I'm not sure that Lindsey's establishes an especially convincing connection between ancient Gnostic beliefs and Marxism.
Many parallels can be found certainly, but you can find some of those same underlying themes in examples such as Buddhism and the French revolution.
Those themes largely stemming from, guess what? Someone who thinks they have the right idea on how to address how much it sucks for people who are poor, and taking extra steps into moralizing it and "addressing" it. Sometime it's a coping mechanism adopted by the poor. Sometimes it's a subversive idea introduced by the upper classes to manipulate or quell rebellion. Other times it's just some ambitious activists who wants to flip the tables of power to their way of thinking.
And as for specific case examples where individuality, free speech, freedom to make your own decisions, freedom to own private property, etc? Those aren't just ideologically zany ideas from a bunch of cultists from thousands of years ago. They're measures commonly employed by those currently in power in order to get things to go their way with minimal resistance. It's always about power, manipulation, and control. And a whole lot of narcissism and ego.
Step 1. Eat the Rich
Step 2. Smash the State
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Utopia
It turns out that Step 3 always seems to be "Centralize power and establish authoritarian rule of terror"; At which point Step 4 never seems to arrive.
But it doesn't stop useful idiots buying this simple 4 step plan and assuming Step 3 will just "work itself out".
Most of their attitudes derived from Rousseau and were enacted by the Jacobins. Both Rousseau and the Jacobins are well respected within Leftism to this very day.
They are also the originators of the term "Leftist".
Similarly, "Rightists" were simply Rousseauian Revolutionaries that were anti-Jacobin. The purging of the Jacobin's was the Thermidorian Reaction, who were still aligned ideologically with them, but needed to stop the wholesale mass slaughter.
Modern historians like to pretend that the Thermidorian Reaction ended the French revolution because the Thermidorians were somehow anti-Liberal and *anti-*Revolution; despite not a single soul in France believing that. While all of this was happening, Napoleon was cannonading monarchists. Anti-Liberal factions were still explicitly killed in France, and Napoleon seized enough power to be the avatar of the Revolution. Historians like to pretend that Napoleon and the Thermidorians aren't Liberal, are in line with the monarchists, and that "Rightism" was illiberal; that way they can preserve this narrative that the Jacobins were the only true Liberals and Napoleonic France had nothing to do with Revolutionary France.
Meanwhile, Rousseau is a "Liberal" in the most vague sense of the word, and actual Liberals like Laffayette and Jefferson had abandoned the French Revolution, or were otherwise forced out of it to save their own lives very early into the reign of the Jacobins.
That is all very interesting, but what do Liberal and illiberal mean here? Are we saying that "Rightists are the true liberals!" ? What distinguished Lafayette and Jefferson from the faux-Liberal?
It's a fair question because of how I'm using the term "Liberal" in reference to philosophical Liberalism. That idea is fundamentally based on the concept of self-sovereignty through property ownership. You are literally your own property, and as such, you are your own sovereign, and as such you can't be owned by anyone else. Hence, why totalitarian rule, authoritarian rule, tyranny, and slavery are all incompatible with Liberal philosophy.
Although Rousseau is considered a liberal thinker, his insane version of the Social Contract theory requires a reign of terror to be imposed on the individual. Literally: the Social Contract with the government requires your obedience to the government after the results of a single election are known. If 51% of the voting population decides that toilet paper must be dispensed in an over-hand fashion, then the remaining 49% of the population MUST comply with that. There is explicitly no limit to the level of violence and coercion that can be employed against the 49%. Mass murder, public humiliation, rape as a weapon of terror, mass torture, starvation as a weapon of subjugation, ALL are acceptable methods. Rousseau almost exactly used the term "reign of terror". He considered, what we would call, state sponsored terrorism as an absolute moral imperative against dissent. He doesn't even allow for a re-vote, or for the issue to be brought up at a later time. One, and only one vote suffices for unlimited violence against all dissenters who do not immediately acquiesce to "The General Will".
All I can say is that there is no fathomable compatibility between a view that you are your own sovereign, and that the state has unlimited powers of coercion against you. This bizarre "General Will" concept that he asserts seems only determinable by single elections, with no appeal, no re-votes, and no real explanation about how any of those votes would work in the first place. He simply asserts that he understands what "The General Will" is, and that it's inherently good.
