How Liberal Democracy Becomes Woke Tyranny

Summary

This video script explores the ideological connections and distinctions between Marxism, liberalism, and Nazism, emphasizing the latter's exclusion from the former two's anthropological views. It delves into the paradox of liberalism, highlighting its inherent contradictions and its struggle to maintain homogeneity while advocating for diversity. The discussion also touches on the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism—Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau—and their impact on contemporary political ideologies, including the influence on democratic institutions and the concept of the 'general will.' The speaker critiques the liberal state's tendency to act illiberal to preserve democracy and the implications of this for individual freedoms and societal cohesion.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The speaker argues that there's a connection between Marxist and liberal views on human nature, while Nazism is seen as an outlier.
• 🔗 The Nazis are often incorrectly equated with those who don't subscribe to a blank slate view of human nature, which is a common belief among both liberals and Marxists.
• 🗣️ The liberal state faces a paradox where it must act illiberal to protect democracy from those labeled as 'Nazis', as explained by German legal scholar ER Wolfgang Bucken.
• 🤔 The liberal state's premise is that it can only exist in a homogeneous society where individual freedoms are regulated internally, yet it struggles to ensure this homogeneity without compromising liberalism.
• 🏛️ Classical liberalism's forefathers, such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, are examined, with their differing views on human nature and the state's role in society.
• 🌱 Hobbes is noted for his belief in a strong, centralized state to prevent the 'war of all against all', contrasting with Locke's and Rousseau's more optimistic views of human nature.
• 🏡 Locke's philosophy emphasizes individual self-ownership and the state's role in ensuring freedom and equality, which can lead to state intervention in private institutions.
• 🌱 Rousseau is seen as a proto-Marxist with his belief in an egalitarian state of nature and the corrupting influence of civilization, leading to the need for a new political order.
• 🔄 The script suggests that democracy, as defined by the Enlightenment and liberalism, is about revealing and expressing man's free and equal nature, which is threatened by those who don't believe in this uniform nature.
• 🌐 The speaker critiques the idea that democracy is under threat from divisive populists who are seen as preventing the realization of a utopian, egalitarian society.

Q & A

What is the main argument against equating non-Marxist or non-liberal anthropological views with Nazism?

The main argument is that the Nazis represent an extreme and distinct ideology that should not be conflated with other non-Marxist or non-liberal views. It's a misrepresentation to equate any belief that doesn't adhere to the 'blank slate' theory with Nazism, as it oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the complexity of political and philosophical thought.

How does the liberal state reconcile acting illiberal against those labeled as 'Nazis' to preserve democracy?

The liberal state justifies such actions by claiming that it is necessary to protect the core values of democracy from those who would undermine them. This is based on the premise that certain beliefs or ideologies pose a threat to the democratic order, and thus, the state must take measures to safeguard its foundational principles.

What is the paradox presented by German legal scholar ER Wolfgang Buckenmüller?

Buckenmüller's paradox is that the liberal secular state relies on premises it cannot guarantee by itself. It requires a homogeneous society for its moral substance, yet it cannot enforce homogeneity without renouncing liberalism. This creates a dilemma for the state as it tries to balance the need for internal regulation with the liberal value of diversity and individual freedom.

How does the script connect Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to the development of classical liberalism?

The script connects Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau by discussing their views on human nature and the state. Hobbes is noted for his belief in a strong, centralized state to prevent the 'war of all against all.' Locke is recognized for his emphasis on individual self-ownership and the state's role in protecting property rights. Rousseau is acknowledged for his idea of the 'general will' and the notion that humans are naturally good and become corrupted by societal institutions.

What is the 'state of nature' according to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau?

Hobbes describes the state of nature as a 'war of all against all,' driven by the desire for conquest and the avoidance of death. Locke sees it as a state of material privation but with free and equal individuals, while Rousseau views it as a state of material abundance where human greed leads to inequality and conflict.

How does the script explain the role of the state in liberal anthropology, particularly in relation to children and education?

