Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke with Yoram Hazony | The Book Club

[@LynchMobster47]

Love the quote about Marie Antoinette who was truly an amazing woman. She never said “Let them eat cake” that’s lib fake news. In fact her last words were to her executioner who she apologized to for accidentally stepping on his shoes. A lady until the very end. May God grant her eternal rest.

[@Demiurge443]

Definitely not lib fake news. Just found to be NOT true.

[@philipswain4122]

I read that too. I can’t remember where though.

[@phildynerphotography5049]

As a Pole, I believe in God, Honour and Country!

[@marchess7420]

what are the thoughts of you two gents on polish and Irish birthrates?

[@marchess7420]

@Ben O Brien - sadly. God willing, there will be an Irish revival.

[@johnlustig4322]

My friends use to call me a burke. Now I am not so offended.......

[@fbcpraise]

Brits, where are you? Take a bow, we salute you!

[@philipswain4122]

Great summary! I’m only now discovering Burke’s writings after many years wrestling with Locke, Smith and Hume.

[@endgamefond]

Hi, I love this book club. Could Michael knowles do classics more please like Dostoevsky and invite Jordan Peterson 😂, but all seriousness I love Michael n the guests talk about classic literature either they're fictions of philosophy books. Please do more of that. Thanks ♡♡♡

[@Autobotmatt428]

I have the Penguin Classics version. I am amazed at how long the letter was. Burkes insights and intuition on were the revolution was going was impressive.

[@matsa2620]

A fantastic book to help understand Burke a bit more (at least for me) is "Edmund Burke and the Natural Law" by Peter J. Stanlis. It made a number of things sharp for me, that were previously somewhat vague, even after having read Burke himself and authors like Scruton.

[@Faustobellissimo]

This guy has nine kids? wow, that's a real conservative!

[@Lulustucru2393]

As a French, I wish my country would've stayed a Monarchy...

[@williamstdog9]

I’m ten yrs his senior but someday I hope to be half as well dressed as Michael Knowles

[@akang4009]

Great timeless stuff 👏👏

[@username-password]

Great episode

[@childeharold3550]

Liberty and Freedom are unfortunately very different. French founders think of liberty as unbounded freedom. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Jonathan Edwards (ironically) knew real LIBERTY is freedom based on self regulation. 🙂

[@TheNabOwnzz]

Didn't you hear what Hazony said about Jefferson? He himself co-wrote the draft for the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (the Ten Commandments of the French Revolution). Jefferson was just as bad as the French and their notions proceeded from him and Lafayette.

[@RodMartinJr]

*_Equality!_* The distinction is in the *_AIM!_* To what do you apply the principle of equality? It is certainly *_not_* to outcomes. And it is certainly not in our application of humility, for, while everyone deserves our humility to their needs, we are required to use wisdom in the application of that humility. For example, we can turn the other cheek to give to someone else who needs to strike us the generous opportunity to accomplish their emotional desire, but if that other requires of us to commit some crime, we will not participate, for we hold a higher humility to God on the things which belong to Him. The commandment to honor our father and mother come from this spiritual logic, even if a parent has fallen into sin and decadence. How we honor them is a matter of wisdom.

[@czechishczech]

May Paine's vision live on till the end of days

[@TheNabOwnzz]

No.

[@edmundburke9477]

destroy half of the humanity and start from beginning, the myopic vision must always remain defeated.

[@paulvmarks]

Thomas Paine's vision ends in bankruptcy - the economics in the second part of his Rights of Man and his Agrarian Justice is total nonsense. Essentially the government funds XYZ for "the people" and the rich pay - but the numbers do not add up.

[@peteratkinson922]

Another old white male!

[@paige476]

28:30 ⭐️ feeling matter, but if untamed, can be gaurdrails

[@dianac6153]

Great vid! I read this book and it is a "must read" oeuvre. Do you guys have any book suggestions to give about the russian revolution? Everything I remember reading was pretty biased.

[@Autobotmatt428]

I have it I just need to get around to reading it.

[@RodMartinJr]

Interesting analysis, *_but it misses what is perhaps a far greater force involved._* I know this is a book report, but Burke, as brilliant as he was, would likely have been humbled by the insights of Thomas Sowell in analyzing the difference between the American and French revolutions. His insights reveal something far more pervasive and basic described quite well in his book, *_A Conflict of Visions._* The more potent source of insanity is behind many of the tragedies of history. * Derailing of science by the Ancient Greeks. * Derailing of Christianity by church scholars in the 4th century, trying to be more like the arrogant Greeks. * Derailing of modern America by the "progressives." * Derailing of modern science by those in science who have lost touch with the attitudes which had made science great 4 centuries earlier. This more potent ingredient is the *_know-it-all attitude_* of the Intelligentsia, versus the *_humility_* of early Renaissance Christians to empirical evidence. America's Founding Fathers had the humility to know that man has a huge penchant for evil. So, it wasn't so much humility to tradition, for America's Founding Fathers were lucky their tradition wasn't that of Imperial Russia or China. Their brilliance was in realizing that man could not be trusted with power. And they looked to the British system because they knew that parts of it actually worked. REFERENCES: *_"Overview of America,"_* JBS video [the real Left-Right paradigm] *_"Myths vs. Facts,"_* JBS video series [how we got the Deep State and a crazy government] *_Intellectuals and Society,_* 2nd ed., by Thomas Sowell *_A Conflict of Visions,_* by Thomas Sowell *_Dumb Genius: How intelligence is sometimes its own worst enemy_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)

[@arthurwright8827]

People have no natural right to a thing if others must be coerced to provide that thing. That’s another of Burkes ideas.

