Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana Show.
Speaker 1: Aaron's back. How's it going?
Speaker 2: Erin?
Speaker 3: What's going on? Happy to be here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about We're gonna look at a speech
Speaker 1: by a Nazi.
Speaker 3: I don't believe it.
Speaker 1: This is amazing.
Speaker 3: I was just sitting a bird earlier. You know, I'm
Speaker 3: coming on the heels of your close out of Hitler's
Speaker 3: foreign policy with Thomas, and I'm like, who the hell
Speaker 3: is going to want to listen to me after that?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: I think you know, if you remember that Gebels at
Speaker 1: this time was still running around with a kpd M.
Speaker 1: You know that he I mean really up until the end.
Speaker 1: I mean he he ran with them for about twelve
Speaker 1: thirteen years. Yeah, then you start to you know, when
Speaker 1: you when you read some of the stuff that he's
Speaker 1: when you read his speeches or read the stuff some
Speaker 1: of the stuff you wrote, you're like, oh, okay, that
Speaker 1: makes sense, this makes sense. Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, having you on for that, because I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know that you know as much about communism
Speaker 1: as Thomas does, but you know a hell of a
Speaker 1: lot more about communism than most people I know.
Speaker 3: Yep, I'm a real comrade.
Speaker 1: All Right, I talk a little bit of just a
Speaker 1: little bit about this is It is from January ninth,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty eight, to an audience of party members at
Speaker 1: the so called Cultural four Politique for Politique, a series
Speaker 1: of training talks for party members in Berlin. It's Gerbel's
Speaker 1: most extended discussion on the nature of propaganda, all the
Speaker 1: more interesting because of its early date. It is worth
Speaker 1: comparing this speech to one he gave seven seven years
Speaker 1: later to a closed gathering of party propagandists at the
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty five Nuremberg Rally. That speech was not published.
Speaker 1: The text is available, but YadA YadA. So yeah, this
Speaker 1: is I mean, nineteen twenty eight. This is five years
Speaker 1: before for this is five you know, more than five
Speaker 1: years before they take power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so their situation is even more tenuous than it
Speaker 3: was when they took power.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, all right, I'm gonna start stop me anytime
Speaker 1: then you know how this works? All right? Knowledge and
Speaker 1: Propaganda by Joseph Gerbels. My dear fellow party members. Our
Speaker 1: topic this evening is hotly disputed. I realized that my
Speaker 1: viewpoint is subjective. There is really little point in discussing propaganda.
Speaker 1: There is really little point in discussing propaganda. It is
Speaker 1: a matter of practice, not of theory.
Speaker 3: One experiential. You have to experience propaganda in order to understand.
Speaker 1: It exactly exactly that there's no there's no theory behind it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't it doesn't work unless someone experiences it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one cannot determine theoretically whether one propaganda is better than another.
Speaker 1: Rather that propaganda is good that has the desired results,
Speaker 1: and that propaganda is bad that does not lead to
Speaker 1: the desired results. Consequential consequentialism. Yeah, it does not matter
Speaker 1: how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is
Speaker 1: not to be clever. Its task is to lead to success.
Speaker 1: I therefore avoid theoretical discussions about propaganda, for there is
Speaker 1: no point to it. Propaganda shows that it is good
Speaker 1: if over a certain period it can win over and
Speaker 1: fire up the people for an idea. If it fails
Speaker 1: to do so, it's bad propaganda. If propaganda wins the
Speaker 1: people it wanted to win, it was presumably good, and
Speaker 1: if not, it was presumably bad. No one can say
Speaker 1: that you're yeah, well, you.
Speaker 3: Can tell that this is before the invention of the
Speaker 3: twenty four hour news cycle, because propaganda today is designed
Speaker 3: to fire you up for about ten minutes. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: then you click on whatever you need to click on
Speaker 3: to general great revenue, and then you forget about it.
Speaker 3: So that is the standard for what's good propaganda now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's basically it's just a brush.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: If propaganda wins the people that wanted to win, it
Speaker 1: was presumably good, and if not, it was presumably bad.
Speaker 1: No one can say that your propaganda is too crude
Speaker 1: or too low or brutal, or that it is not
Speaker 1: decent enough for those who are not the relevant criteria.
Speaker 1: Its purpose is not to be decent or gentle, or
Speaker 1: weak or modest. It is to be successful. That is
Speaker 1: why I have intentionally chosen to discuss propaganda along with
Speaker 1: a second theme knowledge. Otherwise our discussion this evening would
Speaker 1: be of little value. We have not gathered to discuss
Speaker 1: lovely theories, but rather find to find ways of practically
Speaker 1: working together to deal with our everyday challenges.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 1: What is propaganda and what role does it have in
Speaker 1: political life? That is the question of the greatest century
Speaker 1: to us. How should propaganda look and what is the role?
Speaker 1: What is its role in our movement. Is it an
Speaker 1: end in itself or only a means to an end?
Speaker 1: We must discuss that. But we can. But we can
Speaker 1: do that only when we begin with the origin of
Speaker 1: propaganda itself, namely the idea, then move to the target
Speaker 1: of propaganda, namely people. Ideas in themselves are timeless. They
Speaker 1: are not tied to individuals, much less to a people.
Speaker 1: They rest in a people. It is true, and affects
Speaker 1: their attitudes. Ideas people say are in the clouds.
Speaker 3: So who does that sound like?
Speaker 1: People say, yeah, you're in the clouds. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Ideas exist independently of the mind. Yeah, yeah, that's
Speaker 3: that's what I picked up. When I read that, I
Speaker 3: was like, Oh, he's a he's platonic.
Speaker 1: It's also in Hinduism too, Oh is it? Yeah, outside
Speaker 1: the mind watching the thinker.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thing when someone comes along who can put in words
Speaker 1: what everyone feels in their heart, each feels. Yes, that
Speaker 1: is what I always want it in hope for that
Speaker 1: is what happens the first time one Here's one of
Speaker 1: Hitler's major speeches. I have met people who have attended
Speaker 1: a Hitler meeting for the first time, and at the
Speaker 1: end they said this man puts into words everything I
Speaker 1: have been searching for for years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the first time. Yeah.
Speaker 3: When you can, when you can distill and articulate what
Speaker 3: people are, what people feel but are unable to articulate,
Speaker 3: that's that's the best. It's it's it's it's awesome on
Speaker 3: both ends. Like when somebody says, like, you know, I
Speaker 3: never knew how to express that like that, that's awesome
Speaker 3: on our end. And when we're reading something or or
Speaker 3: listening to something that distills an idea into just a
Speaker 3: form that's easily digestible, it fires you up. That's that's
Speaker 3: a amazing.
Speaker 1: Others are lost in confused. Others are lost in confusion,
Speaker 1: but suddenly someone stands up and puts it in words. Now,
Speaker 1: I've heard everything from goat to gutsa? What do you?
Speaker 1: What do you? How do you pronounce it?
Speaker 3: Goth? I guess.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say gutsa because that's what this is the last.
Speaker 1: That's the last way I heard it say. Gutsa's words
Speaker 1: become reality. Lost in silent misery, God gave someone to
Speaker 1: express my self.
