Пікірлер

• 
  @JJLiu-xc3kgКүн бұрын

  What an extraordinary find! I echo Florian’s comment and add-this must be the first KZread channel which explains so lucidly, and so academically, these subjects I find deeply fascinating.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 сағат бұрын

  @@JJLiu-xc3kg you are very kind! Thank you for your comment and I hope you find some of my other posts of interest.

• 
  @RomualdianHermitage26 күн бұрын

  Excellent presentation! More understandable than that given by Heideggerian scholars

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts680126 күн бұрын

  I will take that! Thank you.

• 
  @footballmatters07Ай бұрын

  Thank you from Kashmir

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  I am glad to have reached so beautiful a place as Kashmir!

• 
  @sue9481Ай бұрын

  Tis a very interesting presentation of his story. I can't quite get past how annoying watching the pipe smoking is!

• 
  @CravenBC24Ай бұрын

  An excellent synthesis of the book and the man. Thank you.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  I am grateful for your generous words!

• 
  @alanhynd7886Ай бұрын

  Lawrence died of a motorbike crash/ He was riding a Brough SS100, a motorcycle that could easily surpass 100 MPH (claims of up to 130MPH exist) Imagine that speed married to pre-WW2 brakes, pitiful suspension and no helmet. Apply Occam's Razor,

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  Yes. You surely are right.

• 
  @lucius.aenniusАй бұрын

  Many heartfelt thanks, Sir, you speak to my condition ! Quite frankly, if you expanded this to a book (preferably a concise booklet), it would be the most important contribution to the philosophy of life since Epictetus' Enchiridion !

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  Oh wow that is praise indeed. Thank you! That really should motivate me. Actually I have written a short book on Conservatism which does cover some of these themes.

• 
  @lucius.aenniusАй бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 You are most welcome ! I'll have a look at your book on Conservatism. Kind regards.

• 
  @mariellegrass-singing4718Ай бұрын

  I have the book. What s wealth of information about it!

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  Thank you. I hope it does a little to enrich your appreciation of it.

• 
  @vadimibraghimov4513Ай бұрын

  Nothing short of brilliant! it is with relish that I watched through your lecture on this extraordinary man. I have just discovered from you that such a book even exists.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  Thank you very much! I hope that you will be able to give the book a go in the future.

• 
  @richardfairley9882Ай бұрын

  Excellent presentation! In reading the book, I was reminded of what the wit said about Wagner - something along the lines of 'great deserts of tedium, punctuated by oases of sheer bliss'...

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts6801Ай бұрын

  Thank you! Ha ha a fair characterization

• 
  @ghostlord12292 ай бұрын

  You sir are a gentlemen and a Scholar! I'm watching this to help with A-level economics very well explained.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68012 ай бұрын

  And you are very kind to take the time to write so kindly. I do hope that the video helps you with A level economics - you will do great!

• 
  @anthonybruh14662 ай бұрын

  Excellent work

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68012 ай бұрын

  Thank you very much!

• 
  @vexifiz67923 ай бұрын

  Very well done, great listen!

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68013 ай бұрын

  I am grateful for your positive words!

• 
  @heaven73603 ай бұрын

  what's with the pipe?

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68013 ай бұрын

  Well I'm a great pipe smoker so when I thought of doing a video I added that as something different. I know some people don't like it but there are a lot of videos with no pipes so I think there is room for one with a pipe!

• 
  @mantoleung4 ай бұрын

  Hi from Manto. Nice one.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  Thank you! I hope you are well.

• 
  @comtedelhiver19164 ай бұрын

  A Frenchman listening to an English gentleman talk about German philosophy... fantastic!

• 
  @fezzus4 ай бұрын

  what fantastically synced audio!

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  I will pass that on to my editorial team.

• 
  @lachlangriffiths94344 ай бұрын

  Thanks Dr St John for this! These pipe casts are always really interesting

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  Thank you very much

• 
  @davidchadwick75594 ай бұрын

  Your work is moribund.

• 
  @janetbaylor16554 ай бұрын

  Some should tell this gentleman that it is easier and healthier to speak without smoking a pipe !!