He's a fucking mad man.
A lot of the other Liberal Philosophers of the time also thought he was a lunatic. This is only part of his insanity, there's a lot more, and I'd advise going over his book on the Social Contract; or listening to the Lotus Eaters Book Club on them. He seems to be the closest thing to what I would call a genuine "proto-Fascist".
As such, the concept of "Liberal" that Rousseau is explaining is far more akin to Fascism and Communism than anything we saw in England or the United Stated during their Liberal periods. Liberals in England like Blackstone wouldn't tolerate a single innocent man being imprisoned at the sake of a 10 guilty men going free; where as Rousseau was papered to rape the innocent man to death until he agreed with him. Jefferson and Lafayette were effectively Lockean Liberals. Liberalism, in their mind, was not a totalitarian system, but a mechanism of managing the danger of a government within a Christian moral society.
Lafayette is a perfect example of the stark contrast. He was a young man who was giddy about serving in the American Revolution (which was a Lockean Liberal Revolution), and was well regarded by George Washington. After the revolution, Liberals dreamed of exporting American Liberalism to Europe. When the French Revolution broke out, it looked like it was very much going to be in a Lockean form. Lafayette was already an experienced military commander at this point, and sided with the revolutionaries. However, he was constantly noted for his moderation. Riotous mobs routinely wanted to start murdering aristocrats and royal soldiers. He would routinely calm the mob, and guaranteed the safety of both, allowing them to surrender. He pushed for the Rights of Man (he was in communication with Jefferson to help get it drafted and passed), and a Parliamentary system to be developed. He also refused to end the military hierarchy.
That last one is particularly important because it nearly killed him. His "moderation" had turned him into an enemy of the Jacobins (a secret society of rabid Rousseauians). As their "Committee for Public Safety" seized power to become the government, they began killing and executing their political enemies. They were shit military commanders, however. In one infamous engagement, Lafayette had discovered that several French militia were defeated and quickly ran from battle. Instead of training, or arming, or drilling, or doing anything sane... the militia executed all of their own officers for oppression or something retarded. IIRC, Lafayette had them shot. You know, for murdering their own officers.
Well, the Jacobins didn't appreciate that, and summoned him to Paris. He assumed that, as was the case with many other commanders before him, he would be summarily executed in a show trial by guillotine. So, he withdrew, delayed, promised he'd be in the wrong place, and fled to southern France on his own estate, refusing to further participate in any revolutionary activity. This was well before Napolean, and even before the Jacobins had solidified their totalitarian control. From that point on, and Lockean Liberals would basically go into hiding or flee. This would coincide with English and American Liberals basically abandoning the French Revolution as it descended into the "Reign of Terror" that Rousseau's works demanded.
Are we saying that "Rightists are the true liberals!" ?
No, Rightists don't exist at all. It's basically just another slur. No different from "Counter-Revolutionary", "Reactionary", "Backwards thinking", and "Fascist" to the decedents of Rousseau.
There is actually no political Right. It's a false dichotomy. The Leftists are simply people who's dialectic and narrative emerges from Rousseau, Hagel, and Marx. But fundamentally, they are a Philosophy of War (as I've elaborated previously). They are not a Liberal ideology. They are a Melian Dialogue of an ideology. They are nothing more than the rationalization of "The strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer what they must." There is no "right" because the term is meaningless. It only means "that which is not us" or "enemy".
Even the "Rightists" of the time of the French Revolution were not Liberal because they were Rousseauian. They were just anti-Jacobian. They were literally just "the revolutionaries on the right side of the room, as opposed to the left side".
The "true Liberals" (those who follow Locke or other non-Rousseau thinkers) like Lafayette weren't even considered Rightists at the time. They were considered enemies of the revolution, deserving of summary execution. No different from any monarchist.
The political right of today, are all effectively Liberal (at least in the US). Even the American conservatives are trying to conserve Lockean Liberal Philosophy. John Adams was an American Liberal who vehemently opposed universal suffrage. So did Blackstone. So did Jefferson. So did Madison. Barry Goldwater is a philosophical Liberal.