Speaker 3: Should ask me how to pronounce any philosopher's name. I'm
Speaker 3: the last person you want to ask.
Speaker 1: But that's a great line there, lost in silent misery.
Speaker 1: God gave someone to express my suffering.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, some kind of ideas the beginning of every political movement.
Speaker 1: It is not necessary to put this idea in a
Speaker 1: thick book, nor that it take political form in one
Speaker 1: hundred long para.
Speaker 3: People somehow manage.
Speaker 1: History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed
Speaker 1: when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under
Speaker 1: a short, clear theme. It's just something I've been saying
Speaker 1: recently with the whole libertarian party thing is really when
Speaker 1: it comes to activism, when it comes to ideological activism,
Speaker 1: you don't want a party, a political party, because it's
Speaker 1: just pure bureaucracy. The best way to do it is
Speaker 1: you pick one narrow topic and you become like a
Speaker 1: lobby group for it, you become a propagandist for it,
Speaker 1: and you just go after elected Now you are going
Speaker 1: after elected officials. You don't have to worry about getting elected.
Speaker 1: You're going to go after the elected officials. That's the
Speaker 1: way National Association for Gun Rights basically got constitutional carry
Speaker 1: and half the states in this country tree is by
Speaker 1: going to politicians and saying we're going to run this person.
Speaker 1: We have this person who's going to run against you
Speaker 1: in a primary.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: If you don't you know, if you don't promise this, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: That's that. I the Libertarian Party has somehow sunk to
Speaker 3: new depths. I didn't know we're imaginable, but I guess
Speaker 3: it's not surprising.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean I said it was going to happen.
Speaker 1: You're just you know, managerialism takes over. So yeah, right,
Speaker 1: that is clear from the French Revolution or Cromwell's movement,
Speaker 1: or Buddhism, Islamer Christianity. Christ's goal was clear and simple,
Speaker 1: love your neighbor as yourself. He gathered his followers behind
Speaker 1: that straightforward statement because this teaching was simple, crisp, clear
Speaker 1: and understandable, enabling the broad masses to stand behind it.
Speaker 1: In the end, conquered the world. One then builds a
Speaker 1: whole system of thought on so a brief, crisply formulated idea.
Speaker 1: The idea does not remain limited to this single statement. Rather,
Speaker 1: it is applied to every aspect of daily life and
Speaker 1: becomes the guide for all human activity, politics, culture, the economy,
Speaker 1: every area of human behavior. It becomes a worldview. We
Speaker 1: see that. We see that in all great revolutionary movements,
Speaker 1: which begin with a clear, crisp, understandable, all encompassing idea,
Speaker 1: they spread more and more and become a mirror of
Speaker 1: life that reflects all activities of the people, and indeed
Speaker 1: in a particular way.
Speaker 3: I wonder if there's a German word for ideology that
Speaker 3: seems more like what he's describing.
Speaker 1: I think he's describing a culture.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Then one can say that a person has a
Speaker 1: worldview not because he knows a lot or has read
Speaker 1: a lot, but because he sees all of life from
Speaker 1: a certain standpoint and measures everything by a certain standard.
Speaker 1: I'm a Christian when I believe that the meaning of
Speaker 1: life is the heavy responsibility to love my neighbor as myself.
Speaker 1: Kanton once said, act as if the principle of your
Speaker 1: life could be the principle for your entire nation.
Speaker 3: Is that the categorical imperative?
Speaker 1: Act as if the principle for your life could be
Speaker 1: the principle for your entire nation. Yeah, huh, Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: look what he mentions in the next sentence. He says,
Speaker 1: I am a national socialist, not when I want this
Speaker 1: or that from this or that from politics. Rather, when
Speaker 1: I consider all aspects of daily life, I must act
Speaker 1: in all things by putting the good of the whole
Speaker 1: above my personal good, by putting the good of the
Speaker 1: state above my personal good. But then I also have
Speaker 1: the guarantee that such a state will be able to
Speaker 1: protect my personal life.
Speaker 3: That is such an important caveat, and that's why I's
Speaker 3: it's going to be very difficult for us people on
Speaker 3: our side to put their trust in any type of
Speaker 3: person or movement or or idea that turns into a
Speaker 3: worldview that that ends up you know, that could potentially
Speaker 3: end up getting power. Is it takes a very long
Speaker 3: time or a very desperate population to place that trust
Speaker 3: in those things.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it takes uh, it takes a whine more.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, it takes desperate It's going to be desperation.
Speaker 3: You know. Time. You can talk to any number of people,
Speaker 3: they'll tell you that time is not on our side.
Speaker 3: So it's going to take desperation.
Speaker 1: I am a national socialist when I see everything in politics,
Speaker 1: culture of the economy from this standpoint, I therefore do
Speaker 1: not evaluate the theater from the standpoint of whether it
Speaker 1: is elegant or amusing rather or I ask is it
Speaker 1: good for my people? Is it useful for them? Does
Speaker 1: it strengthen the community. If so, the community in turn
Speaker 1: can benefit, support and strengthen me. I do not see
Speaker 1: the economy as some sort of way of making money. Rather,
Speaker 1: I want an economy that will strengthen the people, make
Speaker 1: them healthy and powerful. Then too, I can expect that
Speaker 1: this people will support and maintain me. If I see
Speaker 1: things in this way, I see the economy and national
Speaker 1: socialist terms. Does that sound like socialism to you, as
Speaker 1: you know, like a libertarian would say, oh, call someone
Speaker 1: a socialist.
Speaker 3: No, the antithesis that is the antithesis of anarcho capitalism.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess they would say, you know, you
Speaker 3: have the option to think that way, but you have
Speaker 3: the option to think whatever way you want and still
Speaker 3: participate in society.
Speaker 1: Yeah. If I deliver this crisp clear idea into a
Speaker 1: system of thought that includes all human devices, which is
Speaker 1: in actions, I have a worldview. As an idea develops
Speaker 1: into a worldview, the goal is the state. Knowledge does
Speaker 1: not remain the property of a certain group, but fights
Speaker 1: for power. It is not just the fantasy of a
Speaker 1: few people among a few people. Among the people. Rather,
Speaker 1: it becomes the idea of the rulers, the circles that
Speaker 1: have power. The view does not only pre The view
Speaker 1: does not only preach, but it is carried out in practice.
Speaker 3: I recall a long time ago when we were reading
Speaker 3: State and Revolution, just going over it and viewing it
Speaker 3: in terms of practice. You know, during the during the
Speaker 3: October Revolution, November, everything leading up to and everything after
Speaker 3: it practice practice, practice, And you know, at the time,
Speaker 3: we were kind of moving away from libertarianism because of that.
Speaker 3: And it's the same thing with this national socialism. It
Speaker 3: places emphasis on praxis, like practical application of your of
Speaker 3: your knowledge, of your of your theory or whatever. And
Speaker 3: I don't I don't see that happening with a even
Speaker 3: you know, unfortunately, a lot of people that I like
Speaker 3: that espouse a worldview that I agree with, I don't
Speaker 3: see them emphasizing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yep. Then the idea becomes the worldview of the state.
