School Sucks Podcast

[Josh F]

I just wanted to enlighten people in this community to this podcast, if they hadn't heard of it.  Brett, its host, is a fan of FDR and talks often about issues like peaceful parenting, libertarianism, anarchy, etc.  He has done an exhaustive historical series with historian Thaddeus Russell which I found very challenging and inspiring.  He also does great videos of John Taylor Gatto, and is extremely critical of public education.  

 

Anyone else a fan?

[PatrickC]

Been a fan of Monsieur Veinotte since he started.. Always interesting content.

[ALinTokyo]

I've just started from the beginning, through about 15 episodes, but right away from episode 1, I've been a huge fan! I went to public schools my whole life and it was mind-blowingly boring and literally a prison. The doors were locked during school hours. I was critical even then about it and even more so now. Great podcast!

[Josh F]

I've just started from the beginning, through about 15 episodes, but right away from episode 1, I've been a huge fan! I went to public schools my whole life and it was mind-blowingly boring and literally a prison. The doors were locked during school hours. I was critical even then about it and even more so now. Great podcast!

Great!!!!  I tend to jump around.  I've been loving the Thaddeus Russell history stuff, its been very very enlightening.  

 

Have you or Patrick listened to any of those podcasts (Behold a Dictator is one)

[PatrickC]

Yes, I listened and was awesome. His history analysis is Brett at his finest including the guests he brings into the conversation.

 

As an aside the productions values are the best I know in the liberty community. His mash up of soundbytes, music and commentary is magically well produced. I think Brett would make a great production adviser for fdr content. Quite sure he probably doesn't have the time, but still.

[Josh F]

yeah I agree 100%, he also makes these GREAT youtube videos about John Taylor Gatto that have great music and editing, too.  As for FDR, whoever edited that "ooohhh waterfall" video stef just made did a great job too

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I've started poking around it, but the majority of my School Sucks Podcast experience comes from what gets played over at Peace Revolution Podcast.

 

In which case, I must add that if anyone is interested in School Sucks Podcast to check out Peace Revolution Podcast as well.

[Heath Long]

I donate to School Sucks, Freedomain, Peace Revolution, and The Corbett Report. I love them all. It seems like I found them all at once. I need to start donating to Gnostic Media as well. Aside from Gnostic Media and the pre 2013 Freedomain Radio, I have listened to every episode from each provider.

[RachelAnn]

Love that podcast!

[kavih]

I just wanted to enlighten people in this community to this podcast, if they hadn't heard of it.  Brett, its host, is a fan of FDR and talks often about issues like peaceful parenting, libertarianism, anarchy, etc.  He has done an exhaustive historical series with historian Thaddeus Russell which I found very challenging and inspiring.  He also does great videos of John Taylor Gatto, and is extremely critical of public education.  

 

Anyone else a fan?

Hey Josh. I know this is a somewhat old thread, but I just finished part 1 and 2 of this debate Q&A between SSP and Thaddeus Russell:

This is my first time being exposed to Thaddeus. He is a relativist, so I'm curious if that was what you meant by "challenging?"

[Josh F]

He is a post-modernist, right.  I think he presents challenging criticisms of some of the central ideas around FDR: namely moral shaming.  He challenges some of the more "victorian" aspects discussed around issues like sex and drugs on this website, as well.  I'm not a diehard objectivist or moralist, my personal resonance with this entire website is the topic of child abuse.  I was an anarchist prior to getting into the philosophical stuff on here, and economically sympathetic with libertarianism.  I came, like Thad, from the post-modernist school of thought regarding philosophy.  I remember one of my early topics here was trying to discuss that different approach to philosophy, which comes from a much different cannon, and how it could still be applied to these same principles (free markets and peaceful parenting).  The topic went on for pages, but ultimately went no where...though I'd be happy to discuss them with anyone interested, one on one.