It's different in Europe, where most countries had a long history of illiberalism (like Poland, Hungry, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.) But France and the Anglosphere especially are heavily built on a Liberal framework. You could even go so far as to say that the American revolution's concept of Liberalism was an attempt to universalize the concept of "Ancient English rights & liberties" to all men. It's a very anglo-centric idea. It's not even Celtic.
Thank you. This is a longer more detailed answer than I expected or deserved, but it is greatly appreciated. All I know is, we've taken a wrong turn. We have to go back.
No, it's fine. The ins-and-outs of Liberal Philosophy, then untangling history, and trying to trace the lineage of our current problem is something I've been working on for the past five years.
It bears underlining: The American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution were in quick succession.
One of the reasons that France came to revolution is that the French royal court funded the American Revolution beyond sustainability, and then the country was hit with hard winters and terrible harvests.
Perhaps Louis XVI was in favor of the political experiment of the USA, or perhaps he and his wife saw events as a way to blacken the eye of the English, who were the dominant power of the sea. I don't know enough to say.
The French Revaluation may have been an opportunity for reform, but it quickly devolved into a grotesquery of bloodletting driven by philosophy that borders on the insane.
It was about screwing over the English. As much as the war was funded by France, the French didn't have to engage in a full-scale conflict with Britain. They did that because Louis thought the war could be profitable.
The French Revolution was driven heavily by secret societies. This is where "the illuminatti" starts becoming very relevant. You can see the "all seeing eye" right on their Declaration of the Rights of Man. There's a reason that when Hitler invaded France one of their main jobs to prevent rebellion was capture all of the masonic temples. Asha Logos has a great episode on the French revolution.
2 hours and 11 minutes is a lot (And there is a lot of ancient religion elements too it) and it could be considered quirky at some points but overall it s a nice entry to epistemology as a concept.
Worth it if you have the time to listen but requires comparing it to other lectures upon the same subject and contrasting what comes across as 'real' to you and why it does.
Rinse and repeat and see how you come away from it all should you dare but I'd never suggest taking only one or two points as starting areas for an infinite area of philosophy.
I'm not sure that Lindsey's establishes an especially convincing connection between ancient Gnostic beliefs and Marxism.
Many parallels can be found certainly, but you can find some of those same underlying themes in examples such as Buddhism and the French revolution.
Those themes largely stemming from, guess what? Someone who thinks they have the right idea on how to address how much it sucks for people who are poor, and taking extra steps into moralizing it and "addressing" it. Sometime it's a coping mechanism adopted by the poor. Sometimes it's a subversive idea introduced by the upper classes to manipulate or quell rebellion. Other times it's just some ambitious activists who wants to flip the tables of power to their way of thinking.
And as for specific case examples where individuality, free speech, freedom to make your own decisions, freedom to own private property, etc? Those aren't just ideologically zany ideas from a bunch of cultists from thousands of years ago. They're measures commonly employed by those currently in power in order to get things to go their way with minimal resistance. It's always about power, manipulation, and control. And a whole lot of narcissism and ego.
The French Revolution absolutely was a proto communist movement. Complete with pogroms and state media.
The parallels are uncanny.
Step 1. Eat the Rich Step 2. Smash the State Step 3. ??? Step 4. Utopia
It turns out that Step 3 always seems to be "Centralize power and establish authoritarian rule of terror"; At which point Step 4 never seems to arrive.
But it doesn't stop useful idiots buying this simple 4 step plan and assuming Step 3 will just "work itself out".
Correct. Leftism is underpants gnomes of politics.
Most of their attitudes derived from Rousseau and were enacted by the Jacobins. Both Rousseau and the Jacobins are well respected within Leftism to this very day.
They are also the originators of the term "Leftist".
Similarly, "Rightists" were simply Rousseauian Revolutionaries that were anti-Jacobin. The purging of the Jacobin's was the Thermidorian Reaction, who were still aligned ideologically with them, but needed to stop the wholesale mass slaughter.
Modern historians like to pretend that the Thermidorian Reaction ended the French revolution because the Thermidorians were somehow anti-Liberal and *anti-*Revolution; despite not a single soul in France believing that. While all of this was happening, Napoleon was cannonading monarchists. Anti-Liberal factions were still explicitly killed in France, and Napoleon seized enough power to be the avatar of the Revolution. Historians like to pretend that Napoleon and the Thermidorians aren't Liberal, are in line with the monarchists, and that "Rightism" was illiberal; that way they can preserve this narrative that the Jacobins were the only true Liberals and Napoleonic France had nothing to do with Revolutionary France.