Speaker 1: The worldview has become a government organism when it seizes
Speaker 1: power and can influence life, not only in theory but
Speaker 1: in practical everyday life. Now we must consider who is
Speaker 1: the carrier, the transmitter, the guardian of such ideas a
Speaker 1: great man. An idea always lives in individuals. It seeks
Speaker 1: an individuals to transmit its great intellectual force. It becomes
Speaker 1: alive in a brain and seeks escape through the mouth.
Speaker 1: The idea is preached by individuals, individuals who will never
Speaker 1: be satisfied to have the knowledge remain. There's a loan.
Speaker 3: I thought that was a very well constructed paragraph and
Speaker 3: figured that's why he's the Minister of propaganda.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, the great thing about
Speaker 1: a speech about knowledge and propaganda is he's propagandizing with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, he practices what he preaches.
Speaker 1: You know that from experience. When one knows something, one
Speaker 1: does not keep it hidden like a buried treasure, but
Speaker 1: rather one seeks to tell others. One looks for people
Speaker 1: who should know it. One feels that everyone else should
Speaker 1: know as well, for one feels alone when no one
Speaker 1: else knows. For example, if I see a beautiful paint
Speaker 1: again at our gallery, I have the needs to tell others.
Speaker 1: I meet a good friend and say to him I
Speaker 1: found a wonderful picture. I have to show it to you.
Speaker 1: The same is true of ideas. If an idea lives
Speaker 1: in an individual, he has the urge to tell others.
Speaker 1: There is some mysterious force in us that drives us
Speaker 1: to tell others. The greater and simpler the idea, the
Speaker 1: more it relates to daily life, the more one has
Speaker 1: the desire to tell everyone about it.
Speaker 3: And it's a testament to, you know, the the system
Speaker 3: we live under, that we hesitate to tell people about
Speaker 3: these great ideas in real life. I mean, I I
Speaker 3: see great ideas on my timeline every single day, and
Speaker 3: I want to tell people, but I usually just stop
Speaker 3: at my wife and see how see what she thinks.
Speaker 3: And then you know, if if if I go, if
Speaker 3: I go to bed, nothing happens that I know it
Speaker 3: was a bad idea and I just annoyed her. So
Speaker 3: but it's it's a testament to the counter propaganda machinery
Speaker 3: that we live under, that we we naturally hesitate two
Speaker 3: to promulgate these good ideas almost like they know what
Speaker 3: they're doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we we have to.
Speaker 3: Say it in hush tones and quiet, you know, amongst
Speaker 3: people we trust.
Speaker 1: Right, And then if it gets to the point where
Speaker 1: it's so dangerous to say certain things, then everyone's a
Speaker 1: fed and you don't want to talk to anyone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, as awesome as the Internet is,
Speaker 3: I think that the next big thing is going to
Speaker 3: spread via word of mouth and probably semi hermetic circles
Speaker 3: because it has to, because nobody wants to get arrested.
Speaker 1: If I believe that the nation must be governed by
Speaker 1: the principle that the common good comes before the individual good,
Speaker 1: I will tell it to those to whom it applies.
Speaker 1: As soon as I realize that this principle is not
Speaker 1: only of a transcendental transcendental nature, but that it applies
Speaker 1: to daily life, I have the need to tell it
Speaker 1: to those in the economic world. And if I see
Speaker 1: it applies to culture as well, I have needs to
Speaker 1: tell it to those involved in cultural activities. The great
Speaker 1: masses will never be won simply by such a sentence.
Speaker 1: It must cast its shadow over all areas of human life.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Grams, she was Grams, she was the one who
Speaker 1: understood this.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It has to march through institutions.
Speaker 1: Yep. You see how an idea spreads and becomes a worldview,
Speaker 1: and how the bearer of the individual reaches out to
Speaker 1: form a community, and how an organization, then a movement
Speaker 1: grows from the individual. The idea is no longer buried
Speaker 1: in the heart and mind of an individual. Now there
Speaker 1: are four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, eighty, one hundred
Speaker 1: and ever more. That is a secret of ideas. They
Speaker 1: are like a wildfire that cannot be restrained. They are
Speaker 1: like a gas that sees through everything.
Speaker 3: I saw that sentence. It was like, this is too easy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where an idea finds entry, it enters, and soon
Speaker 1: that person is influencing others. The others cannot stop it.
Speaker 1: They may believe they can stop the fire by force.
Speaker 1: They may even be able to do so for two
Speaker 1: or ten, twenty or fifty years, but this is not
Speaker 1: significant in the larger course of world's history. It is
Speaker 1: irrelevant if something happens today or tomorrow or even years
Speaker 1: in the future.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a very transcendental view.
Speaker 1: Well, the you know, and the thing is is that
Speaker 1: you can have the greatest idea in the world, and
Speaker 1: you can tell it to a bunch of people, and
Speaker 1: you know, two thousand people can hold on to it
Speaker 1: and love it and want to talk about it. But
Speaker 1: if they're not willing to put it into motion, if
Speaker 1: they're not willing to you know, get the ball rolling
Speaker 1: on it and implement it. It's use. That's when it's
Speaker 1: just theory.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: It is possible to slow an idea by force for
Speaker 1: a certain period of time. In reality, however, that advances
Speaker 1: the idea for forces to drive out that which is weak.
Speaker 1: That's really good. That's really good. Yeah. Now, when everybody's
Speaker 1: like what you believe, you know, hardly anybody believes that
Speaker 1: there might be a reason. Yeah, there might be a reason.
Speaker 1: The elements that do not really belong collapse. Suddenly, the
Speaker 1: individual becomes a community, a movement, and if you prefer
Speaker 1: a party, each movement begins as a party. That does
Speaker 1: not mean it has to follow the methods of parliamentary parties.
Speaker 1: We see a party as a part of the people.
Speaker 1: As an idea spreads, becoming a worldview that spreads to
Speaker 1: the community. The community will once to give the idea
Speaker 1: practical form. The party will feel the necessities organize. Someone
Speaker 1: will suddenly have the idea. You think the way I
Speaker 1: do a way I think. You are working over there,
Speaker 1: I am working here. We know nothing of each other.
Speaker 1: That is absurd. It would be better if we work together,
Speaker 1: If I did my part and you did yours. Would
Speaker 1: it not be good if we met every month and talked.
Speaker 1: That is an organization. Gradually, a strong organism develops a
Speaker 1: party ready to fight for its ideals. A party that
Speaker 1: does not want that will indeed continue to preach its ideals,
Speaker 1: but will never bring them into reality.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, it's it's extremely hard to start that process now,
Speaker 3: because anything outside of you, if you want to call
Speaker 3: it the Overton window, never gets beyond what step it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: never gets beyond not being buried in the heart and
Speaker 3: mind of an individual or you may you may get
Speaker 3: up to for those numbers.
Speaker 1: No, it's funny.
Speaker 3: It's a four eighty one hundred. Yeah, it may it
Speaker 3: up to one hundred. But and I'm talking in real life,
Speaker 3: not not x not social media. That's a whole different
Speaker 3: story that that has its own endpoint that never materializes.
Speaker 3: But it's yeah, it's I'm telling you, like, the next
Speaker 3: big thing is going to be something you hear in
Speaker 3: real life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it may have already happened. A recent example may help.
