September 25, 2020
As a child, my parents trained me to always question other people. While this isn't always great for trust, it is beneficial when it comes to challenging and questioning ideas. Within my friend groups, I have always considered myself the ultimate devil's advocate. While I'm sure that I'm largely overselling my own talents with that title, it drives my general philosophy when approaching any topic of discussion, and any analysis of how others are presenting themselves. In a way, this is why I like Tim Pool. He consistently criticizes the left for not leading policy or social narratives in a way that approaches their claimed ideals. Likewise, I find it critically important to distinguish the areas where I find conservatives or traditionalists lacking, and put a heavy emphasis against people claiming to be constitutionalist libertarians or classical liberals.
I take a non-stance on the position of abortion due to personal circumstance, but I have argued with pro-life people the necessity of and philosophical "right" for abortion, and I have argued with pro-choice individuals the philosophical underpinnings that make abortion an absolute violation of natural rights as defined in the United States Declaration of Independence. I have argued for the experience of mixing cultures as well as the foolishness of leading cultural independence among different societal groups. I have outlined the propaganda from both sides and acknowledged the obscurity of truth in many areas of "factual discussion". Sometimes the truth is obvious, but the lies are smeared over the entire view, as if an ink blotch was painted over the Mona Lisa. There is a truth but everyone sees something different.
So what is the point of this. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I want to tell my story and help my supporters and followers understand me better, and the reason I post what I do. I bare a grudge when I see people claiming to be libertarians forcing their order onto others. I see the hypocrisy in Fox making fun of CNN for calling the the riots "Fiery but Peaceful Protests" and then themselves calling literal explosions that happen live on camera "The use of some incendiary devices" and downplaying them as "fireworks" and claiming they are "not bombs". Fireworks are bombs, and even if one wouldn't consider them thus, they were still used as bombs live on Fox's coverage. I hear older conservatives pushing for law and order to be forced onto even peaceful protests as being "disruptive", calling walk away rallies that get attacked by BLM "people going to get attacked", claiming Trump needs to win with a 10% or larger margin while refusing to go to any public place to promote or support the promotion of the president and saying anyone who does is "creating trouble". I begrudge the hypocrisy and back turning on public support of their own values. Saying schools are indoctrinating our kids and then saying all kids must go to public school is one of the arguments I have heard that aggravates me the most.
To an extent, I am angry at the old right. I am a younger generation and I want to see society move in a more traditional libertarian direction, and the refusal for and even degrading of public action to promote their own beliefs sickens me. 110 years ago, the progressives were a part of the republican party. Teddy Roosevelt took the progressives from the Republicans and they were later absorbed by the Democrat party. Knowing this, I had come to a realization. Progressives are not innately left or right. They are simply the arm of action, and will take action for whichever side they happen to be on. While the right is called conservative now, I believe that is actually a misleading naming structure. Conservatism is a part of the right, but it is not the right side of the graph.
The right side is traditionalism. When the Republican party was founded, it was not a conservative party. It was a traditionalist, progressive party. A party that wanted to move the country to closer approach the ideals inscribed in our constitution and Declaration of Independence. There is a saying that the Overton Window always pulls left. I believe that is because of the dynamic of progressivism being fully concentrated on the left, the concentration of power and, what I would call, pre-post-traditionalism. As post-modernism destroys the evolutions in human thought discovered in the enlightenment period, creating an image that almost mirrors the pre-enlightenment era of thought, so too does leftism and the concentration of power of the left. I honestly believe that a new word is necessary to describe the left side of the political spectrum from the American perspective, but I will use pre-post-traditionalism for now. That said, with conservatives being the force that is unwanting to move and the progressives being the unstoppable force, the nation has continued to move leftward, and will even move leftward from conservatives if they believe that a leftward movement will help to maintain a certain aspect of their existing status quo. This is why George W. Bush was able to get away with the Patriot Act. Conservatives liked the strong military and "safety" they had previously felt they had in flights. To conserve that, they moved leftward and ceded privacy rights to the government in order to protect a more daily relevant status quo.
The recent lockdown events have given me the opportunity to discuss the protection of freedom with older conservatives, and it seems that many have been convinced that sacrificing their freedoms "temporarily" is necessary to protect their "freedom". The contradiction struck me. It is probably the thing that really shifted my locals to become more political in nature. I consider myself a traditionalist, but the word conservative has become poison to me. I see similar things on the left, where more active members of the left become frustrated with those who only echo the talking points of the media they watch.
