Carl isn't wrong he just wasn't being nuanced enough for someone who is clearly reacting in a nonsense way. The other two members of Sokal Squared are behaving like children.
My problem with Carl's analysis is that it relies on the assumption that if you take an ideology to it's logical extremes, it will be fucking insanity. This is basically true of all ideologies, and in all times, and in all conditions; because it's basically Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem. Any logical system can either be complete (to cover all things) or consistent (to give repeated outcomes). No logical system can do both. It is a fundamental problem with logic in and of itself. Even math is not exempt, and we used math to prove it.
My problem with how he's looking at it is that he's tolerating Rousseau (which he shouldn't), and then pre-supposing that a Liberal order "loses" to all Leftist orders because they "don't fulfil the promises of Liberalism".
While it is true that Liberalism seeks liberty, egality, and fraternity; we have to accept that Liberalism has boundary conditions. One of those things is (for example) reality. Rousseau actually rejects this. Well, that's fucking wrong. His ideas can be thrown away right at that point. I also understand that Locke has limitations, since he believed in Tabula Rasa. But again, this is the point. We have to recognize that the boundary conditions of Liberalism must be set by observable reality.
Leftism, and by definition Communism, is an evil shadow-version of Liberalism which claims to guarantee the promises of Liberalism by literally killing everyone and everything in their quest for utopia.
This should make sense to everyone if they are being honest, because every system has these 'evil shadow versions'. The shadow of Monarchism is autocracy. The shadow of Nationalism is a hermit-kingdom. The shadow of Christian Nationalism would be Divine Command Autocracy. The shadow of Libertarianism is PvP. The shadow of traditionalism is an unthinking appeal to ignorance.
I know a lot of the right likes traditionalism, but Carl himself made a video series entirely on: "All Cultures Are Beautiful". Most of the cultures he went over were people who were insane savages who developed traditions that we would consider evil. Whether it's the burning of widows alive, or horrific things being done to children, or human sacrifice... tradition is not necessarily enough on it's own. Everything has a shadow when you don't test it, or take it to extremes.
Unlike Connor, Neema Parvini, and the rest of the reactionary right; that doesn't mean we criminalize Liberalism and eliminate individual freedom. Liberalism will have to get replaced because it's axioms are false, but the majority of it works fine when applied against a state, by a people with a strong moral sentiment, a nationalistic mindset, and a desire to take individual responsibility. Liberalism responsibly, and we'll squeeze some more decades out of it.
Carl isn't wrong he just wasn't being nuanced enough for someone who is clearly reacting in a nonsense way. The other two members of Sokal Squared are behaving like children.
My problem with Carl's analysis is that it relies on the assumption that if you take an ideology to it's logical extremes, it will be fucking insanity. This is basically true of all ideologies, and in all times, and in all conditions; because it's basically Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem. Any logical system can either be complete (to cover all things) or consistent (to give repeated outcomes). No logical system can do both. It is a fundamental problem with logic in and of itself. Even math is not exempt, and we used math to prove it.
My problem with how he's looking at it is that he's tolerating Rousseau (which he shouldn't), and then pre-supposing that a Liberal order "loses" to all Leftist orders because they "don't fulfil the promises of Liberalism".
While it is true that Liberalism seeks liberty, egality, and fraternity; we have to accept that Liberalism has boundary conditions. One of those things is (for example) reality. Rousseau actually rejects this. Well, that's fucking wrong. His ideas can be thrown away right at that point. I also understand that Locke has limitations, since he believed in Tabula Rasa. But again, this is the point. We have to recognize that the boundary conditions of Liberalism must be set by observable reality.
Leftism, and by definition Communism, is an evil shadow-version of Liberalism which claims to guarantee the promises of Liberalism by literally killing everyone and everything in their quest for utopia.
This should make sense to everyone if they are being honest, because every system has these 'evil shadow versions'. The shadow of Monarchism is autocracy. The shadow of Nationalism is a hermit-kingdom. The shadow of Christian Nationalism would be Divine Command Autocracy. The shadow of Libertarianism is PvP. The shadow of traditionalism is an unthinking appeal to ignorance.
I know a lot of the right likes traditionalism, but Carl himself made a video series entirely on: "All Cultures Are Beautiful". Most of the cultures he went over were people who were insane savages who developed traditions that we would consider evil. Whether it's the burning of widows alive, or horrific things being done to children, or human sacrifice... tradition is not necessarily enough on it's own. Everything has a shadow when you don't test it, or take it to extremes.
Unlike Connor, Neema Parvini, and the rest of the reactionary right; that doesn't mean we criminalize Liberalism and eliminate individual freedom. Liberalism will have to get replaced because it's axioms are false, but the majority of it works fine when applied against a state, by a people with a strong moral sentiment, a nationalistic mindset, and a desire to take individual responsibility. Liberalism responsibly, and we'll squeeze some more decades out of it.