The script suggests that in liberal anthropology, the state has a role in ensuring that children's natural egalitarian consciousness can flourish. This may involve reducing parental influence over children to prevent the imposition of non-egalitarian values, as seen in the Biden Administration's stance on parental involvement in education and the trans lobby's approach to gender identity.

What is the difference between Locke's and Rousseau's views on the role of the state in society?

Locke's view is that the state's primary role is to protect property and individual rights, which necessitates checks and balances to prevent state overreach. Rousseau, on the other hand, sees the state as a means to return humans to their natural, egalitarian state, emphasizing the 'general will' and the collective good over individual property rights.

How does Rousseau's concept of the 'general will' relate to his political philosophy?

Rousseau's 'general will' is the collective rational self-interest of all individuals, which is always right and tends towards the public utility. It is the mechanism by which humans can be returned to their natural state of equality and freedom. The 'general will' is seen as infallible when proper procedures are followed, and it is central to Rousseau's vision of a political order that balances protection, order, freedom, and equality.

What does the script suggest about the relationship between democracy and the concept of the 'blank slate' in human nature?

The script suggests that democracy, as understood in the context of the 'blank slate' theory, is about revealing and expressing man's free and equal nature in identical fashion. A threat to democracy, in this view, is a threat to the belief in an egalitarian nature that should lead to uniform choices and behaviors, which is a core tenet of both Enlightenment liberalism and Marxism.

How does the script characterize the role of divisive rhetoric and populism in democracy?

The script characterizes divisive rhetoric and populism as forces that lead people away from their natural, egalitarian choices. It suggests that these elements create a false consciousness that disrupts the uniformity of decision-making that should occur in a true democracy, where all individuals are believed to have identical interests and nature.

Outlines

00:00

📚 The Paradox of Liberalism and Its Critics

This paragraph delves into the ideological connection between Marxist and liberal views on human nature, contrasting them with Nazi beliefs. It critiques the tendency to equate non-Marxist or non-liberal views with Nazism as an oversimplification. The speaker discusses the paradox faced by liberal states in maintaining democracy while acting against those deemed 'Nazi', referencing German legal scholar ER Wolfgang Bucken's work. The paradox is that liberal states rely on a homogeneous society's inner moral regulation yet cannot guarantee this regulation without potentially renouncing liberalism. The narrative also touches on how liberal states handle diversity and the inherent contradictions within liberal ideology, including the works of James Burnham and Patrick Denine, and the influence of classical liberal thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

05:01

🏛️ The Evolution of Liberalism and Its Impact on Society

Paragraph 2 examines the evolution of liberal thought from its classical roots in the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It discusses how each philosopher's views on human nature and the state of nature influenced the development of liberal institutions. Hobbes is noted for his belief in a strong state to mediate human conflict, while Locke and Rousseau are recognized for their ideas on individual freedom and equality. The paragraph also explores how liberal principles have been implemented in modern society, particularly in the areas of education and gender identity, leading to controversies over parental rights and the influence of expert opinions. The discussion extends to the similarities and differences between liberal and Marxist approaches to wealth generation and distribution, suggesting that both ideologies share a common end goal but differ in their methods.

10:02

🗳️ Democracy and the General Will: Rousseau's Philosophy

In this paragraph, the focus is on Rousseau's political philosophy, particularly his concept of the 'general will' and its role in democracy. Rousseau's view is that humans are naturally good and that societal institutions corrupt this goodness. He proposes that by returning to a more natural state, humans can achieve a harmonious existence. The paragraph discusses Rousseau's idea of the general will as an infallible expression of the public good, contingent on proper procedures and informed decision-making by the populace. It also touches on Rousseau's distrust of 'learned men' and orators who could sway the populace away from their innate, rational choices. The paragraph concludes by connecting Rousseau's philosophy to contemporary debates about democracy, suggesting that threats to democracy are often perceived as threats to the underlying assumptions of equality and sameness inherent in Enlightenment thought.