Now, saying all this, I find the right to be willing to argue and debate across the lines of disagreement far more willingly than those on the left. In a debate with a friend on abortion, we argued using the three key rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the foundation for our arguments. My friend argued that an unborn's right to life does not have the validity to overwrite ones right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My argument was that using your liberty to pursue happiness and failing does not give one the right to take a life that such pursuits resulted in creating. A heated discussion on the morality of the argument and realizations that not all of our arguments were fully developed and that more emotional opinions were being held than had first been believed. Yet I have found little way to present my own arguments to any on the left that will not result in total shutdown. I can question, sometimes, but the conversation seems to have a requirement of one sided flow of knowledge. This is why I focus my criticisms on the right. As of the time being, I see hope to have open discussion with traditionalists of any background. The pre-post-traditionalists adoption of critical theory has led them to consider logic to be a corrupted aspect of the traditionalist spectrum and the utilization of such systems of debate is evidence supporting their critical theory promotion of traditionalism as bad. This all said, I cannot say for sure that this critical theory aspect of the left wing is the left wing, or if it is just a part of it, as conservatism is a part of the right.
For me, I simply want to learn, discuss ideas, and pass along my knowledge and experience. I created this locals as both an outlet for my ideas and a place to further challenge myself and others. To be honest, I find the lack of responses I get to my posts to be somewhat disheartening. I am no expert in any of my ideas or concepts, nor do I expect anyone else to be. Anecdotes, thoery, or factual evidence provided are all worthy to my search. I hope too that you all can learn from the challenges I put myself through, and perhaps you too will find a fun challenge along the way. That is my goal.
As a devil's advocate, I consistently get called a radical for all sides of the political spectrums. The truth is, I'm just a guy who wants to explore his freedom to challenge all ideas. That said, the most radical concept in the world is the concept of freedom. I see it as my duty to help to enshrine that radical idea for another generation. I get sad and frustrated when I see that even the generations before me have abandoned so much of it. So I shall be that radical patriot fighting for the words of our constitution. In the words of Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"
I look forward to continuing this pursuit with you all at my side. I will make some posts about definitions of terms that I use and words that I make up as I go along from now on too. I think that will be useful for you all to understand how I utilize my personal language
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
As someone who works with daily reporting to the Fed, big companies dealing with regulation are basically a clusterfuck and the requirements basically leave the companies in a position where they can never really update their systems because they need their systems literally every day. They can make new systems, potentially, but updating the regular system is more of a liability since missing a single day can screw the company up. At the same time, it seems like the big companies, at least the one I'm in, are mostly carried forward by the inertia of their own weight. I am fully convinced there will be another massive financial crisis if other major banks are like mine, just cause there really isn't anything that can be done if something is messed up. It's like fake it til you make it, only in reverse. Once something goes wrong, the requirements for constant regular action leaves no time to go back to correct the damage. All you can do is mitigate. Like debt gaining interest, eventually ...
Does anyone have any advice for the work, life, content creator balance? I just genuinely have not had the spirit in me to be able to create the content I want to be able to create these past few months as I am just feeling totally worn out day in and out. I'd like to get back into the philosophic deep dives and contemplations you followed me for, yet that's feeling like a lifetime ago now and every day feels like a step away from where and what I'm supposed to be doing
My locals app is finally working again. Been sick lately. Started considering the differences between corruption and evil. I decided to look at it from a moral framework and came up with a new perspective on how to define the 2 from a moral standpoint. A corrupt person will defy their morals to achieve their goals, whereas an evil person will determine their morals based on whatever ends satisfy or help to achieve their goals. In this way, you can see that a corrupt person may acknowledge when they are doing something morally wrong and feel guilt over it, whereas an evil person will determine that all who oppose them are the true evil threat and could even assess their own will as being justice.
Just a little thought that's been running through my mind lately. And it's interesting because it really makes you wonder which is worse? One who will defy morals or one who will redefine them? Perhaps they both have the same end result, but do they both have the ability to find redemption? I ...
Welcome to Commutation Construct. This is a community designed around maximizing open dialogue and discussion. Get your first month on us by using the coupon code "STARTHERE" or by following this link:
Happy to have you!