 

I think in general what I like though is that he, and others like him, taking a less objectivist approach to some of the issues of liberty.  And in so doing, create the framework for shortening the philosophical gap between left and right anarchists (and I dont mean Zietgiesters).  Issues like drug legalization, anti-spying and cryptography, anti-imperialism/war, and the willingness to criticize any ancient institution is central to both groups.  This merger of interests has had interesting byproducts, from Anonymous and Wikileaks to bitcoin and 3dprinters, and combined we're sort of the last remnants of the dying anti-war movement.  The left brand seems more critical of capitalist institutions, whereas you'll find many libertarians defending Koch brothers or Monsanto or Walmart as if they were somehow a byproduct of free markets.  On the right, they're more willing to criticize the welfare state and the progressive White Man's Burden or savior complex as a false morality, the professional victimhood market of academia, etc.  

 

I brought up the topic of Queer Theory here, but no one seemed interested.  Market Morality, like Rand's ideas of self interest, seem a bit off the radar, too.  Thaddeus talks about some of those things.  

 

The Q&A episode you linked me, by the way, was incredibly frustrating because I don't think either parties were particularly skilled in the philosophical debate.  I'd rather see Molyneux engage someone like Richard Rorty (who is dead now), a rigorous post-modernist philosopher.  

[PGP]

He is a post-modernist, right.  I think he presents challenging criticisms of some of the central ideas around FDR: namely moral shaming.  

Josh, this is something that I have skipped over thus far. I just haven't learned enough to put a label of having a particular approach to philosophy yet. 

However, the issue of the moral shaming in a free society is something I currently have difficulty with. Part of my motivation for exploring all of these philosophical issues is that "shaming" and "exclusion" is currently such a powerful social control mechanism in perpetuating dysfunction and conformity. Analogous to the "white feather" in WW1 Britain. 

What is your position on this, I am curious as to the post-modern approach to this issue?

Or, if you had a particular video link that delved into it, that would be great.

Cheers.

[Josh F]

Well, alright!  I've tried to bring this topic up several times on here and have struggled to find sympathetic ears.  

 

I think moral shaming is a very dangerous proposition worth an open discussion.  The history of moral shaming is abysmal, for starters.  It is, like you said, a powerful control mechanism.  Moral shaming is currently used to justify violence on a massive scale, be it religious or statist.

 

More so, in this particular community, which deals so much with childhood trauma, shaming was often a huge part of that upbringing.  To employ it as a tool in the community should involve much much much more sensitivity to its power.  Using it to shame violent offenders, like child abusers or soldiers, is a powerful tool I wouldn't want to just give up.  Using shaming tactics to dismiss arguments and to encourage donations is manipulative.  

 

Post-modernism comes from a much different canon of philosophers than objectivism.  This cannon includes Jean Paul Sartre, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Derrida, and others.  Some central arguments which oppose the objective truth model is that all things are contingent and contextual.  Meaning even 1+1 exists within human definitions, and has a history which goes back to the invention of the idea.  Thats another thing, in post-modern philosophy, they compare two ideas of truth: the objective, capitol 'T' Truth and the subjective, lower-case 't', truths (plural).  

 

So while an objectivist might say 1+1=2 is axiomatically True, and therefor objective (always true in all places and times) a post-modernist would say 1+1=2 is a popular and useful truth, but limited by its agreed upon use in language, its contingent historical development as an idea, and its context within our culture/society/species/etc.  To a computer, for example, 1+1= 10, as 2 does not exist within binary functions.  

 

One great example I found insightful was regarding a hypothetical tribal process of pasteurization.  This tribe does a ritualistic dance over their milk as it cooks on a fire.  They do this, of course, to remove any demons within the milk.  Fast forward to modern times, we still heat the milk over the fire, but now we say it is to remove the germs, not the demons.  To this tribe, the concept of germs simply was not possible, and yet within the limits of their own understanding of the world they were able to create useful systems of dealing with problems.  Similarly, WE as members of modern society, also have a limit to our understanding of reality, in which we describe pasteurization as a process of dealing with potentially harmful bacteria.  Are we more right?  Do we have THE Truth, and did they not?  If they did not, how do we know that we do now? 

 

If there is an objective reality, can we know it?  If we can't know it, then how can we make any objective truth claims?  And if we are limited beings incapable of objectivity, for each of us, as Sartre would say, doesn't our subjective understanding of truth shape our understanding of reality.  Or as he said "existence precedes and rules essence" that subjective human existence comes before, and controls, anything we might call truth.  