Meanwhile, Rousseau is a "Liberal" in the most vague sense of the word, and actual Liberals like Laffayette and Jefferson had abandoned the French Revolution, or were otherwise forced out of it to save their own lives very early into the reign of the Jacobins.
That is all very interesting, but what do Liberal and illiberal mean here? Are we saying that "Rightists are the true liberals!" ? What distinguished Lafayette and Jefferson from the faux-Liberal?
It's a fair question because of how I'm using the term "Liberal" in reference to philosophical Liberalism. That idea is fundamentally based on the concept of self-sovereignty through property ownership. You are literally your own property, and as such, you are your own sovereign, and as such you can't be owned by anyone else. Hence, why totalitarian rule, authoritarian rule, tyranny, and slavery are all incompatible with Liberal philosophy.
Although Rousseau is considered a liberal thinker, his insane version of the Social Contract theory requires a reign of terror to be imposed on the individual. Literally: the Social Contract with the government requires your obedience to the government after the results of a single election are known. If 51% of the voting population decides that toilet paper must be dispensed in an over-hand fashion, then the remaining 49% of the population MUST comply with that. There is explicitly no limit to the level of violence and coercion that can be employed against the 49%. Mass murder, public humiliation, rape as a weapon of terror, mass torture, starvation as a weapon of subjugation, ALL are acceptable methods. Rousseau almost exactly used the term "reign of terror". He considered, what we would call, state sponsored terrorism as an absolute moral imperative against dissent. He doesn't even allow for a re-vote, or for the issue to be brought up at a later time. One, and only one vote suffices for unlimited violence against all dissenters who do not immediately acquiesce to "The General Will".
All I can say is that there is no fathomable compatibility between a view that you are your own sovereign, and that the state has unlimited powers of coercion against you. This bizarre "General Will" concept that he asserts seems only determinable by single elections, with no appeal, no re-votes, and no real explanation about how any of those votes would work in the first place. He simply asserts that he understands what "The General Will" is, and that it's inherently good.
He's a fucking mad man.
A lot of the other Liberal Philosophers of the time also thought he was a lunatic. This is only part of his insanity, there's a lot more, and I'd advise going over his book on the Social Contract; or listening to the Lotus Eaters Book Club on them. He seems to be the closest thing to what I would call a genuine "proto-Fascist".
As such, the concept of "Liberal" that Rousseau is explaining is far more akin to Fascism and Communism than anything we saw in England or the United Stated during their Liberal periods. Liberals in England like Blackstone wouldn't tolerate a single innocent man being imprisoned at the sake of a 10 guilty men going free; where as Rousseau was papered to rape the innocent man to death until he agreed with him. Jefferson and Lafayette were effectively Lockean Liberals. Liberalism, in their mind, was not a totalitarian system, but a mechanism of managing the danger of a government within a Christian moral society.
Lafayette is a perfect example of the stark contrast. He was a young man who was giddy about serving in the American Revolution (which was a Lockean Liberal Revolution), and was well regarded by George Washington. After the revolution, Liberals dreamed of exporting American Liberalism to Europe. When the French Revolution broke out, it looked like it was very much going to be in a Lockean form. Lafayette was already an experienced military commander at this point, and sided with the revolutionaries. However, he was constantly noted for his moderation. Riotous mobs routinely wanted to start murdering aristocrats and royal soldiers. He would routinely calm the mob, and guaranteed the safety of both, allowing them to surrender. He pushed for the Rights of Man (he was in communication with Jefferson to help get it drafted and passed), and a Parliamentary system to be developed. He also refused to end the military hierarchy.
That last one is particularly important because it nearly killed him. His "moderation" had turned him into an enemy of the Jacobins (a secret society of rabid Rousseauians). As their "Committee for Public Safety" seized power to become the government, they began killing and executing their political enemies. They were shit military commanders, however. In one infamous engagement, Lafayette had discovered that several French militia were defeated and quickly ran from battle. Instead of training, or arming, or drilling, or doing anything sane... the militia executed all of their own officers for oppression or something retarded. IIRC, Lafayette had them shot. You know, for murdering their own officers.
