Posted on 12/23/2025 5:57:42 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
John Stossel interviews James Lindsay, famous for fighting wokeness on the left. Lindsay is vigorously investigating wokeness on the right, mostly but not limited to those following the ideas of Nick Fuentes.
----
A new section of the right is foolishly bashing liberty … and even embracing Marxist ideas.
That's why some call them the "woke right."
Monarchism isn’t such a bad idea — for some cultures. Not ours.
Exactly. Certain institutions are not meant for export because peoples, countries and cultures are not interchangeable.
Some societies are so unstable that the only alternative to complete chaos is an authoritarian regime (e.g. rule by monarchs, military dictatorships, etc). However, just because a monarchy may be the best option for an Arab country or rule by a military junta the best source of stability for many Latin American countries doesn't mean that these are good or even viable options for the USA.
As a corollary, this also means that attempting to export American-style institutions to societies and cultures who aren't and probably never will be ready for it is bound to fail too, e.g. the recent "nation-building" enterprises in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
What fantasy wish-world do you live in?
Right now, most of Europe would laugh in your face. For most humans over most history, their "ultimate goal" was survival and reproduction. Recently, "progress" has allowed many to become more, um, hedonistic.<>p> It is the command of GOD that we worship and exalt Him. Even when physical survival isn't the distraction, most humans, even those who say they have a God, stray from that command a LOT, and many are at least agnostic. That's not good, but it is how most people behave.
The plain wording of the Declaration of Independence proves this wrong. And why are you so afraid to say God?
The Enlightenment and the Laws of Nature and Nature's God are the same picture. Anybody who reads Blackstone, Locke, and many other Enlightenment thinkers knows this.
Our rights are a gift from God, they were given to us. It's not government, it's not temporary human license labeled as "rights".
Tate and Fuentes aren't speaking badly about Democrats nor progressives(exclusively), the people who have fostered all of what you suggest. If your suggestion were true, nobody else would ever be a target.
If tribalism has any merit at all, why does it constantly target the wrong enemies?
Why does tribalism constantly target the wrong enemies?
Tribalism can be anything—and support or oppose anything.
For young white men it is so new (to be able to speak about it in a public way) they are trying to find their way.
As a practical matter they are surrounded by enemies on all sides. There are no “wrong” enemies. They will hit some legitimate target no matter where they point.
Lol.
Correct me if I’m wrong but as a tribalist,
Wasn’t Affirmative Action abolished by SCOTUS during the time when Sotomayor and Jackson were sitting justices?
(Then there’s the deletion of Chevron, Lemon, and many many more)
For young men they walk into a college classroom and in many cases less than 20% of their fellow students are white men.
In the real world their tribe is getting stomped.
If they are lucky enough to get a corporate job they get to see it all over again.
If you talk to them about Supreme Court decisions they will laugh in your face.
This view is more mainstream than you realize.
Big government is very popular these days, on both sides.
Liberty is freedom plus morality. That's what you would expect in a country such as the U.S. Founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles.
"Do you think that the further we have gone away from Monarchism we have gained more of it or lost more of it??"
I fail to see anything in 2025 monarchies that indicate we as Americans have lost anything at all worth valuing. Directly to your question, we have gained more. Gained.
I think that the further modern monarchs have gone away from circa 1500s Monarchism they have lost so much of what little respect they may have nominally been meant to deserve.
I can at least in theory understand why someone may find a king from the 1400s to be maybe a slight bit alluring. I dare you to unbind your fake view of trying to compare today's U.S. with kings 1600 years ago and talk about the socialism-embracing kings of 2025.
How about I flip it and talk about how the U.S. at it's founding 250 years ago absolutely SMOKES today's socialism-embracing kings? Let us not forget that today's King Filipe IV in Spain nominated an outright communist for Prime Minister.
Give me the Founding Fathers any day to that BS. The kings are so absolutely smoked it isn't even funny. I can't find a way to laugh at it, it's just pathetic and pitiful.
"Did 18th century England have more or less right to their possessions than we do?
21st century England has less right to their possessions than we do. Monarchism has not remained static.
"Do you think the king required a higher tax rate than our benevolent “elected leaders”?
Yes I do. King John's taxes were so high the common folk invented their own hero who might save them from the onslaught. Yes, I know the actual true history of Robin Hood, not the left wing perversion they created some years ago based on the redistributive model.
"Were more or less hours of a English subject’s daily hours spent in the support of his king compared to our hours spent in support of our government?"
You're working way too hard to avoid modern England. I'm going to make your question fair.
It required more hours of a English subject’s daily hours spent in the support of his king than it did compared to our hours spent in support of the government that the Founding Fathers gave to us at the time of our Founding.
Today? The U.S. in 2025 still has more private property rights and is required less hours than an English subject in 2025. We always win.
"Try not hiring someone because you don’t like the color of their skin."
People in England are going to jail for racist memes, even when the meme isn't actually trying to be racist or set out at all in the concept of race but instead the memes are complaints about government in entirely non race related ways.
Don't talk to me about the superiority of socialist England when you know as well as I do that the Fabians destroyed the place.
"Try not hiring someone because you don’t like the color of their skin. See what your benevolent Democracy thinks about that liberty."
Try not hiring someone because you don’t like the color of their skin. See what your benevolent Prime Minister thinks about that or Mayor of London.
"Is a king more likely to have fidelity and responsibility to his subjects who were also the subjects of his father and his father’s father and his father’s father going back 20 generations or is a politician more likely to have fidelity and responsibility to the citizens that voted for him one day 2 years ago?"
No. Or else Kings of 2025 would be largely the same as they were centuries ago instead of socialism-embracing kings.
You spout a lot of theory but you seem to be stuck in a time capsule or broken time machine. Every premise that you're proposing is flat out false and ridiculous.