Here this is a great article, it is a criticism of Rorty, the leading American Post-Modernist (now dead), and talks about Rorty's criticism of Ayn Rand.  It has an objectivist viewpoint, which I am also super sympathetic towards, and the author makes a very good arguments and fair assessments of the debate between Objectivism and Post-Modernism. He does a good job of reconciling some of the above mentioned criticisms of Objectivity, as well.  

 

http://www.atlassociety.org/review-richard-rortys-solidarity-or-objectivity-and-contingency-language-0

[PGP]

Thanks for that Josh. I have a million and 1 questions, but I don't want to throw any out willy-nilly atm.

I know I'm learning when I have the mild sensation of rusty gears starting to turn in my head!!!

[J-William]

I do not enjoy school sucks much anymore...

I like Bret, but he has Wes Bertrand on so much it's like the Wes and Bret show lately.

 

Then there's Thaddeus... He's done some very interesting history research. but his various conclusions on things beyond his research don't seem to be well thought out.

[Josh F]

I like the historical episodes the most, and he has these excellent videos on John Taylor Gatto.  I can see your point about the other guests.    The most recent one the guest was talking about being an entrepreneur, but at one point he went into some unending sales pitch for his solar panel company and being from LA I've heard the same pitch again and again.  

[RuralRon]

 

So while an objectivist might say 1+1=2 is axiomatically True, and therefor objective (always true in all places and times) a post-modernist would say 1+1=2 is a popular and useful truth, but limited by its agreed upon use in language, its contingent historical development as an idea, and its context within our culture/society/species/etc.  To a computer, for example, 1+1= 10, as 2 does not exist within binary functions.

 

Awesome example. I really liked what you've said here Josh.

 

It's also good to see so many others here like the same alt media I enjoy.

[LovePrevails]

on a similar topic,

[PatrickC]

Relativists like leftists, do like to shame those for (apparently) shaming. Thaddeus is nothing new here. Knowing full well that he criticizes the left, but still.

 

​He has some interesting historical perspectives, which was Brett's interest in having him on I suppose. But his philosophical perspectives are left in a gloop of sticky molasses.

[MarcAnthony]

I got into School Sucks and John Taylor Gatto through Tragedy and Hope dot com and a long exciting night watching the five hour long Ultimate History Lesson with Gatto. Ive been intrigued with the topic of the formation of our current schooling system ever since.

 

Ive yet to really listen to a lot of the full podcasts featuring Thaddeus Russel but look forward to it regardless of his philosophical contradictions.

[Josh F]

Relativists like leftists, do like to shame those for (apparently) shaming. Thaddeus is nothing new here. Knowing full well that he criticizes the left, but still.

 

​He has some interesting historical perspectives, which was Brett's interest in having him on I suppose. But his philosophical perspectives are left in a gloop of sticky molasses.

 

I think he makes an excellent point on this topic and an opinion I've shared.  Aside from philosophical objectivists, most objective arguments are religious.  Secularists, or "lefties" have a rational self interest in avoiding objectivity, it has an extremely dogmatic and dark history of superstition and religiosity.  Their fear of libertarians is similar and for this exact reason.  Libertarians are often religious, this community being a minority in its atheism.  Secular people, atheists, were persecuted by people who claimed to know the ultimate truth.  So I think their skepticism isn't without context, and understanding that context is helpful to making any kind of inroads into conversations.  

 

Aside from burning witches and holy crusades, these religious people primarily use shame as a tactic to manipulate people especially within the family. Post modern thinkers and other secularists are frightened of arguments which stem from "reality" or "nature" or "god" as objective sources of information.  Their own philosophy is to disempower stigma's associated with non-normative behavior.  Liberals promote a market place of ideas, a place in which ideas are evaluated on their effectiveness and not on any appeal to higher knowledge.  Objectivists of all varieties including within this community promote a "one true" philosophy which frightens them.  And with reason.  

 

Hopefully this helps to put this into a context that makes more sense for you, so you don't think lefties are some rabid fools who simply dont understand.  

I got into School Sucks and John Taylor Gatto through Tragedy and Hope dot com and a long exciting night watching the five hour long Ultimate History Lesson with Gatto. Ive been intrigued with the topic of the formation of our current schooling system ever since.