Keywords

💡Marxist

Marxist refers to the political and economic theories of Karl Marx, which advocate for the abolition of social classes and the establishment of a classless society. In the video, the term is used to contrast with liberal understandings of human nature, suggesting that both Marxists and liberals believe in a malleable human nature, unlike Nazis who are positioned as outside this paradigm.

💡Liberal

Liberal, in the context of the video, pertains to a political philosophy that values individual liberty, equality before the law, and a government that is minimally intrusive. The video discusses how liberals, along with Marxists, believe in a 'blank slate' view of human nature, which is challenged by ideologies that do not align with this anthropological perspective.

💡Blank Slate

The 'blank slate' concept refers to the idea that humans are born without inherent traits or inclinations, and are shaped entirely by their experiences and environment. The video uses this term to describe a shared belief among liberals and Marxists about human nature, which is in contrast to the deterministic views of some other ideologies.

💡Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of human societies and cultures and their development. In the video, it is mentioned in relation to different ideological perspectives on human nature. The discussion revolves around how certain political ideologies base their views on particular understandings of what it means to be human.

💡Leviathan

Leviathan, as used in the video, refers to the concept of a powerful, centralized state as described by Thomas Hobbes. It symbolizes an all-powerful sovereign that maintains order and prevents the 'war of all against all,' which is a state of nature where people are in a constant state of conflict without a governing authority.

💡State of Nature

The 'state of nature' is a philosophical concept that describes the condition of living without a formal system of government or law. The video discusses different views on this state, such as Hobbes' view of it as a war of all against all, and Rousseau's view of it as a place of freedom and equality, which is disrupted by the inequalities introduced by civilization.

💡Liberal State

The term 'liberal state' in the video refers to a form of government that upholds liberal principles such as individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The discussion points out the paradox of the liberal state needing to act in illiberal ways at times to preserve its values, such as by restricting certain freedoms to protect democracy.

💡Hobbes

Hobbes, or Thomas Hobbes, is a prominent figure in political philosophy known for his work 'Leviathan.' In the video, his views on human nature and the necessity of a strong state to prevent chaos are contrasted with those of other philosophers like Locke and Rousseau, who have a more optimistic view of human nature in a state of nature.

💡Locke

Locke, or John Locke, is referenced in the video as a classical liberal thinker who believed in natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. His philosophy is discussed in the context of self-ownership and the role of the state in protecting these rights, which can lead to intervention in private institutions.

💡Rousseau

Rousseau, or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is mentioned as a philosopher who believed in an egalitarian state of nature that could be restored through proper social institutions. The video discusses his ideas on the 'general will' and how they relate to the liberal and Marxist traditions, as well as his critique of property and civilization.

💡General Will

The 'general will' is a concept by Rousseau that refers to the collective and rational will of a community, which is always morally right and aims at the common good. The video explains how this concept is central to Rousseau's political philosophy and how it differs from the individual will, with implications for how societies should be governed.

Highlights

The assertion that there is a connective tissue between Marxist and liberal understandings of human nature, contrasting with Nazi ideology.

Critique of equating non-Marxist or non-liberal anthropological views with Nazism.

Discussion on the paradox of the liberal state acting illiberal to preserve democracy.

Reference to German legal scholar ER Wolfgang Bucken's views on the liberal secular state's inherent contradictions.

Analysis of the liberal state's reliance on homogeneous societal values to regulate freedom.

Critique of liberalism's inability to guarantee its own premises without renouncing liberalism.

James Burnham's quote on liberalism as the ideology of Western suicide.

Finley's examination of the three main forefathers of classical liberalism: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

Hobbes' view on the necessity of an absolute sovereign to mediate conflicts.

Locke's belief in the individual's right to self-ownership and the state's role in ensuring it.

Rousseau's argument that material conditions, not personal relations, drive conflict.

The concept of the 'general will' as a means to return humans to an egalitarian state of nature.