[@brittybee6615]

And people get mad nowadays when you text a two or three paragraph “essay” as a reply; imagine asking a question and getting a book assignment back in the mail 😂

[@redvixen8669]

illuminating

[@dukegilmour2669]

Very good, thank you

[@JSFGuy]

Welcome back to the show Laura's heart who says very proud to be Italian right now funny how nobody on the left will congratulate Georgia Maloni for being the first woman prime minister in Italy.

[@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason]

No one should be congratulated for being a woman. Hahahaha!

[@Isabella66Gracen]

@@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason Biological women should be congratulation for being real.

[@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason]

@@Isabella66Gracen Hahaha! So true...

[@peteratkinson922]

The same with Margaret Thatcher.

[@peteratkinson922]

@@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason Geordie?

[@xqp5503]

👏👏👏

[@paulvmarks]

Few men of his time did more for individual liberty than the "Old Whig" Edmund Burke - whether in relation to India, Ireland, England., America - or France. He opposed the French Revolution because he (rightly) believed it was a threat to individual liberty. The lives and property of individual human beings - in the name of the power of "the people". He was a Classical Liberal - which you deny.

[@TheNabOwnzz]

Burke was a constitutional monarchist, not a classical liberal. If he were, he would not already have denounced the revolution long before the terror began. Any seemingly "classical liberal" stances he endorses, he endorses by a foundation of years of tradition. But he was decidedly not a classical liberal.

[@paulvmarks]

@@TheNabOwnzz Mr Burke was not obsessed with forms of government - for example he supported the independence of America and did not demand that Mr Washington become a King. If you read the Reflections (well reread it - as I am sure you have read it) you will find that Mr Burke denounced fiat money (introduced by the Revolution) and denounced murders and robbery - your assumption is that this started with "The Terror", it really started in 1789 (both robbery and murder). Mr Burke most certainly was an Old Whig - which we now call a Classical Liberal. But we could go back to just saying "Old Whig" and thus avoid "the l word" (liberal) entirely. After all the Radical Liberals of the 19th century hated the Old Whigs of the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, Jeremy Bentham and James and J.S. Mill preferred David Hume to Thomas Reid - the break with the Old Whigs (in both politics and philosophy) was total.

[@artiemarshall9956]

😮 pop❤

[@parrotraiser6541]

Adam Smith also started with observation of reality

[@WillMarino-wl3zy]

lmao the 'feelings do matter' line really did it for me, i get it now - all conservative media is satire. thanks so much for this insight

[@kris8997]

15:00

[@mr.e2962]

Edmund Burke is a classical liberal according to F. A. Hayek. Look up his essay "why I am not a conservative."

[@paulvmarks]

A matter of principle (of basic policy) had already divided Burke and Fox before (before) the French Revolution - what was this matter Sir? Do you know? This is not a trick question, And, it should not be a difficult question Sir.

[@paulvmarks]

No answer after the eight days. The answer - free trade with Ireland. And nor was it a matter of Burke wanting Free Trade with Ireland (but NOT more taxes upon Ireland - which was the position of Pitt the Younger), because of his Irish origins - it was his general commitment to individual economic liberty, a commitment that was not shared by Fox, who thought of liberty as the rule of Parliament (i.e. defined liberty in terms of POWER - a fatal mistake, one also made by the French Revolution which Fox supported).

[@paulvmarks]

The person trying to "confuse" is yourself Sir. Edmund Burke wrote many works (not one) and it is quite clear from his work, taken as a whole, that he stood for individual liberty and universal moral principles (by the way all Christians stand for universal moral principles) - he rejected that the idea that only people with "your lilies and roses in their faces" had rights under natural law - and he was always careful to make clear that he meant the life and property of individual human persons and voluntary associations (including churches), not some right of "the people" to rule. He was most certainly an "Old Whig" - what we now call a Classical Liberal. Burke was just as opposed to despotism from a King as he was the despotism of the mob - it was the rights of individual persons and the voluntary associations of Civil Society (such as the family) that he stood for.

[@digitalnomad9985]

Who do you think you're arguing with? Did you watch the video I just watched? You appear to be arguing against authoritarians, and there are no authoritarians in the room.