 

Ive yet to really listen to a lot of the full podcasts featuring Thaddeus Russel but look forward to it regardless of his philosophical contradictions.

Yeah all that stuff about the Prussians is very interesting.  I don't know if Gatto goes past that or not, since education has been coopted by the "new left" since the 70's.  Its hardly a system promoting good employment and good citizenship any longer, now it is a system promoting political correctness to varying degrees.  Some might say it promotes cultural marxism, victim mentality, active anti-racism, feminism, etc.

[MMX2010]

Liberals promote a market place of ideas, a place in which ideas are evaluated on their effectiveness and not on any appeal to higher knowledge.  

 

I assert, with no evidence whatsoever (just very strong feeling), that (1) "a market of ideas" has never existed, because people always grab power to distort the market of ideas, and (2) "a market of ideas" inevitably leads to disaster, because the argument that "ideas should be evaluated on their effectiveness and NOT on any appeal to higher knowledge" allows "popular but ineffective ideas" to flood the marketplace - i.e. feminism, government schooling, any woman can decide to have a child with any man she wants - whenever she wants, and pro-spanking. 

[Josh F]

 

I assert, with no evidence whatsoever (just very strong feeling), that (1) "a market of ideas" has never existed, because people always grab power to distort the market of ideas, and (2) "a market of ideas" inevitably leads to disaster, because the argument that "ideas should be evaluated on their effectiveness and NOT on any appeal to higher knowledge" allows "popular but ineffective ideas" to flood the marketplace - i.e. feminism, government schooling, any woman can decide to have a child with any man she wants - whenever she wants, and pro-spanking. 

 

Yeah, the market place of ideas is flooded with bad ideas, and with so much propaganda in the world it certainly isn't a free market.  The goal of post-modernists, like Thaddeus, is to evaluate our historic, cultural and/or linguistic biases to promote a free market of ideas unburdened by appeals to external authority, wrapped in shame, or distorted by culture.  There is no way to square this circle with objectivism.  Promoting a 'one true' philosophy, as this show so often does, is not going to liberate the market of ideas.  Its an excellent tool, undoubtably, in an arsenal of philosophical tools which help us to cope best with our existence.  

 

And I think it is important to stress that government schooling and spanking children are dogmatic and religious, they're not designed by secularists.  And though secularists have taken over the school system in many respects, they're probably one of the biggest allies against spanking. 

[MarcAnthony]

Just now going back to the original first school sucks podcasts and so far they are a great subtle introduction to the Voluntaryist position. Really digging it.

Josh- I wonder if youve ever read or heard of a book called Nation of Rebels: How Counter culture became consumer culture.

 

Great book that talks a lot about what youre alluding to, that the counter culture uprising in the late sixties was the great undoing of the family and has morally bankrupted millions. There is also of course the infamous Prison Notebooks which outline in the 1920's the need for a communist insurrection of popular western culture and academia. Shit this type of dissolving of the traditional family structure dates back to occulted writings from the 18th century and even prior wherein the discussion of inciting feminism and the ideals of equality into the female culture would undermine the power of their men. To quote Gatto, an ominous continuity is seen once you start reading some of this history kept from us in public education.

[PatrickC]

I think he makes an excellent point on this topic and an opinion I've shared.  Aside from philosophical objectivists, most objective arguments are religious.  Secularists, or "lefties" have a rational self interest in avoiding objectivity, it has an extremely dogmatic and dark history of superstition and religiosity.  Their fear of libertarians is similar and for this exact reason.  Libertarians are often religious, this community being a minority in its atheism.  Secular people, atheists, were persecuted by people who claimed to know the ultimate truth.  So I think their skepticism isn't without context, and understanding that context is helpful to making any kind of inroads into conversations.

 

Right, but the Lefts fear of absolutes is irrational. I mean I have some sympathy for the Nihilist, insofar as they are rejecting the habits and superstitions of the pious and religious. But then they go wholesale on all truth.

 

The relativist is just a more honest nihilist is some senses. As in they think truth is relative. So I'm not sure what there is to learn from them. But I guess if it highlighted some points you hadn't been aware of in their thoughts, then it had some utility.