Speaker 1: Our movement is often accused of losing its character as
Speaker 1: a movement. Oh have you ever heard that that if
Speaker 1: you know change, if you're change a little bit, Oh,
Speaker 1: you've you don't understand it anymore.
Speaker 3: You're not a real national socialist.
Speaker 1: You've lost a plot. Yeah, yeah, you couldn't hack it.
Speaker 1: What we are accused of taking the vast, broad and
Speaker 1: ever moving system of thought of Vulcansh movement and forcing
Speaker 1: it into a proto Procrustian bed.
Speaker 3: So procrustian bed. I look that up, and it's basically
Speaker 3: a like an arbitrary like forcing something to be arbitrarily different.
Speaker 3: That's all it is. Okay, the emphasis is on the
Speaker 3: arbitrariness of it.
Speaker 1: Oh you mean, like they try to say post libertarianism
Speaker 1: was just Yeah, we supposedly had to chop off the
Speaker 1: legs of the movement that stuck out, eliminating important parts
Speaker 1: of the Volcansh idea Vulkush idea. National socialism is only
Speaker 1: a surrogate for the real movement. Some say, in fact,
Speaker 1: the Volcansh movement ran a ground on this matter. Each
Speaker 1: declares his own particular intrat central to the Vulcansan movement
Speaker 1: and accuses anyone who does not share his views as
Speaker 1: being a traitor to the cause. This sounds familiar, huh.
Speaker 1: That is the way the Volcish movement was before the war.
Speaker 1: If someone had been able to take this great idea,
Speaker 1: and the Volkish idea was greater than the Marxist idea
Speaker 1: and develop out of it a tightly disciplined political organization,
Speaker 1: then the Volcush idea, not the Marxist idea, would have
Speaker 1: won on nine November nineteen eighteen. Marxism won because it
Speaker 1: had a better understanding of political conditions, because it had
Speaker 1: forged the sword it would later use to conquer the state.
Speaker 1: If a Volcansh organizer had understood how to form a
Speaker 1: great movement, it is a question of life or death
Speaker 1: for a nation. The Volkish idea, not Marxism, would have won.
Speaker 1: It was a worldview, but it did not understand how
Speaker 1: to form a party and how to forge a sharp
Speaker 1: sword that would have enabled it to conquer the state.
Speaker 3: So is he drawing a distinction? I didn't get this.
Speaker 3: Is he drawing a distinction between national socialism and uh like,
Speaker 3: the Vulcan movement?
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, because the volk movement. Yeah, because people
Speaker 1: who are adherent to the Volcan movement argue that National
Speaker 1: Socialists was just a was basically a bastardization. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't understand you don't understand what you're doing, you
Speaker 1: don't understand who we are kind of Yeah, but you know,
Speaker 1: he points he points out that at the end of
Speaker 1: the war. I'm reading this this book on my show
Speaker 1: Blockade right now, and it's about Vienna at the end
Speaker 1: of the during the war and at the end of
Speaker 1: World War One, and immediately in Vienna social the when
Speaker 1: the troops come back, when the kids come back, when
Speaker 1: the men come back, socialism has taken hold. So I
Speaker 1: mean they're bringing back socialism with them, They're bringing back
Speaker 1: Bolshevism with them. Why Why because it was the only
Speaker 1: at that point, It's really the one the one thing
Speaker 1: that is pushing back against the what they would call
Speaker 1: the war profiteers and people like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that makes sense because I mean the right
Speaker 3: wing coalition in Germany post World War, immediately post World
Speaker 3: War One was like a coalition that included democratic socialists
Speaker 3: and communists, right m and these and Volcanish of the
Speaker 3: Vulk movement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that was I mean, for a second, I
Speaker 1: mean they actually talk about like these whole she talks
Speaker 1: about that, well, I think her daughter went and visited
Speaker 1: a relative and Lenz in Austria. And this is in
Speaker 1: like nineteen eighteen, late nineteen eighteen, and there are roving,
Speaker 1: roving hordes going through the town and just taking everything,
Speaker 1: destroying everything. And she just offhandedly mentions and they, I
Speaker 1: don't know why, but they look Russian. Huh, Well there's
Speaker 1: a reason. There's a reason why they looked Russian because
Speaker 1: they were pouring over the border to take a country,
Speaker 1: to take a country that was in tatters.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the state needs a worldview. Christianity also conquered the state,
Speaker 1: and in the movement and in the moment that it
Speaker 1: conquered the state, it began to carry out practical political activity.
Speaker 1: You can with justice claim yes, But at the moment
Speaker 1: Christianity took over the state, it began to cease to
Speaker 1: begin being Christian. That is the tragedy of all great ideas.
Speaker 1: At the moment they enter the realm of this life
Speaker 1: of sin, of the all too human, they leave the
Speaker 1: heavens and lose to romantic magic.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: Sounds like James Burnham. Yeah, it's just yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: Burnham talking about how when when ideology is introduced to reality,
Speaker 1: it just it gets punched in the mouth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I I I don't know if I agree
Speaker 3: with that. I don't know that you can with justice
Speaker 3: claim yes, but at the moment Christianity took over the
Speaker 3: state of cease being Christian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean, yeah, I mean, it's it just
Speaker 1: it depends.
Speaker 3: It might have it might have changed changed his nature
Speaker 3: and it has to Yeah, but yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I guess something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, the dogmacies yeah right, okay, it becomes something normal.
Speaker 1: We are not discussing whether or not one can change
Speaker 1: the nature of life. Things have gone on this way
Speaker 1: for millions of years, and we'll go on in the
Speaker 1: same way from it millions more. You will have to
Speaker 1: ask a higher power why that is so. At the
Speaker 1: moment an idea takes practical form, it loses its angels wings.
Speaker 1: It's romantic mystery. If someone had had the courage to
Speaker 1: strip the Volcanish idea of its romantic mystery, if one
Speaker 1: had taken account of the hard facts, it would not
Speaker 1: look as romantic today as it does to some dreamers,
Speaker 1: But it would have kept millions of German children from starving.
Speaker 1: For me, it is more.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, well, you know, you know what I learned
Speaker 4: from that, that diary blockade the the Save the Children
Speaker 4: Foundation that was started to feed German and Austrian kids
Speaker 4: after World War One.
Speaker 1: Huh yeah, yeah yeah. For me, it is important that
Speaker 1: a nation lives, that a nation live. For me, it
Speaker 1: is it's more important that a nation lives than that
Speaker 1: an idea remains as pure as possible in the heads
Speaker 1: of a few dreamers.
Speaker 3: Very practical.
Speaker 1: Yes, you can see that a movement needs an organization
Speaker 1: if it is to conquer the state, and it must
Speaker 1: conquer the state if it wants to do something of
Speaker 1: positive and historic significance. I have often met the kind
Speaker 1: of wandering apostle who says, well, everything you are doing
Speaker 1: is fine, but you rely, you really, but you rely
Speaker 1: must also you really must also take a stand against
Speaker 1: foreign words in the German language. And another comes along
Speaker 1: who says, well, everything you say is good, but you
Speaker 1: must have a point in your program that says allopathy
Speaker 1: is dangerous and you must support homeopathy. If the movement
Speaker 1: were led by such apostles, the jew would end up
Speaker 1: in charge. Do we want to talk about the United
Speaker 1: States now?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the early twentieth centre the
Speaker 1: United States now?