Rousseau's idea that human beings are naturally good and institutions make them wicked.

The notion that democracy is a system revealing man's free and equal nature through identical choices.

Critique of divisive rhetoric and its impact on the democratic process.

The idea that democracy is under threat from those who don't agree with the 'blank slate' anthropology.

The importance of supporting Lotus.com for more in-depth analysis and discussions.

Transcripts

there is connected tissue between the

Marxist and the liberal understanding of

human nature the Nazis are completely

outside of that and so anyone who is not

a Marxist or a liberal in their

anthropology who doesn't believe in the

blank slate is therefore improperly

equated with the Nazis because again

hello hope not hate for watching no I'm

not a Nazi I'm not a 1930s German it's

really tiresome but democratism

liberalism and the marxists who nip at

its heels all the time either don't or

will y won't understand that and they're

both going in the same direction so this

is how the liberal State can square the

circle of acting illiberal against

people that calls Nazis to preserve

democracy otherwise it encounters the

Paradox put forward by a German legal

scholar ER Wulf gang bucken Fedder and

he wrote the liberal secular State lives

on premises that it cannot guarantee by

itself on one side it can subsist only

if the freedom it consents to its

citizens is regulated from within inside

the moral substance of individuals of a

homogeneous society on the other side it

is not able to guarantee these forces of

inner regulation a homogeneous society

without itself renouncing liberalism so

it can't act on behalf of an ingr

preference of one particular conception

of the good of one particular people of

a culture of religion of a history and

so it allows All Peoples from anywhere

to make contact with

its educational institutions and its

material prosperity in the hopes that

they will be converted to egalitarian

liberalism and so it relies on certain

truths being self-evident to certain

peoples like the homogeneous Christian

Englishmen of the of the American

founding fathers that are not as

self-evident to other people but it

can't admit they're not self-evident

because otherwise it admits that there

are competing conceptions of the good

there is a friend enemy distinction that

there are insurmountable barriers to

certain people or even certain peoples

different nations different cultures

different tribes I think there a good

word to use it um just believing what we

all believe so

it can't guarantee its own success this

is why James Burnham said

liberalism is the ideology of Western

suicide so back to

Finley I know it's a big charge to level

at liberalism but I think Finley

retraces these steps very well as does

Patrick Denine in his first book why

liberalism failed I haven't read regime

change yet I know it has some strange

findings about doubling the size of

Congress maybe I'll cover Denine at some

point we'll be good to chat to him

actually eventually but anyway I'm

getting ahead of myself so Finley looks

at the three main forefathers of

Classical liberalism she admits montue

in her book by the way but she looks at

Hobbs Lo and rouso and draw some

connective tissue we already mentioned

Hobs here in relation to Schmidt but her

summary of Hobs is that Hobbs obviously

believed in an all-encompassing

Leviathan state with an absolute

Sovereign Mona his head and the only

means by which conflicts could be

mediated was this state the the Bellum

omum Contra omnes the war of all against

all only the Leviathan could stop him

and that war of all Against All Is Man's

state of nature so he establishes the

idea of the state of nature he doesn't

agree on its conditions with lock and

rouso who essentially are in agreement

that it's a kind of Garden of Eden

narrative um Lo believed the state of

nature was one of material privation but

that men were free and equal rouso

believed it was one of material

abundance and that man's internal greed

rendered him away from freedom of

equality freedom and equality into a

kind of War of all against all and the

institutions were set up to mediate this

and you just need sufficiently good

institutions to put man back in theate

nature but anyway hobbs' anthropology

was that man was driven by libido

dominandi the desire for conquest and

the avoidance of death so subjugating

the population's competing conceptions

of the good to The Sovereign to quote

reduce all their Wills by plurality of

voices onto one will which is as much to

say to appoint one man or assembly of

men to Bear their person seems to be the

origin idea of Representative governance

within liberalism so Hobbs even though

he has disagreements with local Russo

has connected tissue to the Democratic

institutions that were birthed out of

liberalism and the anthropology of

liberalism that lock and Russo later

built on so on lock Lo believed the

quote individual's primary source of