[Josh F]

Just now going back to the original first school sucks podcasts and so far they are a great subtle introduction to the Voluntaryist position. Really digging it.

Josh- I wonder if youve ever read or heard of a book called Nation of Rebels: How Counter culture became consumer culture.

 

Great book that talks a lot about what youre alluding to, that the counter culture uprising in the late sixties was the great undoing of the family and has morally bankrupted millions. There is also of course the infamous Prison Notebooks which outline in the 1920's the need for a communist insurrection of popular western culture and academia. Shit this type of dissolving of the traditional family structure dates back to occulted writings from the 18th century and even prior wherein the discussion of inciting feminism and the ideals of equality into the female culture would undermine the power of their men. To quote Gatto, an ominous continuity is seen once you start reading some of this history kept from us in public education.

I tend to avoid that conspiratorial outlook, and I find the idea that we somehow became immoral in the 60's ridiculous.  I think the majority of it, things like the Protocols of Zion and others are not only proven to be falsified, but more importantly created by frightened ideologues to combat growing skepticism of dogma.  I think by and large the vast majority of violence around the world comes from people with objective world views from fascists to fundamentalists to marxists, not relative world views.  The fear of the undermined family value system and moral decay is ancient christian propaganda.

 

Moral bankruptcy is a hilarious notion, when is it that the moral reserves were at their full?  During slavery?  The world wars?  Was it during the crusades or the inquisition?  The reality is that the LEFT is the only semblance of morality in the United States, the only ones who muster up any resolve against child abuse or warfare.  The right, on the other hand, with their objective traditionalists values promoted spanking and defends irrationalities like war and nationalism.  

 

I take the view of deMause on this stuff, the further back in history you go the more violence existed especially within the family.  

Right, but the Lefts fear of absolutes is irrational. I mean I have some sympathy for the Nihilist, insofar as they are rejecting the habits and superstitions of the pious and religious. But then they go wholesale on all truth.

 

The relativist is just a more honest nihilist is some senses. As in they think truth is relative. So I'm not sure what there is to learn from them. But I guess if it highlighted some points you hadn't been aware of in their thoughts, then it had some utility.

It isn't irrational, as explained about there is a rational historical context.  Dogma and violence go hand in hand, and the post-industrial Europe and America fought battles against one ideology after the next.  Anyone not skeptical of any "one true" ideology is not paying attention to history and is motivated by an irrational attachment to their particular ideology.  There is a great deal to learn from the left, as aside from this tiny little movement here, they're the only ones talking about ending war and child abuse. 

[MarcAnthony]

I was in no way trying to insinuate that prior generations were any more virtuous, merely that the relativist movement from the sixties bankrupted the entire notion of morals as something other than popular opinions. Were not more immoral, just now the lines of morality are blurred into relativistic goop. If anything were becoming more domesticated. Im not fighting for the right or against the left tho. I am an Anarchist so all sides have bloody hands to me.

 

I consider myself a very skeptical person who doesn't believe vast crazy conspiracy theories either, but I have been convinced that there are some levels of social engineering that have been pushing the populace into the direction of a dependency on the powers that be. Everyone knows that the Protocols of Zion was fictional, I dont prescribe to vast illuminati stuff or ancient aliens or what not. I do believe that there is power elite and that they do try and tweak the system towards maintaining and growing that power.

 

A great documentary on the whole ufo conspiracy culture and how much it was actually fed disinformation from the cia itself. Its on Netflix right now called Mirage Men. As someone not into the ufo scene (was as a child though until I went skeptic) it was very entertaining to see how much the government itself fed the movement as a way of controlling the conversation.

 

Anyway, I was a complete conspiracy skeptic until I watched Gattos Ultimate History Lesson. That at least made me open to the idea that more was going on behind the scenes.

[Josh F]

There is no question there is social engineering.  I don't think it is a left or communist system people are being tricked into.  I think degrading our morality has been the defacto state of things historically.  Nietzsche divides moral systems into two categories, Slave Morality and Master Morality.  Master Morality is that wealth and power and violence and strength are virtues.  Slave morality is that being weak and poor and powerless are virtues.  In the Master Morality category we have very few modern examples except I'd say Nationalism.  Comparatively the vast majority of people have a slave morality, be it both common in Christianity, Communism, Western Democracy, Socialism, Feminism, Islam etc.  

