395]

I always thought those psychosexual explanations for Nazism were dubious. I remember my high school social studies teacher going through a list of the Nazi leadership and their sexual proclivities in order to demonstrate that fascism was caused by sadomasochistic sexuality and repressed homosexuality and incest etc. But this view was out of date by the time I was in high school, even though it was a very common view about five or six decades ago. You don't hear it too much anymore.

[@TheOricko]

U r right

[@Greg-xs5py]

If Hicks gives an accurate portrayal of Nietzschean thought, then I do not understand how Nietzschean thought is so admired amongst philosophers and academics. Jordan Peterson, who has nothing but disdain for collectivist thinking, believes Nietzsche was one of the all time greatest geniuses of philosophy, for example.

[@5metoo]

I think there is a long tradition of giving Nietzsche a carte blanche pass as far as any negative influence. Part may have been the Cold War's rapid following of WWII where the Soviets became the enemy and there was no stomach for continuing to blame Germany for anything. This in addition to the reluctance to blame anything on philosophers of course. René Girard said Nietzsche has been given a pass (noting the Nazi reverence for him), and I think Hicks also thinks giving him a pass is not to take Nietzsche seriously. Peterson I think is under this rich tradition of giving Nietzsche a pass, and possibly the spell of Nietzsche's brilliance too.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@5metoo yes, he's under the spell of Nietzsche's apparent brilliance, forgetting the impact he had on rhe nazis and the postmodernists alike.. Derrida and Foucault (who Peterson rants about), were primarily Nietzschians. Peterson goes on about them reducing everything down to power, wanting to upturn traditional liberal/Christian values, anti-democracy and not being interested in rational debate.. Well, they're Nietzschians you idiot haha Nietzsche was clearly a proto-postmodernist as much as he could be considered a proto-nazi. Maybe Peterson is less of a Nietzschian than he thinks. He's maybe interested in the superficial aspect of Nietzsche, his talk about getting it together, striving for greatness and so on, but that's about all I can see.

[@varaconn6708]

Neither Nietzsche nor Kant are entirely wrong, despite being opposites. Nietzsche describes fierce, strong, innovative attitude while Kant describes the polite, dutiful and holy attitude. They are just different temperaments. Remember that Peterson is a Jungian. This means he believes in integrating the shadow. Nietzsches philosophy is the best description of the shadow.

[@mikeb5372]

​@@varaconn6708I think you put it well

[@untethered24]

I wonder why Marxism and Fascism are considered to be opposite ends of a spectrum that involves individualism in any way. It seems to me like these two things are just different types of collectivism and are equally dangerous. Millions of people died due to the Nazis, but millions of people have also died due to the Marxists by way of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Both ideologies are incredibly nationalistic and promote a cult-like mindset of unquestioning adherence to a State that is endowed with far too much power. I really think Marxism, and any form of it, really should be considered to be Fascism.

[@TheCodgod1996]

In the very simple sense of fascism, then yes, it most certainly is a form of "the group is stronger than the individual". But from a philosophic and economic point of view, they are almost completely different. Marx's critique of capitalism does share similarities with the critiques made from right leaning-fascists but that's as far as that goes. Marx's dialectic is the antithesis to how nationalist view history and our development.

[@gabebautista6521]

Your hunch is correct. The interesting thing is that the pursuit of either end of the political spectrum to its maximum degree leads to the same place. (It would suggest the shape of a circle not a line) On the right you have the death of the individual by excluding everyone that is not part of the group and only keeping those that are part of the group ( authoritarian top down rule by exclusion) On the left you have the death of the individual by including everyone as having to be part of the main group. (Authoritarian top down rule by inclusion) Same Hell.

[@intboom]

@@gabebautista6521 Absolutely: the theory bus doesn't actually matter when it always ends at the same final stop in practice. I get rather bored of people saying "But this bit of the philosophical lineage is more rigorous, that makes it better!" when no matter how you slice it, the removal of liberal institutions demanded by collectivist ideas always leads to direct violence and intimidation towards non compliant individuals. I think the funniest turn I've seen this take is the recent anti ideological turn, where an unspoken ideology seems to have formed around squashing unspoken ideology: in practice it still uses the same bullying, denigration, social pressuring, and threat of violence techniques as the STASI used to use, in order to guarantee its outcomes. Whether this came about intentionally or not, those that seek to free us from ideology By Any Means Necessary appear, in practice, just to be tasting another flavour of ideological conformism.