Speaker 3: So I've actually been thinking a little harder about this
Speaker 3: and talking to some people, and uh, I think, yes
Speaker 3: there is. I I don't think it's just Judaism. That's
Speaker 3: you know, pernicious influence and all that. But what let
Speaker 3: me throw this at you and we could talk about
Speaker 3: it whenever. But uh, what about the pernicious influence of gnosticism?
Speaker 1: Oh where did that come from?
Speaker 2: So just looking into the uh you know, the modern
Speaker 2: birth of it.
Speaker 3: Oh, the modern birth, Yeah, it's it's yeah, it's the
Speaker 3: usual suspects. And if you go back in time, it's
Speaker 3: it's them as well. After the you know, in the
Speaker 3: in the second to fourth century, you know, in the.
Speaker 1: Most Christians would have been of Jewish Jewish descent, yeah,
Speaker 1: to be.
Speaker 3: Fair, Yeah, but the the the syncretism between Judaism and narcissism,
Speaker 3: and you know how that influenced the Talmud, how that
Speaker 3: influenced a couple of other their other books. And I'm
Speaker 3: and it's just an idea that came into my head.
Speaker 3: I wonder how how that syncretism is playing out now.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the the whole idea of gnosticism. I
Speaker 1: mean you could just peel the skin off of it
Speaker 1: and you can see progressivism.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, yeah, yep. And you know it's it's influence
Speaker 3: in academia, it's influence in Hollywood, you know, not to
Speaker 3: not to really put my tinfoil hat on. But that's
Speaker 3: just something that I was noticing.
Speaker 1: Kay, you're noticing huh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, like putting another yea, putting another another hat on.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm. The jew would find something new every day
Speaker 1: until nothing was left. It is not the task of
Speaker 1: a revolutionary fighting movement to settle the dispute between allopathy
Speaker 1: and homeopathy. Rather, its task is to take power. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're saying, if you're looking at alopathy, homeopathy, these are
Speaker 1: basically cultural things, way of life. Basically, I mean you
Speaker 1: could call them ideologies. People build whole ideologies around them.
Speaker 1: You see people who are really into allopathy or homeopathy
Speaker 1: or really homeopathy, who have a tendency to be of
Speaker 1: a certain the stereotype is of a certain group, you know,
Speaker 1: the certain kind of person. And yeah, I mean that
Speaker 1: you can call that an ideology. And when it comes
Speaker 1: to taking power, you know, these these things really need
Speaker 1: to be really need to be put aside, because is
Speaker 1: that argument right there between allopathy and homeopathy? Is that
Speaker 1: important when you're trying to take over a state, when
Speaker 1: you're trying to put together, when you're trying to you know, basically,
Speaker 1: have create national socialists, create national socialism.
Speaker 3: Doing the math five years later, I think they mostly
Speaker 3: proved that homeopathy works.
Speaker 1: At least, the movement must have a program such that
Speaker 1: every honest fighter can stand behind it. Now, it is
Speaker 1: certainly true that the modern German cultural establishment produces every
Speaker 1: manner of nonsense. I know that this nonsense is poisoning
Speaker 1: the German national soul. There are those who say something
Speaker 1: has to happen. You have to do something. If you
Speaker 1: want to fight the movie industry, you must build your
Speaker 1: own theater, even if it's even if at first it
Speaker 1: has the most primitive equipment. And if you see that
Speaker 1: the children are being poisoned by what they read in school,
Speaker 1: you must begin to win children's souls and give them
Speaker 1: the ansidote. My reply is simple. You can spend ten
Speaker 1: years giving the ansidote to the poison that is produced
Speaker 1: by a badly led cultural establishment, but a single degree
Speaker 1: from a ministry of culture can destroy all your work.
Speaker 1: If you had spent the ten years winning fighters for
Speaker 1: the movement, the movement would have conquered the ministry of culture.
Speaker 1: Everything else is mere piece work. That's certainly a paragraph
Speaker 1: right there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I ministry is culture.
Speaker 1: Poisoning German national soul. Something has to happen. You have
Speaker 1: to do something. If you don't like Amazon, build your
Speaker 1: own Amazon even got somebtarian yeah, through some libertarianism in here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like I said, with homeschooling, I absolutely suggest that
Speaker 1: people homeschool their kids right now. But if only five
Speaker 1: percent of the population is homeschooling, that means ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of the kids twenty years from now are just
Speaker 1: going to be progressive psychopaths.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, with a single decree, I mean, with a single decree,
Speaker 3: we would lose ninety nine percent of our progress. If
Speaker 3: they just simply you know, enforced KYC on X, I
Speaker 3: think you know, that would be a that would crush.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So like again, it goes back to you. You need
Speaker 3: to do things in real life too.
Speaker 1: But then you can make you can make the argument
Speaker 1: that if everybody is public, I mean, can they come
Speaker 1: after everybody?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, who knows, that's a Pandora's box. I don't
Speaker 3: know if I want to find out. Yeah, they could
Speaker 3: certainly come after us one by one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they could, but I mean they don't even have
Speaker 1: the money and the funding to do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: If a movement wins political power, it can do the
Speaker 1: those positive things it wants to do. Only then does
Speaker 1: it have the power to protect its accomplishments. At the
Speaker 1: moment a movement or party wins control of the state,
Speaker 1: its worldview becomes the state, and its party becomes the nation.
Speaker 1: The nation is not the sixty million people who live
Speaker 1: in it. That is a confused mixture. One says yay,
Speaker 1: the other says nay. That is not a nation. A
Speaker 1: nation is characterized by consciousness. Instinct alone is not enough.
Speaker 1: Only when I am aware that I am a member
Speaker 1: of the nation, when I am consciously a German, do
Speaker 1: I belong to the German people. The Great Elector did
Speaker 1: not say, think and remember that you are German. Rather,
Speaker 1: he said, consider well that you are German. Consideration is
Speaker 1: at the level of consciousness. Such consciousness belongs to the
Speaker 1: entire nation. Adolf Hitler rightly answered the Court and Munich
Speaker 1: in this way when he was asked, how could you
Speaker 1: think of establishing a dictatorship over sixty million with such
Speaker 1: a tiny minority. His reply If an entire people vulk
Speaker 1: had has become cowardly, and there are only a thousand
Speaker 1: left who want something great and who have and who
Speaker 1: have to and who have the power to transform the state,
Speaker 1: then those thousand are the people. If the others let
Speaker 1: a minority conquer the state, then they must also accept
Speaker 1: the fact that we will establish a dictatorship.
Speaker 3: Powerful, prescient.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the same is true of a movement. If a
Speaker 1: movement has the strength to take over the state, then
Speaker 1: it has the power to transform the state. I am
Speaker 1: the last to complain that the Marxists rule us today.
Speaker 1: As long as we do not have the strength to
Speaker 1: overcome them, they have the political rights to rule us.
Speaker 1: Oh he's so good. He is so good. Oh man, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's just it's true, and it's meant to piss you
Speaker 1: off in the same time. Oh, it's so good. As
Speaker 1: long as we do not have the strength to overcome them,
Speaker 1: they have the political rights to rule us. I am
Speaker 1: surprised how little they use that right. I would do
Speaker 1: things differently. That is their tragic misunderstanding of their own worldview.