 

Now look, if Objectivism is the truth, and the only truth, then its reasonable to conclude that all other isms and moralities and philosophies are false and corrupting.  The corruption is variable and has different consequences, for example the Islamic corrupt morality is more likely than Feminism to get a 5 year old to strap a bomb to his chest.  Similarly, Feminist morality probably results in far more false rape accusations than Islam (considering how legit rape victims are often treated in Islam).  Stuck without any paradigm, people with ideological or dogmatic beliefs can't necessarily smell their own shit, so to speak.  

 

Post-Modernists and modern Liberal Secularists have taken a valuable approach to discerning these characteristics, as have Objectivist Libertarians.  Objectivists seek to understand the truth with a better understanding of how Government corrupts our morality.  And this community makes great efforts to discover the corrupting morality inherent within the family.  In those ways, "lefties" contribute another approach: the way in which culture and language is morally corrupting.  

 

Now, in context, when they talk about moral relativism it is NOT at all what it is made out to be so frequently by its critics.  The idea that it is a pick and choose system of right and wrong is incorrect.  That pick and choose factor is present in every single group (Christians, Commies, etc).  Modern Liberalism holds that cruelty is the worst thing humans can do, and their goal is to reduce cruelty.  This is why they're one of the only other group who advocated against war and violence and child abuse.  They do this by understanding how our culture and language justifies cruel acts.  What are some of those conclusions?  Otherness, dehumanization, bigotry, are the central focus of most of their work.  Its opposites, tolerance and open-mindedness are VIRTUES they advocate (so it is not entirely pick and choose).  

 

So why might liberals get all butt hurt about things like "islamaphobia"?  It is because they live in a society wherein which once there can be an identified ideological "other" we tend to murder them.  They do not, and with very good reason, trust the average boob in the street to have a nuanced enough view of Islam, like maybe Sam Harris has, to demand anything short of war and violence in the face of a clear cut enemy like "Muslims."

[MarcAnthony]

Im sorry if you took me to be an objectivist libertarian. Im not, and haven't explored the issue fully enough to adopt a label. Ill say this though, if you would have talked to me a year ago I would have identified myself as a relativist and espoused to you the notions you listen above about tolerance and open-mindedness being prime virtues. Stef tho convinced me that a lot of that type of virtue is actually enabling immorality. I still believe in tolerance and open minded skepticism but at the same time ive resolved myself on certain issues to the point of clarification. I dont dislike muslims any more than christians any more than atheists. I look at people as carrying various motives and nuisances that aren't always consistent. Ideologies and meme-sets mixed with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Just like us all. Im still trying to find some truth in all this, knowing how fallible my own brain is.

 

I see the miscommunication between the left and right. They talk with the same words but believe completely different definitions. The work for similar goals but just use vastly different methods. Its only recently though that I have come to understand the right, having grown up in the san francisco bay area my entire youth was without my knowledge crafted very leftist. Stefan is the first guy on the right on certain issues that has actually made sense.

[Josh F]

Yeah, similarly for me libertarians in general and FDR in particular are the only things which talk about issues akin to the right, like family values and morality, that I like.  I am also endlessly frustrated with liberals and many of their little sub-sects like feminists and socialists.  I also have a long history of being into post-modernism and philosophy in general which is why I like this site: but my favorite all time philosopher is Socrates.  The wisdom to know you don't know, and all that.  

 

Also, I did a topic talking about truth as relative in the philosophy forum.  I talked about the coherence theory of truth, which you can check out if your interested.  In short, the litmus test for truth in this system is different than objectivism.  Objectivism says it is true if it corresponds to reality, whereas in the coherence model things are true is they are consistent within their own vocabulary or system.  In this way alone, there are plenty of critiques against leftys as their beliefs often run into contradiction.  For example intolerance towards the intolerant, or claims like "all white people are racist" fail within their own logic.  Feminist theory fails the lefty litmus, which is why so many feminists have to always say "but i'm an egalitarian" because they know otherwise it is clearly irrational to be pro-women, against men, and for equality of the sexes all at the same time.  