[@VVeltanschauung187]

Millions died because there was a conflict between competing ideologies, and liberalism partook in that war

[@pierrelabounty9917]

Your right on the human cost of both, and on the nationalism all around. We here may call nationalism patriotism, the King of emotions it can rouse in time of national direction. Really scary, herd mentality type stuff. Russia, far more extreme In collectivism. After the wars, they all had less to collect, and they went to war to collect from.the enemy. Insanity. Doing the same evil over again thinking they wi get different results. I fear America is trifling to much with this. Marx always thought England and the industrialized countries to be the right seed bed for communism, not Russia. But nihilistism and radicalism had to find a victim. Imperial Russia. So now it's down with American imperialism and capitalism for a number of years now fomenting the cause in higher education and social causes, unionism in part. Gramsci for good example at his activity. It's always going to have activity, this is not pie in the sky stuff. The SDS, Panthers, in the sixties action orientated. And number of publications.

[@bakters]

I pity the translator woman. I mean this guy who "asked" a half an hour "question" in Polish.

[@SirKenchalot]

I would prefer if Hicks had acknowledged that the dominant philosophy of the day today that needs challenging isn't Nazism but post-modern Neo-Marxism; evil is not creative but it flexible and can take many forms and when one is thoroughly defeated it'll find another as it has done.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

He wrote a brilliant book about Postmodernism- he is an expert in the field, the best of the best. Go and read and do some research.

[@SirKenchalot]

@@biancavonmuhlendorf2608 I am aware of his work on Postmodernism but thank you for pointing that out. However,r he repeatedly made reference to philosophy not being abstract and having real world consequences, then failed to draw any real-world conclusions that would have been especially noteworthy in light of this talk. That seems like at best a missed opportunity and at worst, a failure to practice what he preached.

[@h.j7469]

My view is that the far-right philosophies of Nazism, found a new home in Postmodernist ideas the left would adopt, indeed Spengler, Herder, Kant, Heidegger, would be adopted by and referenced by French postmodern philosophers, indeed Foucault was a follower of Nietzsche.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

Postmodernism is probably more Neo-Nietzschian than anything else... As said above Foucault, Derrida were especially Nietzschian. The very people someone like Peterson goes after as Neo-Marxists because they apparently reduce everything to power and dismiss any rational debate.. well that's Nietzschianism... If he wanted to go after actual Neo-Marxists he should have gone after Whilelm Reich, Marcuse and so on and as a psychologist he would have been on much firmer ground with them. He ges it so wrong... but at least he opened up discussion.

[@leebarry5686]

Every individual philosophy either totally based on absurdity or on partial assumptions, and therefore is not capable of arriving at the whole truth and guides to justice, peace , freedom, equality, responsibility, prosperity and success in both this world and the hereafter world which is the eternal and really important for men.

[@nuqwestr]

"Appropriation" is essential to life" - Nietzsche. Agreed, either by force, deception, or cooperation. In Capitalism, deception is more often used than force, thus the axiom "Caveat Emptor".

[@thekeeks58]

SOLELY Reason and science are humanism snd materialism All human conditions /events will always be contentious when these prevail as human happiness isn’t entirely based on these two factors

[@thereignofthezero225]

👍

[@haroldjanser8361]

Great Delivery not unlike Carl Sagan

[@jaynehunter6937]

Why is the gentleman in the dark jacket wearing headphones? Is it for translation?

[@donkeymung8553]

yeah, polish and french crowd i think

[@briannxx]

Jayne Hunter He is listening to ABBA out of contempt

[@LLlap]

Man that poor translator woman. The dude kept going and going. You cant translate that without hearing it first )))

[@awuma]

Since this lecture, the Museum has been taken over by the Law and Justice Party and this lecture could not take place now. Carl Schmitt is Jarosław Kaczyński's main influence.

[@winlew]

Right

[@crimony3054]

Locke's idea that all men are created equal really didn't catch on until there was widespread ownership of equalizers.

[@Garry_Combine]

@Spam Houston I mean, that's not a real critique, not really disagreeing or agreeing, rather, asking "would you care to elaborate?"

[@E_Ten]

@Spam Houston Big fan of monarchy then?

[@1969cmp]

'Goebbels loved Carl Marx' .....classic.

[@TheCodgod1996]

He seems to completely forget that nazism was a reaction to communism? They had no plans of WORLD domination or cultural domination lol.

[@karthikeyanchandrasekar5057]

Nazism also had its roots in communism. At least partly. But yes as you said, they didnt have world domination plans unlike the communists. But I think they did have some elements of cultural domination. Although, I think it's documented that the Nazi's really didnt want to impose their national socialism on any nation.

[@paigemccormick6519]

@@karthikeyanchandrasekar5057 Agree. Of course, just as the US is increasing so rapidly our national psychosis, power evolves unpredictably.