Speaker 1: I do not complain that the gentlemen of the Berlin
Speaker 1: police use their power against us, only that they call
Speaker 1: themselves democrats and claim that they allow freedom of thought
Speaker 1: and of speech. That is nonsense, that is lying, hypocrisy,
Speaker 1: For in truth, these gentlemen are dictators. If a movement
Speaker 1: has a strength to take over government positions of power,
Speaker 1: then it has the right to form the government as
Speaker 1: it wishes. Anyone who disagrees as a foolish theoretician. Politics
Speaker 1: is governed not by moral principles, but by power. If
Speaker 1: a movement conquers a state, it has the right to
Speaker 1: form the state. You can see how these three elements
Speaker 1: combine ideals and personalities. The idea leads to a worldview,
Speaker 1: the worldviews of the state. Individual becomes a party, The
Speaker 1: party becomes the nation. Have you noticed he repeats certain
Speaker 1: sentences over.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, yeah, a little practical application.
Speaker 1: The important thing is not to find people who agree
Speaker 1: with me but every theoretical by with every agree with
Speaker 1: me about every theoretical John's hittle. But rather that I
Speaker 1: find people who are willing to fight with me for
Speaker 1: a worldview, winning people over to something that I have
Speaker 1: recognized as right. That is what we call propaganda. At first,
Speaker 1: there is knowledge. It uses propaganda to find the manpower
Speaker 1: that will transform knowledge into politics. Propaganda stands between the
Speaker 1: idea and the worldview, between the worldview and the state,
Speaker 1: between the individual and the party, between the party and
Speaker 1: the nation. That's so good he explains it. I mean,
Speaker 1: he explains it that I've read brene Is extensively, and
Speaker 1: he explains it so much better than Brenees because Brenees
Speaker 1: is always hiding.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, nope, this is pretty pretty clear cut, like, yeah,
Speaker 3: whatever your revolutionary process is, propaganda is in between all
Speaker 3: of the steps in those processes. Makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: At the moment at which I recognize something as important
Speaker 1: and begin speaking about it in the street car, I
Speaker 1: begin making propaganda at the same time I begin looking
Speaker 1: for other people to join me. Propaganda stands between the
Speaker 1: one and the many, between the idea and the worldview. There,
Speaker 1: he is repeating himself again. Propaganda is nothing other than
Speaker 1: the forerunner to organization. Once it has done this, it
Speaker 1: is the forerunner to state control. It is always a
Speaker 1: means to an end.
Speaker 3: H Yeah, he asked the question earlier. Is propaganda a
Speaker 3: means or is it an end? And answers it here.
Speaker 1: Although I must hold unshakably and unalterably of the idea
Speaker 1: propaganda adjusts itself to the prevailing conditions.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you again, Yeah, do you think our
Speaker 3: our current rulers view propaganda as a means or an.
Speaker 1: End at this point? I think it's an end. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's yeah. There, it's too it's too clumsy.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: There's nothing. There's rarely anything manipulative about it. It's more
Speaker 1: like we know that there's a certain group that when
Speaker 1: we say this, they're going to believe it no matter what,
Speaker 1: and all we care about is that group.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the constant positive reinforcement that you are on the
Speaker 3: right side of history, that you are, that you are
Speaker 3: a good person, that you are normal, that what you're
Speaker 3: doing is acceptable. I think that that's that's fuel for
Speaker 3: people to go throughout life. Now, I think if you
Speaker 3: took that away from a large portion of the population,
Speaker 3: they would go insane. If you cut off their serotonin drip,
Speaker 3: which is delivered via propaganda, they would literally go insane.
Speaker 3: They would fall into a depression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are people on I mean that that is
Speaker 1: what ex Twitter is or whatever they're calling it now is.
Speaker 1: I mean it is is literally somebody's probably the serotonin drip. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're just waiting.
Speaker 3: It is the and I I think if if Garbels
Speaker 3: wasn't German, he could articulate it this way. But the
Speaker 3: the constant affirmation, like that's that's the serotonin drip, just
Speaker 3: just chasing after affirmation, and in particular that's you know,
Speaker 3: the the e thoughts and just I guess women in
Speaker 3: general are more susceptible to that in my experience, but
Speaker 3: also I guess young men as well.
Speaker 1: Although I must hold on shakably and unalterably to the idea,
Speaker 1: propaganda adjust itself to the prevailing conditions. Propaganda is always flexible.
Speaker 1: It says different things here than it does there. It
Speaker 1: cannot be polished, laminated, and stuffed. Rather, it must occupy
Speaker 1: the space between the one and the many good sentence there.
Speaker 1: I talk differently on the streetcar with the conductor than
Speaker 1: I do with a businessman. If I did not, the
Speaker 1: businessman would think I was crazy, and the streetcar conductor
Speaker 1: would not understand me. I remember, I forget who said
Speaker 1: it that whatever Ron Paul, if Ron Paul spoke to
Speaker 1: like college kids, or he spoke to like a group
Speaker 1: of Muslims, he always like delivered the same message.
Speaker 3: Would that be to his fault or was he just
Speaker 3: that good?
Speaker 1: Oh? I mean, well, I don't know. I mean, I
Speaker 1: love Ron Paul, but really what did he change? I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess there are some things he changed. I guess
Speaker 1: you would say that he paved the way for Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think that would be. That's how I
Speaker 3: would characterize his accomplishments too. Is he definitely planted a
Speaker 3: dissonance seed that didn't really grow until Trump, and then
Speaker 3: it grew exponentially.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very fast, very fast. If I did not, the
Speaker 1: businessman would think I was crazy. In the street car
Speaker 1: conductor would not understand me. That means propaganda cannot be limited.
Speaker 1: It changes according to whom I am trying to reach.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you a story about a party member
Speaker 1: in Berlin who, since nineteen nineteen has promoted the national
Speaker 1: Socialist idea. At first, he beat his head bloody against
Speaker 1: a wall which he wants to avoid. He began by
Speaker 1: distributing the wildest anti Semitic publications on the street. He
Speaker 1: knew it was bad stuff, but there was nothing better,
Speaker 1: so he read book It is Me. He knew it
Speaker 1: was bad stuff, but there was nothing better. So he
Speaker 1: read these books or newspapers in the subway. Everyone could
Speaker 1: see that he was a harmless crank. And when he
Speaker 1: stood up and left his newspapers behind, someone regularly would say, sir,
Speaker 1: take your newspaper along with you. He would angrily take
Speaker 1: his paper and leave it with a conductor, saying here
Speaker 1: German brother, and the conductor certainly thought he came from
Speaker 1: the nuthouse.
Speaker 3: Many such cases.
Speaker 1: Did you hear that somebody walked up to Dave Smith
Speaker 1: at the Libertarian National Convention in a thong? A guy
Speaker 1: walked up in a thong and wanted to debate him
Speaker 1: on borders.
Speaker 3: I again, I believe that wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: I mean put it this way. If somebody walks up
Speaker 1: to you, a guy walks up to you in a thong, you,
Speaker 1: I don't care who you are. You immediately believe in borders. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you believe there should be a border between you and
Speaker 1: that person. I don't care who you are.