"Kings leave the future kingdom to their progeny and have an in-built motivation for keeping it prosperous, healthy, stable, etc..."
Then they wouldn't be embracing communists.
"In a democracy, when a politician says, “We are going to bring in millions of brown foreigners to replace you.” The citizens look at each other, shrug their shoulders and say, “I guess we voted for this.”"
I agree.
It's a good thing that The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
Oh, and looking at the totalitarian dictator kings of Europe, they say, “We are going to bring in millions of brown foreigners to replace you.” The citizens look at each other, shrug their shoulders and say, “God Bless the King!”
You are talking about impotent, parliamentary monarchies in 2025. That’s not what I’m talking about.
You are looking at monarchies who have abdicated their authority to liberal enlightened “democracies”.
That’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking about RULING CHRISTIAN ABSOLUTE Monarchies.
Funny enough if you look at the few 2025 Monarchies that are not parliamentary Monarchies but instead are Absolute Monarchies (as I am referring to), they DO support their citizens and they DO look out for their best interest. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brunai, OAE are some of them. None of them have any income taxes. The level of “liberty” in many measurements of liberty is far above ours. Granted, you don’t have the “liberty” to perform sodomy on other men. Girls don’t have the liberty to screw all of the guys in town and many other terrible backward rules.
Of course, these are all Muslim countries so their values are not Christian values but they are doing far better than their “democratic” or parliamentary or war lord ruled neighbors. And one could imagine a Christian Monarchy that would support Christian values and protect and support their citizens the same way the previously mentioned countries support theirs.
And no…taxes were not higher under King George than they are today. There are countless studies proving this.
The number of hours spent in 1785 in support of the King was no where near the amount of hours spent in support of our “liberty supporting democracy”.
You are simply wrong on that point.
You should go back and review your other arguments and instead of comparing impotent 2025 parliamentary monarchies, compare Christian 15th,16th or 17th century monarchies that had not yet been overthrown for governments based on the liberal enlightenment or even compare to 2025 absolute monarchies (assuming the hypothetical ones I would support would be Christian instead of Muslim).
I am allowed to be consistent and compare a 2025 US to the 2025 communist monarchs. 2025 and 2025, they match up.
"That’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking about RULING CHRISTIAN ABSOLUTE Monarchies."
Correction. You're talking about the defeated monarchies. The ones that the U.S. Founding Fathers in 1776 threw onto the ash heap of history. You want to talk about back then, I'm happy to talk about back then too. Back then and back then, they match up.
Also for the record, you're talking about the Christian kings who forced slavery onto the United States who never wanted it.
Nothing from within the ant heap of totalitarianism such as these defeated kings should ever be resurrected. God Damn the King. The Founding Fathers won. They deserved their victory. It was so, so sweet.
A couple of the resident monarchists have come in to have a cheery conversation.
I agree with your concepts.
I think there is some truth to that, and don’t forget about Andrew Tate.
These two are a little too “perfect” in their comments. Lindsay is correct in his observation that it is almost as if they set out to do exactly what the accusations set forth.
Not accusing. Just watching the parallel.
Yeah. Those are the very wokesters John Stossel is referring to. They are all-in on the gigantic state.
The fact that guys like Tate and Fuentes do not often reveal their preferences are the proof of where they stand.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ezM2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
Two points in especial bear in mind: be actors and not merely critics of others, in the first place, and in the second, do not try to accomplish anything at the very beginning, and then because you fail abandon the effort to accomplish anything.As to the first point criticism is a very good thing, but work is a much better one. It is not the man who sits at home in his parlor, the man who reads his evening paper before the fire and says how bad our politicians are, who ever works an improvement in our municipal government. It is the man who goes out to the primaries and the polls, who attends the meetings of his party organizations, (etc)
Of course we all know what TR meant is that he should never be criticized while he is allowed to criticize anyone else. Typical stench of elitism.
Progressives such as TR or otherwise are such hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
The 800 page heft of this book holds many of the answers. Notwithstanding, of course, the terribly loaded language you used.
“But lately conservatism has embraced the populism of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis, which is less celebratory of the free market”
I appreciate this level answer.
I am aware that anti-capitalism is rooted in anti-marxist progressivism going all the way back to the original progressive era with the likes of anti-marxists like Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and even Margaret Sanger was an anti-marxist also. All of the progressives were anti-free markets and pro-big-government.
Buchanan at least didn’t embrace ultra huge government, so that’s a kudos. I don’t know enough about Francis to have a valid opinion on his position about the hugeness of overbearing government.
In the end this should resonate with you instinctively without me or anybody else saying it:
You lose everybody when you embrace big government under the guise of opposing big corporations. In reality opposing both is the ideal.
“Stop telling white teenagers, particularly white teenage males, that their race and ethnicity is the root of all evil and that they need to grovel and beg forgiveness for their existence from their non-white betters. The appeal of Fuentes and Co. is just a natural backlash to a generation’s worth of this insanity.”
Yeah.
People tell me all the time around here I over-react to The 1619 Project and I should just let it go.
I under-react to it and The 1619 Project is still a very imminent and grave threat. That was so a few years ago, they say. No. It’s still in the schools today. The 1619 Project was not so a few years ago. It’s today.
All the intellectual debates around here are amusing.
When young white men are told they are responsible for all the evils in the world it would not matter that much if...
They were the only ones who voted and the vast majority of their college classmates and office workers were also white men.
But—they look around them in these places and realize they are a minority with very little power to protect themselves—and very few adults watching their backs.
That is how you generate radicals who decide they must regain power or be crushed.
They are forced to make their own way, create their own mythos and their own institutions—out of self defense.
They could not care less about the views of those who stood by and let the situation happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.