[@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220]

@@karthikeyanchandrasekar5057 they wanted to subjugate, anhialate nations to expand their nation to the urals.

[@drlobomalo]

A lot of people pointed out that the Hitler party was a Bolshevized form of at times conservative right-wing nationalism. Other right-wing parties couldn't generate the militancy and fanaticism to battle and defeat the Communists.

[@CaneofLoxley]

They were imperialists. This means they want world domination. The British had world domination, America wants it and has had it for a little while since. Fuck em all

[@mustang607]

History teaches us that fascism, communism and marxism is not good. Professor Stephen Hicks explains philosophically why they are not good. He also warns us about the rise of generational postmodernism.

[@briannxx]

This discussion made me want to conquer my French neighbors in my Texas city! 😳

[@Tadeletad]

beginning form 1:16:40 , the man talk about Nietzsche. but Nietzsche was an Eugenic man. from Eugenic you expect looking the best face not a truth.

[@dianawitty9628]

Such a Condemnation of Nationalism and of “great” minds that can fall “prey” to it’s supposed enviable rewards…strength as a nation to live for ever as a ppl, a heaven on earth, that turned into a living hell…

[@alexs6250]

They didn’t see neomarxist coming

[@maxheadrom3088]

Things go well until things go bad - then things go bad until they go well. Though the lecture seems interesting we should remember a few other things that created the environment for nazis to flourish: the wide acceptance of racial theory, the existance of cuckoo ideas like that book I shall not name, and the tremendous economic crisis Germany went through due to the Versailles Treaty at first and then the Great Depression. That list, btw, is not complete. Obs: we should create a new word for the genocides perpetrated by the nazis since "Holocaust" tends to mean the genocide of the Jews and that makes us forget the genocides of the Roma and Slavs. Usually it's differentiated by using or not the capital H but that makes no difference when it's spoken. Norber Elias claims, in his book "The German People" that there's something strange about Germans - he was also, though a Jew, also a German. I never read his book and I don't think he claims this was the cause. We should remember that around the same time the ideas put forth by the nazis were not exactly new and appeared in other places like Italy (fascism) and the US (eugenics). I disagree with his sweeping away of the economic crisis. I'm not a scholar so I have to show where I got the argument from. The same for the anti-semitism. He seems to be a philosopher and sometimes the saying fits "for a hammer, everything is a nail". Here's one source for the argument in favor of economic crisis as one iof the main causes - from the Washington Holocaust Museum: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2O4l3SAp5xqb5I The point is made on the Q&A. Here's one source for the argument about anti-semitism and racial theory - from the Nizik School of Nursing: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKubmJhqltxrjdU Sayyid Qutb is one of the main figures in the BBC/Adam Curstis series "The Power of Nightmares" together with Leo Strauss. Curtis shows how both had similar ideas.

[@mikeb5372]

In response to your first paragraph, the things you mentioned were either circumstance or results. It was the philosophies that inspired the reactions and the ideology of nazism

[@patriceortovent6451]

At 1.49 the various possibilities are hinted at, yet, being elitist, the question of what philosophy could support theories about a more fondamental question never put forwards which is what after capitalism which is out of this monologue. We have not yet come out of the box we are confined in in our thinking while the need to do so becomes more imperative in the 21st century. Capitalism cannot go any further regardless what philosophy supports it. The game is to believe that capitalism can reinvent itself as a system and various philosophies currently known are manipulated to support this proposition. Nothing like that applies, our philosophers like Stephen Hicks are excellent academics but poor in creative thinking. We have a great skill to explain our own decomposition but hardly any to project higher ideal exempt of the trapping of past ideologies. One can refer to the comments of Nietzsche about the original failing of philosophers in his work titled Human, all too human.

[@austin5714]

Patrice Ortovent It’s simple, we do not have capitalism we have corporatism. True capitalism, the separation of the economy from the state can and will solve any multitude of problems. Unfortunately, the ‘prey’ as Hicks calls them fear their own freedom so seek comfort within the herd mentality of the state.

[@anonymous5528]

@Austin: Great points, well said and i agree. The economic sectors which experience the greatest trouble are in direcr proportion to the amount of govt interference in said sector. Prime example being health insurance. Health insurance is sonexpensive die to govt regulation and cronyism between insurers and the govt. The problem is that the left will always blame this on capitalism/free 'unregulated' markets, and then demand more govt to 'solve' the problem. I dont know if they are simply ideologically blinded or if they know exactly what theyre doing, trying to destroy our society in order to remake it.

