Stephen Hicks is a great guest. This is episode is criminally under watched!

Your daggers of truth hit so hard, Stephen. You are one of the key voices in the Death Star of this ideology.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity. D.E.I *Divide Et Impera* (Divide and Conquer) Postmodernism's real world application as philosophy

“We will give a lot of power to the state, and the state will then run everything and distribute everything evenly.“ 19:15 Sounds quite totalitarian, doesn’t it? Hannah Arendt and others have pointed out that totalitarianism must be socialist, because no other way can the government get control over all the institutions.

Most interesting and illuminating conversation. I had always assumed that modernism arrived with abstract art, nuclear physics, emancipation, mass production, and consumerism. The post moderns take it back to the Enlightenment, so it is interesting to hear Hicks take it back to the Renaissance, which explains the rejection of imperialism, but even that does not address the ancient empires and hierarchies.

Dr Hicks is one of Dr Peterson's mentors. I can see why

GOD! Thank you for this. I've been trying to find something like this for ages.

Absolutely love you channel brother! ✊🏿

Great video. Thank you!! 👍

I’m glad he mentioned the gulf between Catholics and Protestants.

This episode may be criminally underwatched, but this channel is criminally undersubscribed. I feel fortunate, being mindful not to throw too much praise at UKposts, that The Algorithm has pushed Chris Williamson into my field of view.

This is the second video presentation from Prof. Stephen Hicks that has had complications that I have seen. I wonder if there has and/or will be more. Coincidence? probably. Best dude ever

We can support social programs like welfare and health care without being ‘socialist’ And we can cherish National identity and traditions without being ‘far right’ We can also value the benefits of individualism and free markets without being Global Corporatists or Neo Libs But we can’t do any of it whilst being ‘Post Modern’ relativists as none of these terms have meaning - unless being used as a slur !

Both you guys are great

The term 'post-modernism' has always sounded a bit obfuscating-- why is it after modernism, which is what that means? Why not its own term?

The 10 dislikes were angry socialists / post-modernists😂

Excellent!

Agree...There seems too be little interest in most people to learn history, economy's, psychology or just about anything else that is serious in nature...frivolous issues are dominating the majority...I wish I was wrong in this assessment...

Brilliant.

You mentioned you didn't know the origin of the word Tory, the word is just the name of the "Right-wing/Conservative" political party that predates the Conservative Party, you may also occasionally hear Liberals (maybe Lib Dems) calling themselves Whigs, this is the party that predates the Liberal Party, although I'm not sure if I'd call them left-wing

Accountability is the breaking point of socialist communities.

The Frankfurt Schoolers saw that classical Marxism wasn't going to convert the masses, so they turned from their bad socio-economic arguments to cultural warfare. Adorno, Lukács, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Marcuse . . , they all came right out and said it. It's not a mystery. The 'pomo' movement was just an extension of that, with new language. A perfect contemporary example is INTERSECTIONAL THEORY - which is just re-packaged Critical Theory.

I find much to agree with but, @ 22.15 - people that do not vote are described as apathetic. Some of us do not want to vote due to the fact that we do not want to be a party to future crimes by politicians.

It's kind of ironic we call them postmodernists.

“Community is no larger than a 100 people or so.” - Dunbar’s number!

In large scale societies reputation loses punitive power

For the algo. This layer 1 messaging needs more eyes and ears on it!

Well it's about time somebody tried at least.

my relatives in switzerland are assigned their jobs by the government, (something i wouldnt stand for, btw) but maybe this is accepted because they get a modern, orderly society??? it is too optimistic to think that democracy is any more stable than the socialism being discussed in this interview--nazi germany was just a small degree of technology from long term success.

At 48:00 'Am I really paying attention to the evidence, follow trains of logic, willing to say I made a mistake, some things are complicated, are you willing to re-examine your beliefs, on the internet get in a discussion and make a point to say you are right and I am wrong, publicly admit... calmness is the sign of strength, I am not omniscient, the truth is what matters, admit and learn from your mistakes... for intellectuals we think we are smarter.' [Stephen, Can you follow a train of logic to produce these mysterious post modern socialists? Thanks.]

Feed

Some people can't make it on their own. We need to think about them too.

Soc

He's accurate about problems start when socialism gets the power of police. BUT he never mentions WHY socialism, communism started and evolved....they evolved in response to the evils of capitalism. And he prefers when the capitalist plutocracy HAS the power of the police. Which is the current reality. Biden just crushed the railroad workers strike. Throughout history, labor has ALWAYS been at a disadvantage against the leverage of concentrated wealth and if that doesn't work they sent in the federal troops....Hicks leaves a lot out of the picture....on purpose.

two piles of garbage explained. :) 30:00 YES! this is the problem with political communism/communalism! i say this ALL THE TIME. you don't get to force others to live communally if they don't want to (though i personally would part time for project purposes and having company to work beside). no gods, no masters! it's the only way to be liberated. don't agree that it's good to vote, though. see, socialists and other voters think we should vote for leaders because the average individual is not good or moral enough to govern herself... and yet the average individual is good and moral enough to select those who should RULE? jesus christ, the circular logic never ends. :) try anarchism. the water is fine.