 

They say that if you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you're old you have no brain.  I think libertarians in general are working on a project to square that circle. 

oh also I tried to look up that documentary on Netflix but I couldnt find it 

[MarcAnthony]

Ill look up your post in the philosophy forum.

 

Socrates is as well my favorite philosopher.

 

I just looked on Netflix and Mirage Men is still on there so idk why you didn't see it...

[Josh F]

I think my netflix is missing like half the movies because I dont live in the US, fuckin copyright laws.

[StylesGrant]

To me Brett Voinette comes across at many angles. While I've grown pretty far from an objectivist traditionalist conservative anarchist model, Brett's use of Objectivism is ruthlessly effective at explaining history. I think I've listened to about 20 podcasts of his, all the ones with Thaddeus. I've listened to Joe Rogan and Christopher Ryan interview Thaddeus too. Thaddeus has convinced me that much more of why I dislike modern liberals and progressives, and Brett Voinette has convinced me that I have an almost endless hate for public education. I feel like their criticisms of education really sync up with the left-market-libertarian view of 'corporatizing' peoples faculties. This acknowledgment and personal dissatisfaction with high education and corporate science and neoliberal economics/lobbyist corruption has pushed me heavily into a centrist anarchist perspective. 

 

I would say that I were more of a humanist, a meta-modernist, an economic mutualist. C4ss.org and School sucks seriously have me more and more interested in the libertarian cases for agorism, georgism, and mutualism. I certainly have been heavily influenced by post-modernist, Guiles Deleuze, Felix Guatri, Zizek Slojov, Michel Foucalt. .I would consider the Matrix to be highly post modern, as one of the books was by Baudrillard. . and Kevin Kelly is just O.u.t there. Relativism can certainly liberate your mind from total cultural imprisonment, but it has its limitations. As I go along and see the need for rational, practical solutions and alternatives in the market, with rational evidence driven results, it makes me understand the necessity of Austrian economics, or at least emergent order and catallactics (Hayek). I would even strongly argue that many of the ideas in the Matrix, promote Catallactics, .that complex system theory and Catallactics ARE anarchy and anarchy IS nature's order. Thaddeus had an excellent argument against appeals to natural law, because dogmatist have always used nature as an excuse for slavery.

 

There is a similar argument to be made in comparing Voltaire's relativism against the God's Chain of Order argument by Alexander Pope. For me especially, being a die hard natural scientist, I get labeled a fascist and hippy a great deal as have the zeitgeisters for making appeals to nature. Relativism is tough, and in fact many people fail to realize that the left and right have their own forms of relativism. The capitalist school, which this is really interesting in that as an Objectivist, Brett voinette takes a stab at the historical tradition, once again siding with the left-libertarian thought against corporatism- that the history of state capital exploitation and structural poverty resided strongly in utilitarianism and pragmatism and unitarianism. The state often upheld this, and the religious culture upheld it as well. You, and this is till the case, have the state, the church, and the market coordinating together to push in this case neoliberal economics, the contemporary form of amoral utilitarianism as a system of economic control. And this is where the zeitgeisters don't get credit again, they are making arguments against dogmatist. But no one argues over the constants in physics, the hard law equations, etc.

 

But the American capitalist culture has always had a legacy of taking a stab at the biological sciences. And this is where it gets especially muddled. Communist and socialist were traditionally more associated with biological science and anthropology, and  the modern left now fights like hell against religious dogma that doesn't hold up to anthropology and evolutionary biology. Without hard genetics, the amount of violence that dogmatist could get away with in the name of racial hostility would. . .look like the days of phrenology and gas chambers. . not fun. And they still deny it. Hardcore Jesus on a Velociraptor 40 virgins and a mule denial. The only thing protecting civilization from that, is heavy tax paid state academic and private corporate infrastructural science that applies advanced biology and is taught by mostly moderate and modern liberals. Modern liberals are thieves, annoying, morally destructive and often sophistic, but evangelist are ANTICIPATING and WELCOMING at any given time, total nuclear holocaust. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. If you fear that moral tribal savagery, and do not understand secular libertarianism, you'll probably intentionally pay twice the taxes, put your children through twice as much public school, to protect them from the cultural toxicity of evangelist conservative nationalism. 