rights is his or her right to self-

ownership so any limit to self-governing

Authority must have its influence

reduced so that sets up a mandate for

the liberal state to intervene in

private social institutions that can be

defined as infringing on your rights for

example child is not actually Born Free

and equal they're born in extric

dependent on their parents they're in a

state of dependence so what we have to

do is have a moral framework that puts

the obligation of the parent to act as

if the child could have chosen and

therefore they best be the best possible

parent so the child would have chosen

them if they could have instead if the

liberal anthropology is that we're all

free and equal If the child is

inextricably dependent then it becomes

the role of the state to reduce the

influence of the parents over the child

to allow the child's natural egalitarian

Consciousness to flourish this is why

you get the Biden Administration coming

in and saying parents are not the

primary stakeholders in their children's

education this is why you get the trans

Lobby coming and crowbar away their

child from the parents who are skeptical

of their child's sudden gender

transition and giving them to a glitter

family of appointed LGBT experts instead

who can reveal their true gendered

Consciousness from the false one that is

imposed upon them by a gender binary

Society

this all flows Downstream from the

individual will concept of liberalism

and this is how certain Marxist

theorists have played with these ideas

but these theories haven't been

successful in explicitly Marxist

societies like Venezuela or the USSR or

Nicaragua etc

etc lock wrote as well the chief end of

civil society is the preservation of

property so then we only need to

generate abundance which is privation

that's a reason why we left the state of

nature in the first place in order to

allow the state to take up the business

of reverting us to the state of nature

to ensure that no compromise between

freedom or equality is needed to ensure

that man is not just subsisting and

trying to Stave off starvation illness

and death if we have the means to get

past those with the technological power

of the Scientific Revolution and liberal

political Enlightenment then suddenly

the business of the state becomes

returning us to the state of nature and

so Lo's liberalism actually only really

differs from Marxism in its means of

generating and redistributing wealth but

if a button were to be pressed tomorrow

and we had the Communist Utopia Lock's

liberal compromises wouldn't be

necessary and he couldn't argue against

it and so you get protom Marxist rouso

coming out of the liberal tradition and

I know lots of people have contested the

idea that lusso is a liberal but and we

went over this on our rip 10 at media um

culture War podcast with Phil leonti and

Tim Paul on liberalism actually Russo's

Romanticism as Finley writes in

here has connective tissue with the

rationalism of the other liberal

thinkers so she writes while rouso

challenges many of the enlightenment's

assumptions he ultimately shares its

fundamental epistemology his emphasis on

radical autonomy supported by a socially

atomistic anthropology is largely

consistent with Enlightenment

voluntarism and rationalism so his

belief that human beings have an

egalitarian state of nature that can be

revealed by throwing off the shackles of

civilization is similar to the

antagonistic relationship that locks

anthropology sets up with the

institutions of the state and with

culture I mean the individual in the

state always exist in conflict in locks

anthropology this is why the loan

inspired American founding fathers put

checks and balances on the state because

they didn't want them to infringe on the

rights of the individual but these were

only

necessary because property needed to be

guaranteed if you can develop a

abundance of property and that no longer

needs to be negotiated then the state is

Obsolete and Mankind will come to the

same conclusion over and over right so

it doesn't matter whether or not they do

this through emotional reasoning per

Russo or rational reasoning through Lo

the end destination is still the same

Russo's novel contribution was to

propose a political philosophy that

provide the protection and Order

promised by Leviathan while preserving

Lo's notion of individual freedom and

also equality according to Finley in the

social contract R writes men are not

naturally enemies for the simple reason

that men living in their original state

of Independence do not have sufficiently

con constant relationships among

themselves to bring about either a state

of peace or a state of War it is a

relationship between things and not that

between men that brings about war and

this state of War cannot come into

existence from simple personal relations

but only from real relations in this

sense Russo anticipates Marx's

philosophy as historical materialism

binarily entury basically the material

iniquities cause conflict rather than