POSTMODERNISM LEADS DIRECTLY TO POSTHUMANISM../ FINALLY PEOPLE WERE LISTENING TO ME?? NO JUST SOME OTHER BLOKE USED A DICTIONARY FOR ONCE.. AT LEAST DA TALKING ABOUT IT??../

I KNEW CATHOLISM WOULD BE MORE SOCIALISTIC THAN P/..NON-DOMINATIONAL!!

1 minute into it... "we are a smart species".... oooh... that's a very big statement and one which can be proved both right and wrong. 22:00 Stupidity is greatly enhanced by the media by making it emotional and very one sided. Rupert Murdoch wouldn't have bought up all the media he did unless he could tell a huge number of people what to think - which is counterbalanced by an education system that doesn't really teach you HOW to think - or when to question. Around 27:30 there is a major assumption that anyone who wants to foist communism/extreme socialism onto others is to be considered 'wiser'. Mentally deficient or damaged or deranged would be more appropriate. Curious to see what kind of self image you need (if you're not a psychopath) to feel the need to control others. That's something that might be traced back to a childhood trauma. That's not wisdom, it's lunacy. 28:30ish Small communities - yes - but that's because we have evolved that way. 100 - 200 people max. We did that thousands and thousands of years ago. It's only a new thing to try to bring millions of people together voluntarily without religion. That's not in our DNA - we haven't evolved to do that at the moment. 30:30 That's the same for any authoritarian/oligarch/corporatist. I kill, steal, plunder and the police/army can do my dirty work. That's not just for socialists - look at USA foreign policy. 36:50 Notion of a meritocracy is extremely flawed and basically a myth. It's saying that the people who are at the top deserve to be there and those at the bottom deserve that too. Boris Johnson, Trump, Clinton, well... most 'leaders'. And compare that to homeless/poor people. Is it because they are all bums or lazy? Not in the slightest. There is no actual meritocracy and the economic system we have only permits some people to reach the highest positions.... and very often that has nothing to do with merit. 40:50 "Believer in an ideology but arguments going against you". We are humans. There is a very famous quote that to put simply, "it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled." Hence people double down on wrong ideas. And the richest and most powerful people in the world are absolutely NO different from the cave dwelling hermits on that. All are humans with the same frailties and are at the same stage in evolution. 41:40 It's not just young people. Old people are more stuck in their ways... Brexit would never have passed without older affluent people thinking the UK was still a massive power in the world. This could just as easily apply to - ooh i don't know - a guy who wrote a book about postmoderism and goes around giving talks on it from a position of authority. 45:50 You can't talk in absolutes of right and wrong for things like this. You can only try to convince people your opinions are better than someone elses. Or if you have an army/CIA behind you, invade them or overthrow their government under the guise of 'spreading democracy'. Interesting talk.. didn't agree with everything but then again... that's pretty normal.

did he just say that the Soviet Union was established in 1979? lol

Very pejorative definition of postmodernism, and not a very good one tbh.

Let's check into Hicks randomly around 40:00: 'Connecting post modernism to socialism, the major post modernists are socialists, if the data goes against you some people are open minded, some people double down on a failing theory, some young people believe in their religion, some people change their mind, some people will reaffirm their commitment, in socialism the post modernists is a new strategy, the global climate, some far Right are post modernists, it is my national identity that makes me what I am, I am not an individual, different ethnic group can't discuss differences, they are opposed to the free market...' [Let's unpack this. One of Hicks points is that when an idea is clearly failing, the post modern types will double down on it anyway. Would that be like when Libertarian is clearly a failing idea, people that continue to push it are post modernists? Wow, I think Hicks just admitted that he is a post modernist. Whoops. I get Hicks point that there are the good and smart people who are open minded and reject post modernism and socialism, but does anyone have any idea who these post modern socialists are, using Hicks definition? Or is he just straw manning the whole thing with fictitious bogey men who don't like happiness, prosperity, and individuals? Modern Wisdom, do you know who he is talking about?] Here is my suggestion to Hicks. So it doesn't just look like you are punching at clouds, why don't you identify these bad post modern socialists, and also list some political ideas you don't like and you do like. I think the government should keep its hands off our bodies, so in that sense I am libertarian; for death with dignity, against the war on drugs, for legalized sex for hire. How about you?

