Here's a conversation that a lot people don't like to really consider. Despite being a bastion of liberty for centuries, America has always had a defined culture that curtailed and defined the morality of the day and maintained normalcy within society. As the irony of tolerance is that it will inevitably tolerate the intolerant until the intolerant belief becomes the paramount worldview, so too does liberty have the irony of liberating the most restrictive of ideologies that, in pursuit of liberty, must be allowed to engage and given the opportunity to thrive. This leads to the inevitability that liberty too will fall as it will never have a 100% win rate so long as freedom is thriving and choice is available. It is only when choice becomes restricted that 100% can ever exist, and, even then, only until the burden is too great to bare.
Now, I am a Maximalist, I want information to be maximally available to everyone so that all people can make informed decisions and always find alternative perspectives. So my analysis will be biased towards that end. My ideal, as it were. This is why I believe that it is important to be informed on all ideologies; however, that does not mean a liberal society must acknowledge or accept all ideologies.
To express what I mean by this I will reference the true white supremacy of the KKK. Inside of our society, the KKK was able to form. They were even able to flourish for a time. Yet, we taught our people what they believe and why it is misguided and morally improper. An informed people that simultaneously rejected the beliefs and systems promoted by the organization. In other words, we were ever vigilant of that threat.
However, while it is simple for a liberal society to discover, expose, and educate on the threat of persecutory ideologies, they have proven to not be so good at identifying the threats of invert persecutory ideologies. You may know this better as victimhood culture. The term victimhood may cause people to react in different ways than a directly persecutory ideology, as the ideology is not imparting its persecution on others; however, it is very much the same. It is simply persecution coming inward instead of outwards, and making demands to the greater society based on that perceived persecution, the perceived malignment of persons, be they others or self.
The difficulty here is lack of perspective. As one cannot fully grasp the inward view of others, it is often vague at best to determine who is truly maligned from those who simply perceive themselves or others as being as such. The "right" is fairly obviously being targeted in a legal manner by anyone who knows the actual details of events such as the Covington Kids or Kyle Rittenhouse case, yet tens or even hundreds of millions only know perspectives that malign these people as villains. At the same time, those people may see what they perceive to be persecution of others, such as the refusal by conservatives to use non-biological pronouns for alphabets. There are ghosts in the shadows warping the minds of people, and discovering that they are ghosts and not reality takes work and many perspectives to analyze. As such, it is the duty of the liberal society to create structure and culture designed around distinguishing between the ghosts and the reality. I believe it is the duty of the society to maximize our understanding of these various belief systems and rigidly adhere to the core tenets of our liberal foundation. Perhaps there are some limitations here that are necessary, yet I could not ever determine them myself.
Moving on to the topic that had inspired this post, I would like to quickly discuss trans issues. Namely the way that trans activism has led to redefinition of terms, the limitations of natural rights, and the conflation of liberty and comfort. Primarily, ask for the definition of "woman" from a conservative, a neo-liberal, and a woke 4th wave feminist. You'll probably get different answers from all 3, with the neo-liberal's definition changing by the minute as they calculate which demographic is most adequate to pander to at the time. A liberal society falls apart when the different factions lose the glue of language uniformity to ensure understanding in communication.
Moving on to the limitations on rights. This is an issue specific to the US given the US's definition of rights as naturally occurring properties of human life which cannot be granted innately by anything other than nature or God. They are able to be restricted by others or Government, and thusly it is the duty of principled leadership to author their protection into law, something rarely done throughout human history. Also suffering from redefinition and foreign influence, from places that believe rights are gifted from the government as well as the expansion of ones own rights into the territory of other persons. People do not naturally influence those around them, though they are naturally or with training capable of doing so. That ability to influence others has been granted status as an unwritten right to the extent that others may impact the comfort or liberties of individuals.
This naturally leads to the discussion on liberty and comfort. It is the duty of liberal governments to ensure their people are aware that liberty demands responsibility and is innately burdensome. This is death by a billion cuts for the US as the government has increasingly sought to protect the people of the nation. Be it from famine, disease, financial ruin or even themselves, the growing list of government protections has innately removed the consequences of failed responsibility within these United States. Naturally, the evolution of protection from the other, nature, and self is the protection from the neighbor. Or perhaps, you could consider the neighbor the more acute form of protection from the other (namely foreign nations in this context). The warping of these protections as rights, goes hand-in-hand with redefining liberty as comfort. The ability to act on self-desire without resistance from any external influence. And no self-desire is more grand than the desire to make others behave in a way that suits your own personal preference. At least, not in the culture that has developed within the united states over the past 100+ years.
It seems that I have gotten away from the topic of trans activism, but this is more about the influence it has had on society and why, and what we can learn from it. A biological male is about to compete at the Tokyo Summer Olympics representing New Zealand in heavyweight lifting. It would be more than fair to expect this event to lead to some world records that will prove to be impossible for biological females to ever compete with (at least without tons of testosterone and other drugs injected into them). We live in a society where young girls are ongoing rapid onset gender dysphoria within their entire friend circles at alarming rates, and men and women who have always shown an affinity and affection towards the other gender return home from college either with a desire to be a member of that other gender, claiming they always were of that other gender, or with their sexual proclivities inverted from their admittance, and potentially holding disdain for the gender they had once held in such high regard. The foundation of human existence, the sexual balance between the sexes and their proclivities towards one another are in complete disarray at a societal level. This is problematic. Even if the individuals who naturally fall into these categories are not bad people, the redress and acceptance has exceeded the health of the greater society and, as such, has come at a cost. And it is not the only influence in this discuss, simply the topic for this discussion today.
Really, the summation is this, while it is in my own proclivity to maximize liberty, knowledge, and communication, it is also the duty of the society to enforce understanding of the common and regular, and the odd and the exotic. A society that allows the "liberty" of the extreme to become the ideal of the average will fall to pieces.
That's all from me for today. I'll talk to you all more soon.
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!