JaysAnalysis: Refuting Anarchism, Marxism & All Revolutionary Thought (Half)

Reflecting on the debate with Adam Kokesh and briefly replying to the hit piece written about me by a pathological skeptic, I give my response and launch into a lengthier critique of all modern revolutionary thought.   This critique analyzes the assumptions of all modern liberal (nominalist) positions, from Marxism to anarchism to fascism.  In hour two for subscribers I do a presuppositional critique of the nonsensical, somewhat famous essay of Umberto Eco on how to identify “fascism,” titled “Ur-Fascism.”   Many topics are covered, from Descartes to logical fallacies and meta-logic.  To hear the full lecture, subscribe at the PayPal links below.

Stream or Download the First Half Here

Purchase my book here.



To support my work, become a member at JaysAnalysis for 4.95 a month, or 60.00 a year, for my full talks and interviews, as well as purchasing my book, Esoteric Hollywood at the links at the site.

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis for more by clicking on this image!

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis for more by clicking on this image!

JaysAnalysis Podcast now on iTunes! Click the image.  JaysAnalysis offers the first hour for free and the full talks and interviews as a subscription below.

For full talks and lectures, subscribe to JaysAnalysis on PayPal here.


JaysAnalysis on Stitcher:



Order Hollywood Mind Control by Jamie Hanshaw here!

5 Comments on JaysAnalysis: Refuting Anarchism, Marxism & All Revolutionary Thought (Half)

  1. Hey, Jay.

    I appreciate what you are doing in the preceding video and this one. The value for me in the first video was that I have always intuitively dismissed Libertarian views as silly, but have never sat down and really listened to the underlying arguments for the beliefs, so first of all, there is that.

    Secondly, it was great to hear someone from a more traditional viewpoint criticize Libertarian views because in some ways, I am even more ignorant of the Western tradition because I have internalized it from a young age.

    Finally, this video was helpful because I am one of those people you are talking about who graduated from college who was never formally trained in logic or how to conduct a debate in a way that follows the proper rules of engagement and avoids the informal logical fallacies.

    So, there is plenty for me to chew on, and I am assuming that you are pretty frustrated getting into a lot of intellectual discussion against people who are also ignorant of all of this, and go of on ridiculous tangents without even knowing they are doing it, so this is part of what you are doing, as I think you have said explicitly somewhere, trying to educate not just on issues but on how to discuss things fairly so as not to waste a bunch of time and energy.

    So thanks for that, and I am hoping that I am not only getting what I am getting, but getting what you hope people are getting.

    Lastly, I would like to tell you what my initial impression of the debate was so you can get some feedback.

    The main thing that I took away from your debate with Kokesh was that the minute he said that humanity was becoming more and more peaceful and moving inevitably towards the non-aggression principle in some sort of social evolution, I think he went from being a guy in a debate to an evangelist.

    His evidence, that we are getting more and more peaceful, was so thin that it had no real meaning. (Correlation is not Causation.) It was not proof that people are evolving away from the state, and you could have easily made the counter argument that the reason we are more peaceful is because of the state: more sophisticated weaponry, psychology, technology, propaganda is why we are more tractable, not a growing moral sense.

    That whole inevitability argument seems like such a misstep, such a giving of the game away, and a movement into the world of wishes and not logical beliefs.

    If that were true, then he must also believe, which he denied later, that people are inherently good, now if not in the past, or his whole system would fall into pieces.

    I mean, a theory based on private property, starting with the body and moving outward, voluntary contracts, non aggression, and with happiness, the fulfilling of wants, as a main goal, I mean, how could this possibly work if everyone isn’t inherently good?

    Once you have assumed the inevitability of non aggression, then you (Kokesh) can toss in the words logic, reason, trial and error, all you want, but ultimately you are putting all your eggs in the basket of basic human goodness, and even a kindergartner knows what happens if you take away the teachers on a school yard.

    Also, I thought he slipped an important conflation past you when you challenged him on the fact that there were no examples of his libertarian utopia in the real world. He used the internet and Moore’s Law as an example of things we couldn’t have imagined that became true, and that was not a good comparison.

    I like the distinction E.F. Schumacher makes between convergent problems and divergent problems, convergent problems being things like math and science, that come together, and each generation can build on what the last has done. And divergent problems are ones that human beings seem to never really figure out, like having a family of five get along all in the same house.

    He was basically pretending that a convergent problem, like the science behind the internet, was the same thing as a divergent problem, like figuring out how to get along. I know hindsight is easy, but I thought it might be of use to you in the future to be able to tease out a false comparison like this using the divergent/convergent distinction, not only because it is effective, but because it keeps the focus on the main problem of his whole argument, that it rests on the assumption that people have evolved to the point where they don’t need government, and if you believe in the Christian doctrine of fallen man, you can never really accept this kind of Libertarian evangelism.

    Anyway, thanks for a good debate, and a good follow up video.

  2. You’re so clever! You got me!

  3. And my “philopshy” work is much higher B.A.

  4. What difference do his academic credentials make if his arguments are logically sound and verifiable?

  5. Jay, you have been on fire recently and it has been a great pleasure to listen to you. It is clear that you engage in classical rhetoric and logic and many(including myself) may not understand that at first. It is great to see that you do not engage a proposition -on one side or the other- if you do not first accept the presupposition it is based on. I guess even “justice” needs to be defined.

    Also, to discuss Umberto Eco is vitally important. I first got into “conspiracy theory” or alternative history when I read Eco’s “Foucault’s Pendulum.” Of course, Eco’s intention in that book was to discredit the predominant conspiracy theory of the 19th Century; the one that most European Rightist movements, as well as the Catholic “Black International,” were essentially based on at that time.

    It is interesting as well to note that Eco’s last novel, “The Prague Cemetary,” was also intended to discredit that same 19th-century conspiracy theory. It seems that the Establishment mind is plagued with “conspiracy theory” and as you pointed out in a recent podcast this manifests so obviously in things like Cass Sunstein” “Conspiracy Theories.” It also manifests in W. Bush’s infamous “conspiracy theory” speech at the U.N. in 2001.

    Anyway, great job lately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: