End of Everything - VDH, John Anderson

[OrangeTuono]

00:00 Intro
03:26 Trump vs Biden
10:02 Red States vs Blue States
17:49 Military Recruitment
23:50 University Leadership
28:43 Recentering of Young People
32:07 Trump Compared to Other Republicans
38:25 Trump Was Better?
46:00 Jews, Oppressors or Oppressed?
53:11 Is Islamophobia Justified?
57:49 Israel and Hamas
01:01:41 Israel to be Annihilated?
01:07:30 The End of Everything
01:22:06 Outro

 

[iasooner2000]

VDH is an excellent historian @ Stanford, I hope he is protected in California

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

VDH is an excellent historian @ Stanford, I hope he is protected in California

Only if he felates Gavin.

 

[iasooner2000]

He is fortunate in that hellscape and his works on WWII (The Second World Wars) from all sides are excellent plus other works (including farming) preclude him from bended knee to the left

 

[Ponca Dan]

He is fortunate in that hellscape and his works on WWII from all sides are excellent plus other works (including farming) preclude him from bended knee to the left

He is a fascinating man to listen to, who would hardly bend a knee to the left as he is the foremost NeoCon intellectual that provides the intellectual foundation from which many of them operate. I have only gotten through the first thirty minutes or so, but I would highly recommend everyone listen to what he says. I disagree with much of what he says, but he says it in such a way that one is forced to listen to him closely. To hear him tell it (through the first half hour at least) the left is in full throated panic that it is losing its mojo. One interesting thing about it is many leftist intellectuals agree with him about that as they see their political “leaders” being picked off one after the other by the establishment (here’s looking at you, Bernie).

 

[OrangeTuono]

VDH is an excellent historian @ Stanford, I hope he is protected in California

Remember that of the 22M registered voters, +5M are Republicans and +5M Independents.

Ranked choice voting destroyed the ability for anyone but the majority party to ever have a chance on most ballots.

 

[OrangeTuono]

He is a fascinating man to listen to, who would hardly bend a knee to the left as he is the foremost NeoCon intellectual that provides the intellectual foundation from which many of them operate. I have only gotten through the first thirty minutes or so, but I would highly recommend everyone listen to what he says. I disagree with much of what he says, but he says it in such a way that one is forced to listen to him closely. To hear him tell it (through the first half hour at least) the left is in full throated panic that it is losing its mojo. One interesting thing about it is many leftist intellectuals agree with him about that as they see their political “leaders” being picked off one after the other by the establishment (here’s looking at you, Bernie).

Not sure VDH "provides the intellectual foundation from which many operate", but he does describe the intellectual foundation of Western Civilization about as well as anyone.

I'm curious Ponca what do you personally see as the "intellectual foundation of Western Civilization" which VDH describes?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Not sure VDH "provides the intellectual foundation from which many operate", but he does describe the intellectual foundation of Western Civilization about as well as anyone.

I'm curious Ponca what do you personally see as the "intellectual foundation of Western Civilization" which VDH describes?

This oughta be good. 🤣

 

[Ponca Dan]

Not sure VDH "provides the intellectual foundation from which many operate", but he does describe the intellectual foundation of Western Civilization about as well as anyone.

I'm curious Ponca what do you personally see as the "intellectual foundation of Western Civilization" which VDH describes?

Not the foundation of Western Civilization. The foundation of NeoCon thought, particularly the belief it is America’s calling to “save the world” by force if necessary, from which the typical NeoCon thinks it is always necessary to use force to save the world.

 

[OUSOONER67]

Not the foundation of Western Civilization. The foundation of NeoCon thought, particularly the belief it is America’s calling to “save the world” by force if necessary, from which the typical NeoCon thinks it is always necessary to use force to save the world.

Using force by Evil will destroy the World and must be met with force. Or will Evil just play nice and say you need to surrender or else?
How many times has that worked for Evil in the Worlds history? Imagine that during WW2 the World told the Axis Powers that there will be repercussions and consequences if you take it all yet did nothing. Yeah I thought so.
Same could be said of the Dims soft stance on crime and the Southern Border, thats turning out to work very well. Speak softly and carry a rotten stick always works.

 

[iasooner2000]

The USA (and the entire world) were perilously close to being destroyed by the AXIS powers and we would either be speaking Japanese or German (or not at all) if not for the advances made in math and science with the acceptance of certain Jewish refugees that fled Europe before being snuffed.
FDR knew and nearly waited too long; if not for men like Churchill all would have been lost. There’s no such thing as “fortress America” now

 

[OrangeTuono]

Not the foundation of Western Civilization. The foundation of NeoCon thought, particularly the belief it is America’s calling to “save the world” by force if necessary, from which the typical NeoCon thinks it is always necessary to use force to save the world.