Speaker 3: Vigorously enforced.
Speaker 1: He gradually realized that the methods that worked with friends
Speaker 1: and comrades did not work with strangers. In other words,
Speaker 1: there is no abc a propaganda. One can make propaganda
Speaker 1: or one cannot. Propaganda is an art any reasonably normal
Speaker 1: person can learn to play the violins with a certain degree.
Speaker 1: But then his teacher will say, this is as far
Speaker 1: as it goes. Only a genius can learn what remains.
Speaker 1: You are not a genius, so be content with what
Speaker 1: you have learned. Yes, I can, certainly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, everybody has a maximum potential, especially in the time
Speaker 3: that we're in right now. Recognizing that when somebody has
Speaker 3: met their maximum potential and maybe doesn't have a whole
Speaker 3: lot to offer anymore, that's part and parcel.
Speaker 1: I can certainly teach any reasonable person the absolute basis
Speaker 1: of propaganda, but I will soon recognize the limits. One
Speaker 1: is either a propagandist or one is not. It is
Speaker 1: wrong to look down on a propagandas. There are people
Speaker 1: who say a propagandas is merely a good drummer, displays
Speaker 1: a certain envy and lack of ability. They are mostly
Speaker 1: mediocre philosophers whom the masses ignore. You have seen often enough.
Speaker 1: No one can deny it that our movement has good speakers.
Speaker 1: Since our opponents do not have good speakers, they say, well,
Speaker 1: they are only good drummers. Hitler was called the drummer
Speaker 1: of National Unity for five years. When they realized that
Speaker 1: this drummer had ideas that didn't fit into their way
Speaker 1: of thinking. He was suddenly a crazy politician who had
Speaker 1: to be dealt with. It is foolish to look down
Speaker 1: on propagandists. The propagandist has a certain role within the party.
Speaker 1: It is good for our young movement that we are
Speaker 1: young and lacking in really great leaders, though naturally not
Speaker 1: in comparison to other parties. The great leaders we have
Speaker 1: cannot stick to a particular area, but must be able
Speaker 1: to do everything. They must be propagandists, organizers, speakers, writers, etc.
Speaker 1: They must be at organ They must be able to
Speaker 1: get along with the people, find money, write articles, and
Speaker 1: a lot more. That is why it is wrong to
Speaker 1: say that Hitler is merely a drummer. That is what
Speaker 1: is great about him and what separates him from everyone else.
Speaker 1: He is a politician and also a propagandist. While the
Speaker 1: leaders of other parties understand neither politics nor propaganda. You
Speaker 1: can see how propaganda relates to the worldview and to
Speaker 1: the organization. After we have finished the hard work of
Speaker 1: moving the idea and the worldview from the individuals to
Speaker 1: the masses. Propaganda has the task of taking the knowledge
Speaker 1: of the mass and enabling it to take over the state.
Speaker 3: So when I read this, my first thought was, we
Speaker 3: have the opposite problem. Now, even the lowliest freshman senator
Speaker 3: has a an overabundance of knowledge of propaganda. And it's
Speaker 3: to the point now where if you're above a certain
Speaker 3: i Q, it just nothing resonates, which is a good
Speaker 3: and bad I guess well.
Speaker 1: I think one of the another problem we have is
Speaker 1: that we have a lot of propagandasts out there, and but.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and a whole lot of jacks of all trades.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the Brene said that you know, you you
Speaker 1: wanted the the best is educated just enough so that
Speaker 1: they could understand propaganda. That's one of the that's that's
Speaker 1: the problem we're at right now, is that we have
Speaker 1: a populace that is educated just enough to understand propaganda.
Speaker 1: And one thing that the enemy has done well is
Speaker 1: and I think this is done on purpose. And some
Speaker 1: of them are absolute agents. Is they put out quote
Speaker 1: unquote right wing propaganda, propagandists who have very who have
Speaker 1: big plays. Yeah, but they're also gatekeeper. But they're gatekeepers.
Speaker 1: They're they're meant to not make you notice, or they're
Speaker 1: made to not make you go too far to the right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's I've been talking a lot about that on
Speaker 3: my feed. I am just so disgusted with the last
Speaker 3: couple of weeks and even with the last couple months,
Speaker 3: because it's you know, I I don't want to say
Speaker 3: that our movement should be fractured, but there's definitely some
Speaker 3: some house cleaning that needs to be done. And yeah,
Speaker 3: everybody needs to be hyper aware of when they're being
Speaker 3: gas lit.
Speaker 1: Yep. Let me give an example. What good would it
Speaker 1: do if everything we know to be right stayed in
Speaker 1: our few heads? If you would doubt the rightness of
Speaker 1: the idea since they would see that no one was
Speaker 1: joining them. And if we do not have the people
Speaker 1: from the lowliest essay man who distributes newspapers to the
Speaker 1: best speaker or the leader of the party, all of
Speaker 1: our lovely knowledge would be useless, for only we would
Speaker 1: know it, the others would continue their nonsense, and the
Speaker 1: German people in the end would perish. And what does
Speaker 1: this sound like? Propaganda is absolutely necessary, even if it
Speaker 1: is only a means to an end, Otherwise the idea
Speaker 1: could never take over the state. I must be able
Speaker 1: to get what I think important across to many people.
Speaker 1: The task of a gifted propagandist is to take that
Speaker 1: which many have thought and put it in a way
Speaker 1: that reaches everyone, from the educated to the common man.
Speaker 1: You will all grant me.
Speaker 3: This, so and you know, to apply that to you know,
Speaker 3: anything in this country. I think the perfect propagandists would
Speaker 3: have to be personable and social, and that is an
Speaker 3: increasing rarity nowadays, you know, able to carry a conversation
Speaker 3: in real life, able to make whoever they're propagandaze and comfortable,
Speaker 3: you know, like like we're having a casual conversation, but
Speaker 3: I'm planting seeds in your head, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: I think that that's an art that's becoming rarer and rare,
Speaker 3: and maybe maybe maybe we'll be the last generation that
Speaker 3: you know, still has a an aptitude for it, you know,
Speaker 3: as as as the younger kids get alienated more and more.
Speaker 3: That's it's almost by design.
Speaker 1: You will all grant me this. And as further evidence,
Speaker 1: I can recall a Hitler speech in Jenna. Half the
Speaker 1: audience was or Marxists, half students and university professors. I
Speaker 1: had a burning desire to speak with both elements. Afterwards,
Speaker 1: I could see that the university professor and the average
Speaker 1: man had understood what Hitler said. That is the greatness
Speaker 1: of our movement that it can use language to reach
Speaker 1: the broad masses. Of course, the style will vary according
Speaker 1: to the speaker. It would be a big mistake to
Speaker 1: expect everyone to treat the idea in the same way.