the innate tendency for man to be fallen

and capricious and emotional and so

relationships between people don't cause

conflict only not enough stuff does

external that is material conditions

Drive the acquisitive and self centered

impulse in the second discourse on

equality Russo says the first person who

having enclosed a plot of land took it

into his head to say this is mine and

found people simple enough to believe

him was the true founder of Civil

Society It Is by accident that human

natural goodness degenerates historical

circumstances and social institutions

however need not affect human

flourishing altering the way in which a

human being assembles in a community can

to a great extent restore our original

goodness Russo believes and then

perpetuate this through the new

political order this is the idea of the

general will in Russo's mind procedures

are part of the ideal of the general

will and are in some ways Inseparable s

substance quote the general will is

always right Russo says and always tends

towards the public

utility so long as the procedures to

enact it are followed in the absence of

a proper procedure the general will is

impossible so the general will is the

infallible action in the presumed

rational self-interest of all human

beings with an identical nature so the

general will is the means of returning

human beings to their egalitarian state

of nature it was at this moment Russo

recalls that he realized the key to his

political philosophy quote that man is

naturally good and that it is from our

institutions alone that men become

Wicked end quote it is because of our

underlying natural goodness he believes

that we are all capable of participating

in the general will quote if when a

sufficiently informed populist

deliberates Russo says the citizens were

to have no communication among

themselves the general will would always

result from the large number of small

differences and the deliberation would

always be good the two criteria the

populace be sufficiently informed and

the citizens abstain from communication

constitute what might be considered the

Republican and Democratic elements in

Russo's philosophy the general will one

of the reasons that Russo distrusts

quote learned men and orators is their

tendency to lead us away from this Inner

Voice through refined language and

sophistry quote Man's first language the

most universal the most energetic and

the only language he needed before it

was necessary to persuade men assembled

together is the Cry of nature

AKA if you leave men alone they will

make identical choices it's just culture

it's just the whispering of bad faith

actors populists pedaling their divisive

rhetoric that priz them apart from

making the same reliable Progressive

conclusion

and so democracy is an exercise in

everyone making identical Choice over

and over again the only reason they

wouldn't make that choice voting for

Biden voting for Kamala voting for

Labour voting for The Green Party in

Germany the only reason they wouldn't

make their choice is because of divisive

racist populists like Trump the

afd Migel frage coming in stoking

Division and giving them a false

consciousness that makes them think

they're actually not equal they're

actually not identical and rendering

them them away from the Utopia that is

just always Within Reach but snatched

away from them are those divisive

populists with awful agendas those evil

office who might suggest that there

might be competing conceptions of the

good that the giant Global State can't

just make go away by ensuring everyone

plays nice so democracy this is a

definition I've come up with having red

Finley democracy when they say threat

democracy means something like the

system by which Man's Free and equal

nature is revealed to him and expressed

in identical

fashion

democracy is returning man to the state

of nature so a threat democracy means a

threat to the blank slate it means a

threat to the anthropology of the

Enlightenment of liberalism and Marxism

alike it means a threat to our ability

the ruling political media and Academia

Elite

to administer the minds of men to tell

them they have an egalitarian nature

that they should be making the same

Choice over and over and to put on Rails

politics with certain policies and

agendas that is presumed to be in

everyone's

self-interest democracy is under threat

from people that don't agree that we all

want exactly the same thing because

we're all fundamentally the same at a

biological

theological ideological

level it's the blank slate enacted

through political mechanisms thank you

for watching that clip from Tom Linson

talks if you liked that and you would

like to see more you can get the full

90minut show every week on a Wednesday

afternoon live from 3 pm only on

lotus.com and all of the other content

that my colleagues produce behind the

paywall for as little as5 a month thank

you very much for supporting us and I

hope to see you there until next time

goodbye

[Music]

[Music]