Well, the Jacobins didn't appreciate that, and summoned him to Paris. He assumed that, as was the case with many other commanders before him, he would be summarily executed in a show trial by guillotine. So, he withdrew, delayed, promised he'd be in the wrong place, and fled to southern France on his own estate, refusing to further participate in any revolutionary activity. This was well before Napolean, and even before the Jacobins had solidified their totalitarian control. From that point on, and Lockean Liberals would basically go into hiding or flee. This would coincide with English and American Liberals basically abandoning the French Revolution as it descended into the "Reign of Terror" that Rousseau's works demanded.
No, Rightists don't exist at all. It's basically just another slur. No different from "Counter-Revolutionary", "Reactionary", "Backwards thinking", and "Fascist" to the decedents of Rousseau.
There is actually no political Right. It's a false dichotomy. The Leftists are simply people who's dialectic and narrative emerges from Rousseau, Hagel, and Marx. But fundamentally, they are a Philosophy of War (as I've elaborated previously). They are not a Liberal ideology. They are a Melian Dialogue of an ideology. They are nothing more than the rationalization of "The strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer what they must." There is no "right" because the term is meaningless. It only means "that which is not us" or "enemy".
Even the "Rightists" of the time of the French Revolution were not Liberal because they were Rousseauian. They were just anti-Jacobian. They were literally just "the revolutionaries on the right side of the room, as opposed to the left side".
The "true Liberals" (those who follow Locke or other non-Rousseau thinkers) like Lafayette weren't even considered Rightists at the time. They were considered enemies of the revolution, deserving of summary execution. No different from any monarchist.
The political right of today, are all effectively Liberal (at least in the US). Even the American conservatives are trying to conserve Lockean Liberal Philosophy. John Adams was an American Liberal who vehemently opposed universal suffrage. So did Blackstone. So did Jefferson. So did Madison. Barry Goldwater is a philosophical Liberal.
It's different in Europe, where most countries had a long history of illiberalism (like Poland, Hungry, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.) But France and the Anglosphere especially are heavily built on a Liberal framework. You could even go so far as to say that the American revolution's concept of Liberalism was an attempt to universalize the concept of "Ancient English rights & liberties" to all men. It's a very anglo-centric idea. It's not even Celtic.
Thank you. This is a longer more detailed answer than I expected or deserved, but it is greatly appreciated. All I know is, we've taken a wrong turn. We have to go back.
No, it's fine. The ins-and-outs of Liberal Philosophy, then untangling history, and trying to trace the lineage of our current problem is something I've been working on for the past five years.
It bears underlining: The American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution were in quick succession.
One of the reasons that France came to revolution is that the French royal court funded the American Revolution beyond sustainability, and then the country was hit with hard winters and terrible harvests.
Perhaps Louis XVI was in favor of the political experiment of the USA, or perhaps he and his wife saw events as a way to blacken the eye of the English, who were the dominant power of the sea. I don't know enough to say.
The French Revaluation may have been an opportunity for reform, but it quickly devolved into a grotesquery of bloodletting driven by philosophy that borders on the insane.
It was about screwing over the English. As much as the war was funded by France, the French didn't have to engage in a full-scale conflict with Britain. They did that because Louis thought the war could be profitable.
Rousseau doesn't border insanity. It is insanity.
The French Revolution was driven heavily by secret societies. This is where "the illuminatti" starts becoming very relevant. You can see the "all seeing eye" right on their Declaration of the Rights of Man. There's a reason that when Hitler invaded France one of their main jobs to prevent rebellion was capture all of the masonic temples. Asha Logos has a great episode on the French revolution.
Which takes us right back to the esoteric/secret cults originating from Gnosticism.
2 hours and 11 minutes is a lot (And there is a lot of ancient religion elements too it) and it could be considered quirky at some points but overall it s a nice entry to epistemology as a concept.
Worth it if you have the time to listen but requires comparing it to other lectures upon the same subject and contrasting what comes across as 'real' to you and why it does.
Rinse and repeat and see how you come away from it all should you dare but I'd never suggest taking only one or two points as starting areas for an infinite area of philosophy.