You haven't spent much time with VDH if you think he's a "Neo Con".

My question for you is more fundamental. How would YOU describe fundamental characteristics of "Western Civilization"?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

When I think of John Anderson.



Yer welcome. 😁

 

[Ponca Dan]

You haven't spent much time with VDH if you think he's a "Neo Con".

My question for you is more fundamental. How would YOU describe fundamental characteristics of "Western Civilization"?

No, I haven’t. I’ve listened to over an hour of his conversation, and I haven’t seen him say a single thing that would not be considered NeoCon talking points. The thing I notice and admire about him is his casual soft spoken confidence in his pronouncements. I have never seen him flustered or raise his voice in passion. But to be honest I’ve never seen him in an adversarial conversation. I have only seen him talking with people that agree with everything he utters. This video is a perfect example. I’ve never seen anyone tell him they disagree with something he has said or he is dead wrong. Almost everything I’ve heard him say could be taken by someone like Nikki Haley, a NeoCon he praises in the video by the way, and expanded into a pro-war diatribe, for example, as she has done many times. I don’t mean to imply someone like Haley gives him credit for her thoughts. She probably has no clue that he’s given her the philosophical justification for her war mongering. From his foundation the thoughts get bastardized and trickle into NeoCon ideology.

Fundamental characteristic of Western Civ? Hell it’s been 60+ years since I took a Western Civ class. I would say it’s a mish/mash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Fvck joe Biden.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

No, I haven’t. I’ve listened to over an hour of his conversation, and I haven’t seen him say a single thing that would not be considered NeoCon talking points. The thing I notice and admire about him is his casual soft spoken confidence in his pronouncements. I have never seen him flustered or raise his voice in passion. But to be honest I’ve never seen him in an adversarial conversation. I have only seen him talking with people that agree with everything he utters. This video is a perfect example. I’ve never seen anyone tell him they disagree with something he has said or he is dead wrong. Almost everything I’ve heard him say could be taken by someone like Nikki Haley, a NeoCon he praises in the video by the way, and expanded into a pro-war diatribe, for example, as she has done many times. I don’t mean to imply someone like Haley gives him credit for her thoughts. She probably has no clue that he’s given her the philosophical justification for her war mongering. From his foundation the thoughts get bastardized and trickle into NeoCon ideology.

Fundamental characteristic of Western Civ? Hell it’s been 60+ years since I took a Western Civ class. I would say it’s a mish/mash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology.

Yer in the same boat as shits Dan. Not surprising though. 🤣

 

[Havlicek65]

No, I haven’t. I’ve listened to over an hour of his conversation, and I haven’t seen him say a single thing that would not be considered NeoCon talking points. The thing I notice and admire about him is his casual soft spoken confidence in his pronouncements. I have never seen him flustered or raise his voice in passion. But to be honest I’ve never seen him in an adversarial conversation. I have only seen him talking with people that agree with everything he utters. This video is a perfect example. I’ve never seen anyone tell him they disagree with something he has said or he is dead wrong. Almost everything I’ve heard him say could be taken by someone like Nikki Haley, a NeoCon he praises in the video by the way, and expanded into a pro-war diatribe, for example, as she has done many times. I don’t mean to imply someone like Haley gives him credit for her thoughts. She probably has no clue that he’s given her the philosophical justification for her war mongering. From his foundation the thoughts get bastardized and trickle into NeoCon ideology.

Fundamental characteristic of Western Civ? Hell it’s been 60+ years since I took a Western Civ class. I would say it’s a mish/mash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology.

You were more likable when you were touting that soccer article for a Pulitzer Prize.

 

[iasooner2000]

Live/evil
Lived/devil,
palindrome or other ?

 

[OrangeTuono]

No, I haven’t. I’ve listened to over an hour of his conversation, and I haven’t seen him say a single thing that would not be considered NeoCon talking points. The thing I notice and admire about him is his casual soft spoken confidence in his pronouncements. I have never seen him flustered or raise his voice in passion. But to be honest I’ve never seen him in an adversarial conversation. I have only seen him talking with people that agree with everything he utters. This video is a perfect example. I’ve never seen anyone tell him they disagree with something he has said or he is dead wrong. Almost everything I’ve heard him say could be taken by someone like Nikki Haley, a NeoCon he praises in the video by the way, and expanded into a pro-war diatribe, for example, as she has done many times. I don’t mean to imply someone like Haley gives him credit for her thoughts. She probably has no clue that he’s given her the philosophical justification for her war mongering. From his foundation the thoughts get bastardized and trickle into NeoCon ideology.

Fundamental characteristic of Western Civ? Hell it’s been 60+ years since I took a Western Civ class. I would say it’s a mish/mash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology.