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  Thank you!

• 
  @David-fm6go4 ай бұрын

  It was delivered today and I read it immediately. I think the most difficult problems facing a Conservative Party (or even more unlikely, a US Republican Party) that took this path would be squaring the circle on balancing capitalism with tradition/society/wholistic human experience, and also the approach to the individual (far more in terms of the United States). Recognizing the importance of well-being and improving it, also necessarily involves deriving benefits from gains in prosperity created by the combination of technology and capitalism. When you boil it down, the profit incentive motivated the deployment of technology that steadily reduced the resources and workforce necessary first for agriculture, and then for industry. This makes possible more time for pleasurable activities and more resources and workers for industries that cater towards them. Professional sports, entertainment industry, and so forth. None of which is possible when 95% of the population toil in the ground to just barely get enough food to not starve. On the other hand, this is destructive with the elimination of jobs and communities in the process. There are also limits to which government action can be undertaken to preserve communities, especially if a conservative government should do as little as possible as the essay stated. I think some of this can be addressed via trade as we previously addressed and preserving gainful employment in a town has both social benefits for the local community, but also helps the fiscal picture since that means fewer people resorting to entitlements and less money needing to be transferred to keep the school/hospital from closing (since the tax base is preserved). In the coal industry in the United States, while regulation is a part of the problem, much of the decline stems from natural gas being so much cheaper than coal owing to the rise in fracking and the shale energy boom. Many environmentalists want to ban fracking and coal, but ironically coal would benefit from fracking being banned as the price of natural gas would go up and power plants wouldn't face such an incentive to shift to gas based on the numbers. However, this not only means more expensive power, more expensive power and more expensive gas derived chemical inputs would damage manufacturing and halt the recent resurgence of manufacturing in the US. I had some hope for the rise of corporate social responsibility in terms of a move away from focusing on just the profit calculation and consideration of the impacts on local community and also the national interest. However, that has merely served as tool for social justice warriors to infiltrate business decisions making, as opposed to any great improvement in a more "conservative direction". And of course the "US conservative" response is to just ban any form of corporate governance that doesn't prioritize shareholder interest. I am intrigued that it kind of takes a "Social libertarian" approach to things like drugs and regulating behavior, but arrives at it through a complete rejection of the fundamental basis for libertarianism (the individual and the stateless society - another abstract utopia). There is also the expectation that a rejection of individualism, would necessarily invite an overbearing nanny state, with authoritarian social policies, combating that would present some difficulty.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  Thank you as ever - not only for reading my effort but taking such care to express your thoughts and reactions. I totally accept that it is hard to imagine any organised political party pursuing my suggestions and of course you are right to point out how complex things are - like technology is clearly inevitable and necessary yet has clear downsides too. Settling the kind of right amount of technology at state level is impossible I think. In the end I feel that my focus is on the lived experience of the individual. This alone is real and in this alone can we make a difference to our own lives. The problem is the system won't leave us alone! I am a libertarian in social matters because I think people wish to have fun and I don't believe in judging people - my fun is not your fun and I have no wish to impinge on your pleasures and I resent that the government and middle class moralists are always trying to impinge on mine - like my right to smoke. As you recognise I wish to reduce as far as possible the project of forcing people to fit into abstract ideological structures whether left or right. Thank you again for your very thoughtful and positive engagement.