[@ishitrealbad3039]

1:48:53 This is where I think Hicks is wrong, and that is that his assertion is that certain philosophies haven't been "defeated" and that's why they're coming back. I think this is false, certain philosophies or part of certain philosophies come back as a form of counter culture which we are witnessing today. NatSoc/Fascism was a counter culture against Communism, it was a reaction to it. Without communism NatSoc wouldn't have existed. When people are unjustly silenced, alienated and discriminated against they will adop or create a philosophy that is the opposite of the culture/philosophy that's putting them down. Now this can also be done out of slothness, for example Marx never worked a day in his life and relied upon donations and the support of others. Atheism was a counter-culture towards Christianity You cannot "defeat" an ideology, you can create arguments agaisnt it but nothing is absolute and thus there are always people who will center around said ideology/philosophy. What you have to do, is to culturally establish that people should leave one another alone and in peace. Or atleast something in that sense, I haven't fully figured it out yet.

[@schnuff5798]

this is from 3 years ago and already seems so outdated...

[@chasm]

why do fascists hate this talk?

[@johnmartin2813]

The question you don't answer is: why Germany? Why not France or Italy or Switzerland or Austria or Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Poland? All of these peoples had equal access to Nietzsche but weren't affected by him. So your hypothesis doesn't solve the problem.

[@figgn5599]

What does the question presuppose? Italy, Spain and Portugal were fascist. Given that the national socialist branch also isn't directly nietzscheian what makes it stick out in your mind?

[@johnmartin2813]

@@figgn5599 : Don't understand.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

It's a Sunday night and I've got a few hrs to kill.

[@TheOricko]

Antisemitism is bad admittedly. What about anticapitalism and anticommunism or antisemitism or antiamericanism

[@paulblase3955]

That's not what Luther said. He wasn't anti-reason per se, and he certainly didn't promote irrational thinking. What he was saying was that certain aspects of Christianity cannot be understood by humans using purely human reason, such as the full reason for Jesus' incarnation or the full understanding of the Lord's Supper and the New Covenant. Some things must simply be accepted because Scripture says that they are true.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Luther's own words: 1. Reason is "the Devil's Whore." 2. On what faith requires: “It is a quality of faith that it wrings the neck of reason." 3. Abraham is the role model for "faithful men who enter with Abraham the gloom and hidden darkness of faith: they strangle reason … and thereby offer to God the all-acceptablest sacrifice and service that can ever be brought to him.” 4. "He who wants to be a Christian must tear the eyes out of his reason."

[@paulblase3955]

@@StephenHicksPhilosopher Taking quotes out of context serves nothing. Remember that reason can be used both ways, you can misuse it by only allowing those things that you personally understand. The most famous instance of this is probably the "flat earthers". Their reason refuses to accept the word of those who know better. Likewise, Luther was saying specific things about reason and its misuse. SEMINARY RIDGE REVIEW, AUTUMN, 2015I VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=reli_fac_pubs (please read the whole article, I summarize below) "As is generally pointed out, Luther held natural reason in very high regard, describing it in The Disputation Concerning Man [1536] as “that most beautiful and most excellent of all things.”5 It is capable of remarkable achievement in worldly matters, from economics to industry and music. In the realm of theology, it certainly has an important role to play as well. It must, however, remember its limitations - most often discussed as its inadequacy and pride. Human reason is incapable of deducing the Trinity from nature, even if it can reason about this divine self-revelation. And its pride often leads it to take the place of the Word of God, creating and insisting on new works or doctrine." "Within this realm, however, that is, within ‘earthly government’ in the broadest sense in which Luther can use that term, reason alone is the final authority; it contains within itself the basis for judging and deciding about the proper regulation and administration of earthly matters .... In these matters the Bible, Christian preaching, and theology have nothing to say. Holy Scripture and the gospel do not teach us how to make right laws or administer the affairs of state. This is all a matter of human reason which as such was originally given to men by the Creator." The problem, however, is when men try to use "reason" to argue against that which is clearly stated by God, refusing to realize that God exists outside of the universe as we know it and is not necessarily bound by the physical laws that He has imposed on us. "We should be clear, however, that reason did not stand next to scripture with equal authority for Luther. During his famous declaration at Worms, he proclaimed that he would not recant unless “convinced by the testimony of scripture or clear reason.” This should not be understood as reason being coequal to scripture on matters of doctrine. In Grace and Reason, B.A. Gerrish explains, “[H]e certainly did not mean to set up an independent authority by the side of the Scripture. He meant: ‘unless convinced either by direct citations of Scripture or by reasonable inference from such citations.’”" "The problem is not that reason is unreliable, but that it has serious flaws and limitations that we must appreciate. Difficulties arise when our reason is permitted to take on a life of its own and become the ultimate arbiter of truth. Paul Hinlicky clarifies, “Luther’s warnings against (speculative) reason in theology are fundamentally misunderstood, however, when we take ‘reason’ to mean logic, rather than the metaphysical tradition of natural theology which he knows in classical form from Aristotle and Cicero.” Rationality and logic are unquestionably good; it is our use of them, and our philosophical traditions, that are flawed. We should not think, how-ever, that Luther’s problem with reason was the worldview of one particular philosopher, that “rascally heathen” Aristotle. In his Disputation against Scholastic Theology [1517], for example, his primary target was Gabriel Biel, who shared Luther’s philosophical orientation in Nominalism and the via moderna. The problem is human beings attempting to offer a worldview without acknowledging the inadequacy, pride, and duplicitous nature of reason." Human reason is, in the end, subject to our fallen nature and can be flawed. The modern kerfluffle over human-induced "climate change" is a perfect example. To the proponents of AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming), it seems perfectly reasonable and supported by the "experts". To the critics, the proponents seem quite mad. Not that this particular question cannot be worked out "reasonably", but our human natures and expectations certainly get in the way! Likewise, when understanding God's Word, when there is a conflict between what He says and what our reason tells us, we must set our reason aside and confess what is in the Scriptures. Perhaps with further study we may be able to gain further understanding, perhaps not - and it will remain a mystery. That is, after all, the definition of "faith" for a Christian: accepting God's word and the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels. "Human reason, on its own, is unable to appreciate its state of depravity, its absolute dependence on God. It maintains a trust in its own abilities. In The Disputation Concerning Justification [1536], Luther wrote, “For human nature, corrupt and blinded by the blemish of original sin, is not able to imagine or conceive of any justification above and beyond works.”"