As a Conservative Libertarian Christian I do not see VDH in your dog-whistle Neo Con category, even if you can find some overlap - I find some overlap as well. I personally reserve "Neo Con" for the likes of Dick Cheney. You citing VDH recommending global interventionism as Neo Con would also have you classify Pres Clinton as a Neo Con?

I think you intentionally look to conflate in order to characterize, then push further with demonization once you've inched towards your intended goal, all as an argumentative style. I find this lacking in intellectual integrity.

To pull the thread on Western Civilization, what do you mean by mishmash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology? This seems extremely general/generic. I don't disagree - in general. Can you get a bit more detailed?

 

[Ponca Dan]

As a Conservative Libertarian Christian I do not see VDH in your dog-whistle Neo Con category, even if you can find some overlap - I find some overlap as well. I personally reserve "Neo Con" for the likes of Dick Cheney. You citing VDH recommending global interventionism as Neo Con would also have you classify Pres Clinton as a Neo Con?

I think you intentionally look to conflate in order to characterize, then push further with demonization once you've inched towards your intended goal, all as an argumentative style. I find this lacking in intellectual integrity.

To pull the thread on Western Civilization, what do you mean by mishmash of Christian ethics and Aristotelian epistemology? This seems extremely general/generic. I don't disagree - in general. Can you get a bit more detailed?

You are free to think of me as you wish. God knows everybody else on this board does and are not shy about sharing. I've been what I am (a philosophical libertarian anarchist) for a very long time and one can't be what I am for as long as I without developing very thick skin. I am very comfortable in my intellectual integrity.

Jesus offered up an ethic that is supposedly the foundation of Western Civ, at least in the political sense: love your neighbor as yourself. But I know of no epistemology from him. It's a good ethic. A little demanding of a human nature that urges against it at every turn.

Aristotle provided an unbeatable metaphysics in one simple phrase: "a is a." He then delved fairly deeply into the epistemological explanation of how a man knows what is real and what is not, how he knows that a is a. There is a long list of philosphers who took his concepts and ran with them. I would argue that the fundamental "political" concept of individual identity can be followed back to him, along with the notion that we are all indivduals with free will comes from Jesus.

 

[OrangeTuono]

Perhaps you're conflating "thick skin" with having "tunnel vision". I would challenge you to take a "long horizon" view of scholars, rather than looking to "characterize" their entire works based on a single time-relevant interview. Your statements on VDH seem very Critical Theory'ish - "he said once" so therefore "he is a <xyz>". Our classic Post Modernist decomposition then reconstitute based on minimal information.

Based on your posts, I would not have guessed you to be a Libertarian. The Anarchist part does fit.
For what it's worth, it was during the Obama Administration that I finally changed my registration from Libertarian to Republican. Not out of me being a "Neo Con" but more a realpolitik move.

Aristotle provided an unbeatable metaphysics in one simple phrase: "a is a." He then delved fairly deeply into the epistemological explanation of how a man knows what is real and what is not, how he knows that a is a. There is a long list of philosphers who took his concepts and ran with them. I would argue that the fundamental "political" concept of individual identity can be followed back to him, along with the notion that we are all indivduals with free will comes from Jesus.

This is pretty good. What part of Western Civilization do you see as lacking, insufficient, egregious, downright garbage requiring Anarchy to "fix"?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Perhaps you're conflating "thick skin" with having "tunnel vision". I would challenge you to take a "long horizon" view of scholars, rather than looking to "characterize" their entire works based on a single time-relevant interview. Your statements on VDH seem very Critical Theory'ish - "he said once" so therefore "he is a <xyz>". Our classic Post Modernist decomposition then reconstitute based on minimal information.

Based on your posts, I would not have guessed you to be a Libertarian. The Anarchist part does fit.
For what it's worth, it was during the Obama Administration that I finally changed my registration from Libertarian to Republican. Not out of me being a "Neo Con" but more a realpolitik move.



This is pretty good. What part of Western Civilization do you see as lacking, insufficient, egregious, downright garbage requiring Anarchy to "fix"?

I dropped my affiliation with the Libertarian Party way back in the mid-seventies when a conservative cabal managed to wrest cintrol and oust Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, for lacking sufficient conservative values. The man actually believed he had common ground with the Left, can you believe it? He was anti-war of all the preposterous things for a Libertarian to be.

You say you are a libertarian (lower case), which intrigues me. I have not detected anything libertarian about you. But then you haven’t detected anything libertarian coming from me either. What libertarian thinkers have you been attracted to?

As far as VDH goes I have not read him, only seen him on tv, usually Fox, and have had him pegged as a NeoCon intellectual, not in the activist Dick Cheney mode, but in a general intellectual capacity, someone whose ideas a Cheney could lean on when making policy. It really startles me that you watched that interview and failed to see one standard NeoCon talking point after another.