• 
  @David-fm6go4 ай бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 I appreciate the irony that I have arrived at 90% of the same viewpoints as you, while taking the exact opposite approach to humanity, moralism, and judgements. I frequently described myself as a secular moralist, and a social libertarian. As such, I fit no one's mold perfectly. I vaguely align with Protestantism but have no formal religious education, and have barely attended any organized religious services, so most of my views are derived on secular grounds. When it comes to ethics and morality, subjectivism and relativism are problematic for me and I think a stable society depends on at least some basic objective ethical foundations, which can just as easily be derived from "learned human experience" as from scripture. This means I have opinions and occasionally I admit, judgments of behavior. I possess a very skeptical view of human nature, which informs my opposition to utopian ideologies and my realism, which contrasts with the idealism of the utopians. My case against utopia hinges on the belief that human nature will always mess it up and any kind of "temporary dictatorship" will become permanent, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. I often made the case against Marxism on the grounds that Marx seemed to believe that the root of all evil was class and that if eliminated, human nature would no longer pose a problem. Obviously this abstraction proved deadly to millions of people. The theorists do not understand humanity at its core and you have certainly made a strong case as to why they cannot, with perspectives I would have never considered. Operating from this basis, the organic, traditional society exists to reign in human excess and any ideology that seeks to dismantle or in anyway works towards weakening the societal checks on human excess, risks letting loose the rivers of blood that Burke warned about in 1790 and was proven correct. This calculation also applies equally to government and so perhaps the number one defining political issue for me for the past many years has been the preservation of checks and balances and constitutional limitations on power. This means that concepts like Bonapartism, Caesarism, and Jacksonianism horrify me as I see them as dangerously concentrating power into the hands of a single individual. Doubly so for any totalitarian ideology. It also puts me at odds with anarchists and libertarians since a stateless society would merely lead to a dictatorship as the chaos pushes people to overcorrect. At the same time I mostly reject trying to legislate morality, because of considerations of practicality, cost, and the upheaval of doing so would have on society, families and culture (in the name of trying to save all three). A good example is the number of families split up because of the number of people in the US that have been incarcerated over minor drug charges like simple possession and three strikes laws. You also then have the criminal activity that springs up during Prohibition or the War on Drugs and the chaos that creates, the cost of trying to enforce it both in terms of money and the harm done across several categories, and lastly, the obvious failure to achieve the stated objectives. People still drank in Prohibition and people still use many illegal drugs. You can make a solid conservative argument against both attempts legislating morality and I do, even as I refrain from partaking of these substances and generally discourage their use or at least their excessive use (my father was an alcoholic). I have been open to sin taxes, much to the dismay of many US conservatives and libertarians, and my reasoning is not to control behavior, but that with government run health programs like NHS in Britain or partial ones like Medicare in the US, those programs will eventually eat the cost of these behaviors and so the preservation of these systems benefits from pricing that in. We both took different routes to essentially the same place. You framed your conservatism on the opposition to abstract impositions on the joys of life. I framed mine on the opposition to idealistic utopians, breaking the restraints on human excess leading to waves of bloodshed and dictatorship. That conservatism can be accommodating to both of us, speaks volumes to the strengths of conservatism over the alternatives. Though obviously, "be a conservative to enjoy the pleasures of life" probably has far more appeal than "be a conservative or rivers of blood will flow". :P

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  @@David-fm6go well the great thing is we arrived at roughly the same place and that is the important thing and you have been most kind to reach out so thoughtfully. You think very seriously about these matters. I do so less diligently so i appreciate all your reflections on these questions.

• 
  @David-fm6go4 ай бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 I have tremendous gaps though in terms of my reading and while I know a great deal about these various schools of thought and their proponents, I feel inadequate in discussions because of my narrow selection to draw upon. I made great strides in the early 2010s: Locke, Burke, Smith, Ricardo were all plowed through in that 2010 - 2014 period, along with numerous other books on various topics. Then progress really slowed in the mid to late 2010s, partially as a result of work and medical issues. Even so I have expanded my collection to include works such as the General Theory by Keynes, Road to Serfdom by Hayek and of course List's "National System of Political Economy", which I have picked at off and on for years. So those are all on my to read list. I also also like to expand beyond just Burke as people have in the past accused me of being a one trick pony so to speak. Your other videos have sparked my interest in Disraeli, and some of the others you reference in the essay interest me as well like Carlyle. I would also like to read some of Aristotle's work as I have a great deficiency when it comes to the Ancient Greek and Roman thinkers as well. Leaving that aside, I do analyze and re-analyze a lot on these topics. Historical analysis and drawing connections between events that so often are not adequately presented in context, has long been an interest of mine as well.