[@paulvmarks]

@@digitalnomad9985 I may indeed have been too harsh. However, the point remains that Edmund Burke was (not was not) a Classical Liberal - an Old Whig. However, the French Revolution was not about Classical Liberalism - it made the fatal mistake of confusing liberty and power. Further conversation with the author showed that we were actually in agreement on the substance - and were just in disagreement over presentation. In short, I "jumped the gun" - for which I am sorry. The red mist rose up in my mind - and I did not give the author a fair chance.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

@ Paul Marks The " Reign of Terror " in France lasted for centuries and was perpetuated by the King , the Aristocracy and the Church ! I'd be interested to know which " Rights " you think the French peasants had before the Revolution ? !

[@wownice1029]

"A cultivated Conservative friend of mine once exhibited great distress because in a gay moment I once called Edmund Burke an atheist. ... I mean that in the quarrel over the French Revolution, Burke did stand for the atheistic attitude and mode of argument, as Robespierre stood for the theistic." GK Chesterton

[@TheNabOwnzz]

You missed "Burke was certainly not an atheist in his conscious cosmic theory."

[@paulvmarks]

Mr Burke was not an atheist. But then Mr Chesterton delighted in forms of words that do not exactly mean what one might think they mean.

[@wownice1029]

@@paulvmarks He was an Anglican -- which is just as bad as an Atheist. So your point is irrelevant. Chesterton's point is valid -- the Burkean tradition is bankrupt, elitist, and evolutionistic instead of being focused on Divine Justice.

[@wownice1029]

@@TheNabOwnzz I didn't miss it fwiw -- I assumed everyone knew that Burke was a "Christian" (if one can call Anglicans such things.). But the main point remains: Burke's political philosophy is fundamentally atheistic.

[@TheNabOwnzz]

@@wownice1029 Well, coming from Chesterton (a Catholic, which is even worse than an atheist), this means very little. It is true that he reasoned according like a statesman and not a theologian, but at the foundation of his reasonings faith was quite essential.

[@RodMartinJr]

*_Liberty in servitude!_* What bliss! But it has to be properly aimed. He's talking, in my estimation, about humility -- like the humility of Christ to God -- proclaiming himself to be a servant and not "good," but maintaining that the only one who is "good" is God Almighty and *_not_* himself. The businessman who adds value to the lives of their customers and clients remains in blissful servitude, wrapped in the self-discipline of fearless confidence combined with utter humility. When you get these done right, you might even find yourself standing at the *_Narrow Gate_* mentioned by Christ -- the opening which leads back to the base of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil found in the Garden of Heaven. A good president is a servant. So too is a good king. Christ repeatedly told his followers that he was here not to do his own will, but the will of He who had sent him. And we know Christ was *_not_* God, because, early in his ministry, he told Nicodemus that before he had come down from Heaven to become Yeshua of Nazareth, he had been the first to have gone up to Heaven. In other words, he had been a sinner like you and I and had conquered sin, becoming God's *_First Graduate!_*

[@Seliz463]

We are all either servants of the good, or slaves of evil. There are no other options for human beings, it’s our nature. We are going to serve something, one way or another. If we don’t choose God, as Jesus Christ taught us how to do, then we will be slaves to our own passions, sin, ignorance, lower nature, and the tyranny of others.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@Seliz463 Amen! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@LatinxMatt]

you should read some Henry Ford next kek

[@marchess7420]

what, specifically, do you find of value there?

[@Herbalhealthsupplements]

"We're in a bad place" - okay so leave then, you won't be missed. The world is leaving your behind.

[@Adamentin]

🤔

[@fralo70]

At what point in the book does he actually begin discussing....you know...the French Revolution? I just started it, and so far, he is only speaking on England and defended their manner of selecting kings. I want to skip all of that, and get to where he speaks of his views on the the revolution.

[@merlinwizard1000]

3rd, 27 September 2022

[@pemberton6974]

PregerU is really a Preger you tube. This is not a University it's a KZbin channel 🙄

[@digitalnomad9985]

Leftists are immune to irony.

[@justsomedude77]

So we can acknowledge trump wants to abolish all guardrails right… that’s what J6 was right?

[@Demiurge443]

“Everyone in the world knows England’s traditions are better” This line of thinking is awful.

[@jsp3366]

Do you understand the concept of context?

[@tomspaghetti]

Edmond Burke was a Simp for Antoinette. The real Chad was Thomas Paine!

[@tristanbruns5968]

LOL! Burke advocated for change in this text, slow change, but change nonetheless. (Re: The crowing of Will and Mary of Orange, joint rulers, not even English, Dutch people!) Notice how these two skirt around that very important part, that change is good as long as it’s slow (and not just based on what other countries did a hundred years ago). That’s why Knowles is so confused throughout this, because he is stuck defining things in one axiomatic way, when they always change anachronistically. MAGA is about regression; Burke was about slow progression. Not the same, and Knowles keeps trying to put his square peg in this round hole while failing to comprehend Burke. Awful video.