It is my personal belief that traditionalists need to reject the terminology and symbolism developed by the left, specifically marxists, in order to combat the growth of the ideology. I also believe that it is essential that the terminology we utilize bares association with the future we seek to create, such that the language will be able to innately carry on the value of its purpose by default.
For reference, we can see the failing of this in things such as the morality systems that underlined US culture now failing among younger generations that have grown up with less or no Christian influence in their lives. As the system of morality relied upon this belief structure to validate its reasoning, it was able to hold firm among those who grew up in the environment of the base culture who have walked away from it, such as Bill Maher, famous for espousing that he does not need religion to be a good person. Yet those who grow up in environments without any influence of this culture tend to begin to question why it even existed in the first place. Meanwhile, many young people associate Socialism with being for the people, social, and society. This association has led many young people to think positively of socialism, and, likewise, they have disdain towards capitalism as it is associated with capital, big business, and uncaring elites. That is the power that word association, or a lack of it, can have on a people.
Thusly, I suggest that traditionalists begin to think carefully over the words that they choose to use and formulate. Do not follow the words of the left as those words are innately designed to draw the entire society in a leftwards movement. Perhaps instead of using the word Capitalism, a word created by Marx himself, and a word associated with the capital markets of an economy having excess power over the average citizen, perhaps words like Productionism or Constructionism would be preferable. Words that are associated with creation, the working man, and creating new things. We are not focused on the money, but on creating. A perfect counter to the deconstructionist philosophy of the modern left. I am no master linguist, so I will not pretend that these are the ideal words to use. That said, they may be a proper starting point.
Frame the words you use to validate and recognize the future that you wish to see. It is the way words evolve and societies find a path to flourish.
That's all from me for today. I'll see you in the comments.
-James
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:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/post/235260/the-engineering-politics-podcast-30-conservatism-vs-progressive-traditionalism
So I just confirmed that, after a year off of the Keto diet, my Ulcerative Colitis (a type of IBS) is still not only in remission, but seemingly cured as if it never was there, including no more polyp growth.
This self-experiment has shown me that a prolonged period on Keto, about 2 years for me, was enough to create the long lasting effects to repair and cure my gastrointestinal system to complete recovery from what was supposed to be a lifelong, incurable illness. I still have a minor level proctitus at the exit, to put it in the least gross way I can think, but with the rest actually fully cured to where my new GI doctor asked if I was misdiagnosed originally is a major accomplishment.
For those seeking a source on how to get here like I did, I recommend following Thomas Delaur's YouTube channel for general inflammation control/healthy keto/ workout advice, only eat meat that is 100% Grass fed and pasture raised (including eggs), and drink a glass of Kefir at least once a week. Good ...
Controversial capitalist take, but I personally don't think stock ownership should give any power to the stockholders over business decisions. Buyouts and ownership should be separate from stock investment. How? There are various options to discuss. Why? Theoretically an investment firm could invest ownership stakes into every major investment firm over time and concentrate all of their investments to own controlling stakes across entire industries or even all publicly traded companies.
Actually, this isn't so theoretical if you look at BlackRock's partnerships with Vanguard and State Street. The three companies operate in virtual lockstep and theoretically wouldn't even need 51% collective ownership in the companies they invest in because any company with an array of other investors should have some theoretical minimum that they can guarantee will follow the leadership of these big 3 in most cases. I've seen estimates that they only need a collective 35% share to all but guarantee any ...