• 
  @alexanderweber2884 ай бұрын

  This pipecast demonstrates in a gentle and refined way how utterly dictatorial our present political culture has become. (It reminds me in some way of the Aristotelian term of 'phronesis', i. e. judgements should be made in the light of practical experience and individually from case to case, not generally and according to first principles)

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68014 ай бұрын

  Thank you for your comment. Opinion has definitely come to displace practical experience in most of life. I suspect that too many people now live distanced from the discipline of practical skill and instead specialise in having emotive opinions about things.

• 
  @David-fm6go5 ай бұрын

  The biggest reason why the interwar period (especially after 1929) was different in terms of equilibrium level of employment was that the economy had grown substantially (at least in the United States) on the back of a particular level of credit being available to facilitate industrial expansion and consumption. While the collapse of this is often emphasized when discussing the stock market crash and far more importantly the bank failures from late 1930-1932. What is often neglected is that the nature of this as a bank sector originated crash and the impact of the collapse of the banking sector would have on the reduction of credit, the reduction of the velocity of money and the reduction of the money supply. This was made worse because the US Federal Reserve actually moved to shrink the money supply (Operating of the same mindset as you described guiding the German Central bank in your video on hyperinflation, but in the opposite direction: less demand for money - reduce the money supply) in 1930 and 1931. This left banks further under capitalized and worsened the bank runs and bank failures. Banking centered crashes feature long recovery times, with prolonged and lingering economic dislocation and unemployment. After the Global Financial Crisis (another bank centered economic crash), unemployment did not reach pre-recession levels until 2014. This is a good reason why the banking sector needs more regulation and oversight than other sectors (even if one is predisposed towards less regulation), because the consequences are greater and the time frame for self-correcting is of such a great length as to render waiting it out politically impossible.

• 
  @David-fm6go5 ай бұрын

  A fascinating video and I look forward to reading the essay. As an American, I have long been fascinated by just how much conservatism in America has diverged from the traditional understanding of the philosophy. It of course is reasonable that an American interpretation of such would be more (classical) liberal owing to the more liberal starting point of the American Revolution in contrast to say the Glorious Revolution. However, in the 20th century the formulation of "The Conservative Movement" essentially amounted to marrying economic liberalism (neoliberalism) with puritanical reformism. To be a strong conservative is to merely adhere to both of these elements more strongly and to label everything else as liberalism or socialism. While there are contradictions in most ideologies, I think one can identify the root source of recent political developments within America (the rise of Trumpism for example) with the unavoidable conflict that would arise from combining an economic approach predicated on societal disruption (America experienced a massive wave of outsourcing between the 1980s and 2010s), with a moral approach predicated on faith and thus necessitating the preservation of religious traditions and local communities. Around 2015, I became especially interested in the societal stability element of conservatism, which has been completely lost in American political culture. As factories were closed, communities declined, schools lost their tax base, drug use increased and so did divorce rates. Conservatives bemoaned the decline of the traditional family, yet pointed the finger at social liberalism, at Hollywood, etc, meanwhile turning a blind eye to the most destructive force for all those traditional societal elements, the economic upheavals caused by neoliberalism and especially free trade. This doesn't even get into the disruptive impact of the Iraq War in American politics, which was the project of a third element within the American Conservative umbrella (but also one which has been decisively kicked out - perhaps the one positive development in recent years), the "neoconservatives". A foreign policy built on idealism and utopia (both incompatible with conservative thinking) and a rejection of realism, restraint, fiscal prudence, and societal stability (all core elements of conservative thinking). The preservation of heritage and the resistance to over development has absolutely no bandwidth among so called American Conservatives, and indeed most take the side of economic development, suburban sprawl and car culture, while opposition to these things is mainly isolated to Greens and Socialists, which makes it a left-right dynamic. Just like the British Conservative Party drifted away from conservativism under Thatcher while firmly declaring it to be doing the opposite, the same exact thing happened in the United States under Ronald Reagan and in some ways the initial appeal of Trump (regardless of what happened later) was itself a rejection of Reaganism, even if it didn't overtly say such. There was a key moment from a 2015 primary debate that sticks in my head. A question (designed to out Trump as being "not a conservative") asked the candidates to define conservatism and what it meant to them. Marco Rubio answered and gave the same 30 year old Reaganite "three legged stool" answer of neoliberalism, social conservativism and neoconservatism (without using those terms though). Trump responded that conservatism was about "preserving your country, your job, your society, and your way of life". While I have become harshly critical of Trump, I have always thought that he gave the most correct answer (even if accidentally) to that question in the last 35 years of American politics, and in so doing put a dagger through the heart of academic conservatism in the United States, as it has been constituted. Of course the dangers of leaving it to a populist to make this case, has been on full display the past few years and itself poses a direct threat to core elements of conservativism (rule of law, constitutional governance, restraint of power, and once again societal stability).