Let's punch in at around 17:00: 'Western nations are committed to Individualism, free market, liberal democracy, socialism is opposed to all that. The major experiments in socialism in USSR. Millions of people killed. It is a bad thing. China had a disaster, millions killed.' [Wisdom and Stephen, can you point to one name in the US or the West that is promoting the kind of socialism you are talking about, or who is opposed to a liberal democracy? And what exactly is a liberal democracy?] 'Socialism has an appeal for those who don't know much. For naïve people it sounds nice. If you are into attacking people on the internet, you are not a serious person. Vote responsibly with a concrete grounded opinion. People are apathetic. The vote of people who care, who are informed. Democracy is better than other options. Post modernism is a high intellect movement. Poor nations are more reality focused....' [So if I am attacking Hicks theories on the internet I am not a serious person? Poor nations are more reality focused? Wouldn't that mean then Stephen that by being modernists as you call them, they would thus succeed? So why are they failing? I get that you preach to a fan base that swallows your black and white us vs. them, good guy bad guy simplifications. But you seem to be suggesting that those gullible enough to swallow your pill shouldn't vote. Am I missing something?]

This guy is so off point about Marxism. Marxist totalitarianism can also be seen to stem from a monopolization of the individual and a rejection hierarchical social structure. Marx was intellectually indebted to romanticism whose picture of the individual was many times more radical than that of liberalism and could be seen as destructive in many ways. In the German Ideology Engels and Marx continuously cash out communism as the stage when the individual is free to express their needs and desires external of social pressures. This guy is a charlatan who barely reads the people he talks about.

Hicks is an “academic” for people who don’t know any better. Yes, he’s well read, and yes, he’s a persuasive speaker, and yes, I’m sure he got his PhD in the usual ways. But to say his approach in these talks is unbiased or even scholarly is absurd. He doesn’t define his terms, he reduces complex issues to false binaries, and he cherry picks quotes and dishonesty shoehorns them into his arguments. He’s not a truth-seeker (as most honest scholars are), he’s a panderer and an opportunist, just like his pal Jorden Peterson. He’s cashing in on the Right and Alt-right’s fear and/or confusion about progressive politics. Why? Because it pays. Just like Peterson, Hicks is a shameless huckster. His books are not scholarly, they’re pop-philosophy. He’s also an Ayn Rand apologist and a lackey for the Atlas Society, and this alone speaks volumes about his partisan allegiances. I’m sick of all these fake ‘professorial’ presentations. Hick’s is smart enough to know he’s being utterly dishonest.

Bit worried Stephen is suggesting people don’t know their history whilst also outlining some ahistorical talking points that suggests a lack of knowledge of political history. Might be worth sticking to philosophy rather than straying out of his lane tbh.

According to Hicks, someone thinks the modern world has been a mistake? Strange. Let's check him out. 'We take in information about the world, there are variations in definitions, post modernism, modernism is the last 500 years, art is changing, how the human body works, astronomy, there is a huge amount going on, we do science differently, the modern world, the post moderns argue that we think that has all come to an end, those revolutions have lead to pathological results, we need to go in a different direction, the modern world has capitalism and democracy, the leading post modernists are anti democratic, they are authoritarian, adversarial authoritarian tactics, anti capitalism, the modern world is a disaster. They argue that science and technology are negative, male and white ways of thinking. Modernism pursues happiness and tolerance and individualism. Post modernists don't believe in individuals, modern world freedom and science, post modernism rejects all of that...' [Question to Modern Wisdom: does Hicks identify these alleged post modernists? If not, how do you know he just didn't make it up as some fictitious bogey man that he can just attack with cotton candy punches and win easily? Apparently, some unspecified force or movement argues against science, truth, democracy, happiness, tolerance, and instead they want authoritarian rule and mind control. Wow these post modernists sound really scary and evil. The remaining question is; who are they, or did Hicks just make this all up?] I guess this is For Dummies, meaning that dummies will swallow the whole pill. We all know that society has advanced by realizing the world is round and the earth revolves around the sun etc. But thanks for explaining that to us Stephen. Post modernists think that advances in modern medicine and technology are pathological results? Who the heck are these dorks Stephen? Modern Wisdom calls this fantastic. Now on to socialism. It is an economic and political idea, some people think people can pursue their dreams and careers, socialism says the group is more important for the individual, religion, catholic says you can set aside individuals, protestants say you do your thing, go our separate ways, in economics, you decide your career you can make your own deals and decisions, socialists argue we should not function as individuals, institutions decide what gets made and people should follow those decisions made by the institution...' [Once again Modern Wisdom: Who are these socialists that want people to not choose their careers and dreams and decisions and deals? Let me help you out here to see through Hicks Tricks: He props up an evil force that is against science and people pursuing their dreams, and then he enters the ring to battle with the Sinister Straw Man, and quickly achieves a knockout in the 3rd round, que the theme song to Rocky. Dummies don't see through it, non dummies do.]

Stephen Hicks as no credibility.