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

@@paulblase3955 : When you claim a line is taken "out of context," you have an obligation to show the context that you think changes the apparent meaning. Instead you divert to some apologist's essay. Not a legitimate tactic.

[@norz172steel5]

The only philosophy that can save us and humanity and elevate our western culture is to up root the democracy but support and celebrate the FASCIST PHILOSOPHY.

[@general7733]

So the only way to defend individualist culture is collectivism? The only way to defend our Christian culture from Islam is atheism!

[@CaptainCharismaY2J]

@@general7733 Your lack of nationalist spirit and hyper individualism is what's killing America (and every other western country)

[@dropanukeonusaagain6606]

"root the democracy" fuck leftist

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

The nazi's were Christians? Yeah, and I'm Napoleon.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

Please do your research in history- you seem to have no idea about the history of Germany AT ALL

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

@Carlos Gonzalez serial killers and mass murderers can call themselves 'Christians'. I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind when he said 'love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' 🙄. Besides, i don't recall him advocating a genocide against his own people.

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

@@biancavonmuhlendorf2608 please see my reply to Carlos Gonzalez. My bet is you've never even read the Bible.

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

@Carlos Gonzalez 'He was not a Jew'. Hmmm. I guess every Christian and scholar has got it wrong then. Then you make the argument he was killed by his own people. Pontius Pilate was part of his own people? But then again, Pilate was a gentile and I guess Jesus was a gentile too because he was not a Jew evidently. 🤔

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

@Carlos Gonzalez It is a historical fact Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples were Jews, and most of the early Christians were Jews until Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome in the 4th century.

[@FR-yr2lo]

STOP TAAAALKING EASTERN EUROPEAN GUY!!!

[@aakkoin]

haist whittu

[@ishitrealbad3039]

1:44:06 oke this guy has no idea what he's saying..... as soon as someone mentions the "alt-right" (a MSM fantays group that doesn't exist) or Stefan Molyneux as negatives he completely lost me (Stefan Molyneux is against NatSoc, he's a more of a Libertarian).

[@andrewmay1171]

A philosopher who is anti-reason sounds like an oxymoron.

[@dreamdiction]

Post-modernism is anti-reason.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@dreamdiction postmodernism is highly Nietzschian. Its hilarious how there are people like Peterson who rant ahout collectivism, loss of traditional liberal/Christian values, unwillingness towards rational debate, postmodernist theorists like Foucault and Derrida reducing everything to power . And yet it doesn't click that it's because they're Nietzschians.

[@craigmalone2257]

Pure fantasy. Unmoored from evidence or reason

[@osobotbiomasa]

Wait what? Foucault and deconstruction? I heard about Foucauldian discourse analysis. By the way, his book "Explaining postmodernism" is total crap. Who gave him PhD in philosophy? xD