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68015 ай бұрын

  Thank you for watching the video and your appreciative words. You are spot on I think. Economic liberalism is always disruptive as it owes no allegiance except to efficiency. But as you say social conservativism based around the family or religion is not about efficiency at all. The liberal economic bit is more powerful - you can't build a stable family or even religious community if your lives are being always turned upside down by the market. If your job is gone to China tomorrow and your kids travel around the world as corporate executives or just leave home to find work. In that sends the left is more conservative but then they reject so much that conservatives value so one jumps from from the frying pan into tjr fire. As I try to say both end up doing this as they pursuing abstractions - whether the free market or the just society. It's hard to opt out from this binary abstraction as the context or education or even space to provide an alternative approach is just lacking. No one in power is interested. But at least we can share thoughts and agree on much in places like this. Thank you again.

• 
  @Sunfried15 ай бұрын

  The narrator is attributing his own opinions to Oakeshott's, as is evident in his comments on carbon pricing.

• 
  @Sunfried15 ай бұрын

  The first five minutes consists of a series a trivial truths.

• 
  @KC-vy1th6 ай бұрын

  thank you, the world need more this type of video

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68016 ай бұрын

  You are very kind and your comment made me smile. At least nowadays there is the opportunity to come upon content outside the mainstream media and we must be thankful for that. I hope you find some of my other videos of some interest.

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  SCAPEGOATS

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  GREGORIAN 🇬🇪 PHARMACEA

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  FIVE...V....JULY...IULIO.....GATES

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  HUNDREDS....CAPITA...TRIBZL HIDAGE...CENSUS....HEPTARCHY

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  HUNDREDS....PER CAPITA...TRIBAL HIDAGE....HEPTARCHY

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  DEC..X....YULETIDE.. 🌲 🤹‍♀️ ...LOG 🔥 PAGANISM

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  OCT = EIGHT....1X X1....DOUBLE ONE....11...ELF CHAOS

• 
  @judithparker46087 ай бұрын

  DON'T FORGET THE GREGORY CALENDAR ADOPTION.....1578....TO....1752.....BRITAIN...AND...WEST

• 
  @bugit53347 ай бұрын

  Nothing but flames 🔥🔥🔥

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  Ian, if you're interested, a helpful simplistic explanation of this subject is done by Jesse Alexander entitled "Why Germany Caught Hyperflation in 1921" on KZread-'The Great War.'

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  I've always wondered about this subject, Ian. Your presentation cleared up some questions I had. Thanks guy!

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  Ian, I can discern by your presentation that you are a thinking man-an intellectual, but someone who is easy to understand. That's good! There's nothing more weary than to listen to a person who relishes in his erudition. By the way, brother, you have an impressive library!

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68018 ай бұрын

  Thank you very much. I do hope some of what I have said has been of some interest and has made some sense. It's kind of you to write. Ahhh yes I do love books and buying books!

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  25:57, how did the War come about?

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  18:57, Britain's involvement in the War.

• 
  @McIntyreBible8 ай бұрын

  12:35, Russia's role in the War.