 

Add to that, that the modern left violently defends corporate corrupted science as objective positivistic authority in the biological sciences, whilst condemning sustainable agriculture, environmental toxicology, and preventative medicine. It is an appeal to nature to say that the aforementioned are more 'proper', but it is because its empirical also. In reality the market is so skewed with copyright and state corruption that the relativist lie gets sold, while the empiricism remains in an obscure peer reviewed journal only accessible to other die hard independent researchers. Institutions in the left and right both push their relativistic causes.

The dirty hippies advocate for plurality, evidence, and catallaxy to vet their biological research. . .while the corporate science hides behind the state and institution. Sadly many Objectivist defend market relativism, and biological relativism in the case of agriculture/medicine/environmental science. Molyneux in particular has compared environmentalism towards Protestantism 'original sin', but I don't see the argument, where in clear cases pollution is force. And yet, ironically, Protestantism gave rise to unitarianism and utilitarian capital management of resources. It's the natural law religious dogmatist, often evangelist, who defend fossil fuel and resource extraction under religious pretense.

The modern left defends hard empirical data on the ecology and natural science, even taking a relativist approach to management, i.e., experimentation, management practice, etc. But unfortunately, the modern liberal and hippie rejects have certainly regulated everything to death from the slave morality perspective. Their are ways certainly in which environmentalism ties back to German tribal law, Judaism, Christianity, and Communism, but its still largely an empirical, scientific, relativistic skeptical defense against old testament and capitalist dogma. This is where the zeitgeisters really went wrong. They took a strong scientific, skeptical approach and mixed it in with slave morality and half-baked communism. I would even argue that a classically liberal 'Physiocracy' is where environmentalism needs to head. One man's relativism is another man's moral truth. Your local hippie food co-op is far more voluntary than you doctor's adamant desire to given you prozac for your migraine because of a ruthlessly institutional market built on fundamentalist reductive concepts. The people who talk shit about hippies, need to go back to 1905-circa 1935 America/Ukraine/Russia/Germany and get a taste of what real Guyana Punch was like. Those periods make Rush Limbaugh look like Cenk Ugyur. Times are better.

 

If there's anything to be learned about relativism, conspiratorial history, and institutional indoctrination, I think c4ss.org and School Sucks have nailed it down in explaining that what the left blames the right and vice versa, is largely a collusion dating back to early Prussia. The proof of puritanical objective ideological claims in both socialism and capitalism, with a classist intention, is there. To me, that signifies the need for voluntary socialism and agorism, i.e, mutualism, classical liberalism, catallaxy and emergent order, intertwined with heavy skepticm and relativism. Relativist who doubt relativist, skeptics who doubt skeptics. 

 

You could fix the world with peaceful parenting, home schooling, soil science, bit coin, evil marxist robots, skepticism, satire, wit, and die hard actuary and guild structures. Your hippies, accountants, geologist, hackers, comedians, and gamer rejects will inherit the world. Which incidentally, aside from the gaming, Molyneux's background largely includes those things. So I let him off the hook, even though his social shaming approach to women's morality pisses me off endlessly. 

[Sal9000]

Sorry to be the party pooper, but Veinotte's historical and philosophical analysis is flawed. He relies heavily on a flawed Objectivist interpretation that has little to do with Kant (or Hegel) actually wrote. Kant's impetus was to draw a line between statements that cannot be tested (Metaphysics) and theories of the real world.

[Josh F]

 

You could fix the world with peaceful parenting, home schooling, soil science, bit coin, evil marxist robots, skepticism, satire, wit, and die hard actuary and guild structures. Your hippies, accountants, geologist, hackers, comedians, and gamer rejects will inherit the world. Which incidentally, aside from the gaming, Molyneux's background largely includes those things. So I let him off the hook, even though his social shaming approach to women's morality pisses me off endlessly. 

 

Why would shaming only piss you off when its directed at women's issues?

 

Sorry to be the party pooper, but Veinotte's historical and philosophical analysis is flawed. He relies heavily on a flawed Objectivist interpretation that has little to do with Kant (or Hegel) actually wrote. Kant's impetus was to draw a line between statements that cannot be tested (Metaphysics) and theories of the real world.

 

What do Kant or Hegel have to do with Brett?