• 
  @anthonymount12758 ай бұрын

  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and I'm sympathetic to conservatism, being a Christian, but it seems to me by making such a hard distinction between theory and practice, you've created a sort of trilemma. Either 1. you have some objective (trans-cultural) account of the good, hypothetical or not, in which case you are back to theorizing and abstracting from experience just like those pesky rationalists you are critiquing, the only difference being methodological (starting from first principles vs starting from common experience) or 2. you refuse to engage in this kind of theorizing, in which case whatever normative assertions you might have ought be taken as merely non-cognitive expressivism or perscriptivism (this is what the logical positivists did), or 3. You accept a cultural relativism from which you have no ground to criticize other cultures. 2 and 3 are unacceptable in my opinion. I would hope you think your normative assertions are more than simply expressing distaste, and you would condemn human chattel slavery of all kinds from all time periods, or oppression of women, such as in muslim countries. A.N. Whitehead described speculative metaphysics as a series of test flights, in which we start on the ground of experience and take off into the speculative air, but make sure to come back down again and ground the speculation in our common experience. Theory and practice inform each other, but theory must be seen as an imperfect map of the territory, open to revision in light of new evidence and discovery. I think all of philosophy is like this: Hypotheses from top to bottom. Practice is indeed primary, but that doesn't make theory useless, or necessarily false, or unjustified in informing belief and opinion.

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68018 ай бұрын

  Thank you for taking the time to watch my video and then make such thoughtful comments in response. I do tend to cultural relativism I am afraid. I am not a christian and I don't feel that I can occupy a position from which to pass normative judgments on all manner of states of affairs. I cannot see what any abstract normative statements could be based on. Yes I could pursue ethical theory and derive some ethical world view but to me such ethical systems are still derivative of the context within which they are constructed. A Muslim has a world view and it would probably clash with many liberal western world views and I don't see how one can resolve which is the right one. In practice force seems to be the arbiter in the world, with each world view seeking to impose itself on people who hold other world views. Hence my preference is to discard world views altogether and focus on being in the moment but i would have to admit that my own cultural assumptions and inevitable normative views come in there of course. i agree my position is probably not rigorous or logical - though I would say that's just how conservatism is!

• 
  @kevwhufc86408 ай бұрын

  Great video, no matter how many times i walk around the abbey inside and out, or how much i read , i still learn something new, as i have watching your video. ..But there's a MASSIVE question nobody can answer, not the tour guides or any of the church people ,in fact the people i have asked have never noticed the objects before, let alone know anything about them. If you stand with your back to Alban's shrine facing the iron gates attached to the pillars and follow the stone around tucked away about a metre above the floor are 2 stone heads on opposite sides, both facing the floor. ( reminding me of a naughty child standing in the corner facing their feet) As if in shame , i can't think of anything that makes sense If remains of saints broken during the reformation why would anyone attach them where nobody notices and facing the floor. Instead of storing them in the vaults below. Maybe they came from the old Roman city, but again why position them in that way , Nothing i can think of makes any sense. If you're passing through and have a spare 10 mins , they are worth having a look at . I keep meaning to pop across and take some video footage, but something always comes up or i forget. There's nothing in the books i have , i can't find anything about them online . Have you noticed them ? I'd be surprised if you have. Anyway great video, I've learned a few things i didn't know before. Appreciate your time , and wish you well :)

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68018 ай бұрын

  thank you for your very kind words! i admit your right i have never spotted these figures and i really need to make good that omission! I shall take a look as soon as i can. Thank you for raising that question.

• 
  @kevwhufc86408 ай бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 I actually got home early today and thought I'd pop across the road to the abbey and refresh my memory, even though I live close I havn't been inside for longer than I realised, the heads dont face the floor ( I was so sure they did) they face as if lying on their side facing you , wherever they came from they've been cut through the lower jaw , they both have a strange hairstyle, it reminds me of a Roman hairstyle, tied into swirls ( almost like mr whippy vans soft ice cream swirled on a cornet ( cone) coming almost to a point at the top . Everything about them is strange, loads of questions and no answers. I spoke to a lady after she finished her tour guide and she hadn't noticed them before I pointed them out , and obviously knew nothing about them either . I'll try sending my pics from mobile to this tablet,, It's bound to be iffy , lol , I'm rubbish with tech tbh , but I'll try asap and tag you when I've done it. :)

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68018 ай бұрын

  @@kevwhufc8640 thanks for updating us on your research. It sounds like you are the only one who has properly seen these figures. I look forward to looking out for them next time I'm in the abbey.

• 
  @kevwhufc86407 ай бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 I've tried adding the videos to my others, hopefully I succeed, as I've said I'm rubbish with modern technology. I didn't think to take footage from a distance to make it clear exactly where they are. They are about 7 feet from the floor in opposite corners. I've been in some areas below in the vaults and they have all sorts of things inc heads , arms etc that had been smashed and buried and found during excavations. So I don't know why they aren't with them , its very odd , I assume they are male , but the hairstyle seems something a woman would have, .. I'm surprised nobody has done any research, especially Martin Biddle , the archaeologist in charge of the abbey, inside and out. The other videos I've added in the past were for similar reasons, to show someone an example of what I was talking about,

• 
  @kevwhufc86407 ай бұрын

  @@stjohnspipecasts6801 somehow I've closed comments and made it for children only 🙈 ..I did say I was rubbish with tech lol

• 
  @kevwhufc86408 ай бұрын

  John of wheathampstead, the same as discovered during excavations just before the pandemic? So pilgrims, or the Victoria Beckhams of the day opened up the Dukes coffin and dipped their hanky in the stuff around his remains.. Was the coffin open ? Or did they just lift it after giving the guide a few coins ? I did not know that, its one of the most disgusting things I've heard ... urgh .. Is that why there are steps going down to his resting place? I vaguely remember something about people could go down, but an iron grille had to be bolted over it , i guess that's the reason . Poor old Humphrey, brother of Henry V and veteran of Azincourt .. I'm surprised any of those saints around the windows survived the reformation let alone the school children. The walk through was used like a red light district apparently. The 'slab' as many locals refer to Grimethorpes east front.

• 
  @thermionic12345678 ай бұрын

  After firing Bismarck (and ending the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf), the Germans should have lobbied to have German Austria anschluss itself to the Second Reich. The Germans should have told their kith and kin that The AH Empire is dead, but that The German Empire has a chance with them. Of course the reordering that would go with something this comprehensive would be very destabilizing.

• 
  @sifridbassoon8 ай бұрын

  Dude! Please. Lose the pipe

• 
  @slobodanjovanovic81888 ай бұрын

  What a superficial presentation. Is the assassination of Hitler or any occupier an act of terrorism? Where are the roots of the event? On October 5, 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the act of annexation, carried out without prior agreement with the great powers - which at the Congress of Berlin gave it a mandate to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina - Austria-Hungary committed an obvious violation of international treaties and caused lively protests in Europe. Representatives of Orthodox and Muslim national organizations then made a statement in Budapest (October 11, 1908) that the annexation was carried out without question and against the will of the population, and they sent a special delegation to European capitals to make that statement known to the great powers. In Serbia, the annexation caused great excitement because it was felt that Austria was thereby strengthening itself in the Balkans, that it deeply affected the national future of Serbia and that it wanted to cut off all hopes for the future of a large independent Serbian state. The Serbs made great sacrifices; they protested in all the capitals, the flags of Austria-Hungary were burned. The Serbs created the National Defense with the aim of calming party passions and gathering volunteers for eventual battles, and formed (on February 24, 1909) a concentration government under the presidency of Stojan Novaković. The Western powers France and Great Britain opposed the annexation, but were not ready to go to war over it. Russia, which knew that this act would happen (it even negotiated with Austria-Hungary about certain compensations in its favor), did not take any action.Then began the state terror against the population in the form of persecution, arrests.. Members of the resistance movement "Mlada Bosnia", of which Gavrilo Princip was also a member, committed both Serbs and Muslims. Colonialism is blind on really true.

• 
  @nate48139 ай бұрын

  I ordered your essay on Amazon, a few days back, I loved it! Keep doing amazing work, Love and support from Canada

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68019 ай бұрын

  Thank you so much. I will do what I can but it's a losing game alas. However it's great to read your words of support.

• 
  @DarkNinjaEdits9 ай бұрын

  hi dr st john nice video 👍🏽👍🏽

• 
  @stjohnspipecasts68019 ай бұрын

  Thank you for your appreciation