Speaker 1: For as great as it is, so different are the
Speaker 1: individuals who are to be reached by it. You will
Speaker 1: surely hear some people say that they like one speaker
Speaker 1: while others prefer another. It would be a mistake to
Speaker 1: try to make the soft spoken speaker into a thundering orator,
Speaker 1: or a thundering orator into a soft spoken chap Neither
Speaker 1: would accomplish anything. The soft spoken speaker would never reach
Speaker 1: the heart no matter how hard he tried, nor would
Speaker 1: the thundering orator succeed in speaking quietly. Everyone would go
Speaker 1: home dissatisfied. The bigger our movement gets, the more kinds
Speaker 1: of people it can house, and each will reflect the
Speaker 1: movement a little differently. No two things in God's world
Speaker 1: are alike. Everything is a little different. Thus one person
Speaker 1: reflects things differently than another.
Speaker 3: That's that max potential thing coming up again.
Speaker 1: As propaganda draws an ever growing following to the idea,
Speaker 1: the idea broadens because it becomes more flexible. It no
Speaker 1: longer stays in a few heads, but wants to include everything.
Speaker 1: At that moment, it becomes a comprehensive program. We can
Speaker 1: happily see that that in the case in our movement,
Speaker 1: you will never find millions of people willing to die
Speaker 1: for a book, But millions of people are willing to
Speaker 1: die for a gospel. And our movement is becoming more
Speaker 1: and more a gospel. All that we have comes to know,
Speaker 1: all that we have come to know in our individual
Speaker 1: lives is joining to form a great faith that lives
Speaker 1: unshakably in our hearts. Each of us is willing, if necessary,
Speaker 1: to give his all for it. No one is willing
Speaker 1: to die for the eight hour day. People are willing
Speaker 1: to die so that so Germans will be so that
Speaker 1: Germany will belong to Germans. What Adolf Hitler prophets.
Speaker 3: What nobody's willing to die for an eight hour day?
Speaker 3: That I don't know if that applies to nowadays. Yeah,
Speaker 3: just want a grill man.
Speaker 1: But people are willing to die so that Germany will
Speaker 1: belong to the Germans. What Adolf Hitler prophesied in nineteen
Speaker 1: nineteen is becoming clearer every day, freedom and prosperity. The
Speaker 1: movement is increasingly freeing itself from from the all to
Speaker 1: human and becoming a powerful force. The time is coming
Speaker 1: when people will not ask us what we think about
Speaker 1: the eight hour day, but rather when Germany is seized
Speaker 1: with desperation, they will ask, can you give us fit
Speaker 1: back faith. If a movement has brought the idea from
Speaker 1: the individual to a worldview, building in the end a
Speaker 1: clear gospel for which each is ready to die, that
Speaker 1: movement is near victory. That does not happen in the study,
Speaker 1: but rather in battle, in bitter battle each day, with
Speaker 1: the enemy bringing him to see how he has led
Speaker 1: the nation down the wrong path. I must say that
Speaker 1: I learned the most from reading the Berlin or Tajeblat,
Speaker 1: a newspaper hostel to the Nazis. That is a fine
Speaker 1: example of the Jews at work. From the Jewish standpoint,
Speaker 1: I've never noted a single mistake, whereas the nationalist papers
Speaker 1: make mistakes all the time.
Speaker 3: Huh.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like your enemy understands you better than
Speaker 1: you understand your enemy. That's not good.
Speaker 3: Yep, credit work do yeah.
Speaker 1: I now want to outline the essential characteristics of propaganda.
Speaker 1: We have already agreed that propaganda is not an end
Speaker 1: in itself, but it means to an end. Its task
Speaker 1: is to spread the knowledge of national socialism to the
Speaker 1: people or to a part of the people. If propaganda
Speaker 1: does that, it is good. If not, it is bad.
Speaker 1: The German nationalists claim that Hitler's propaganda before nine November
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty three was too loud, too noisy, too popular.
Speaker 1: Hitlery replied, Munich must become national socialists. If I achieve
Speaker 1: that my propaganda and it will have been good. If
Speaker 1: I had wanted to make you happy, it would have
Speaker 1: been bad, but that was not my intention. You cannot
Speaker 1: evaluate propaganda in mid course, but rather you have to
Speaker 1: wait until it reaches it Samaker's goal. You cannot say
Speaker 1: that our propaganda was wrong because the government banned it.
Speaker 1: That is false under Jewish police officials. Our propaganda would
Speaker 1: be wrong if it were not banned, for that means
Speaker 1: it would be hard. For that means it would be harmless.
Speaker 1: The fact that it, yeah, the fact that it is
Speaker 1: banned is the best evidence that we are dangerous. If
Speaker 1: the ban is lifted, do not come to me and
Speaker 1: say that the Jew has seen the error of his ways.
Speaker 1: It will be lifted when the Jew sees that it
Speaker 1: is not achieving his purpose. You can say what you want.
Speaker 1: The Jew will put away his dagger only when he
Speaker 1: sees that it is better not to use it against
Speaker 1: propaganda method or when he sees that the dagger has
Speaker 1: already done its duty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's h another salient point. If you're you know,
Speaker 3: if if you're not getting banned, if you're not getting
Speaker 3: put on a list, if you're not getting punished in
Speaker 3: some way, shape or form, then you're not saying anything
Speaker 3: that's that's in any way a threat. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was at an event, small event a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago, and somebody told me that Tim Poole was
Speaker 1: a dissonant And I didn't laugh. All I said, all
Speaker 1: I asked was to dissonance make a million dollars a month.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good metric. Yeah, what income bracket? What
Speaker 3: what tax bracket is he in?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And no answer the h Well.
Speaker 3: I think a good thing to promulgate nowadays is that
Speaker 3: the methods with which bands are are dolled out. Is
Speaker 3: via algorithm. So if you can find a way to
Speaker 3: hack that, and you know whether it's via via language
Speaker 3: or more more technical methods, Uh, use that too if
Speaker 3: you can. If you can pierce pierce through the uh
Speaker 3: the safety mechanism, do it.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you right now. I use a text obfuscator.
Speaker 3: Just Google text obfuscator, then type in whatever you want
Speaker 3: and uh, you can even change the letters come out
Speaker 3: in some weird script, but uh, you can change the
Speaker 3: letters to look normal. And it's so far, so good.
Speaker 3: I've never even gotten a warning, and I post some
Speaker 3: pretty hainous ship.
Speaker 1: You do, I like it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's how I've I've I've gotten banned off Twitter
Speaker 3: five times, like five new accounts, and I've had this
Speaker 3: one for a while now. And I credit the text oufiscator.
Speaker 1: All right. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not
Speaker 1: a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners.
Speaker 1: It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct.
Speaker 1: I do not care if I give wonderful, esthetically elegant
Speaker 1: speeches or speak so that women cry. The point of
Speaker 1: a political speech is to persuade people of what we
Speaker 1: think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I
Speaker 1: do in Berlin. And why I speak in Beyruth. I
Speaker 1: think that's Beruth. I say different things than I say
Speaker 1: in the forest hall a meeting hall. The nazis often
Speaker 1: used in Berlin. That is a matter of practice, not
Speaker 1: of theory. We do not want to be a movement
Speaker 1: of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that
Speaker 1: can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not
Speaker 1: intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to
Speaker 1: discover in intellectual truths. I found them by thinking, or
Speaker 1: at my desk anywhere, but in a meeting hall that
Speaker 1: is where I transmit them. I did not enter the
Speaker 1: meeting hall to discover intellectual truths, but to persuade others
Speaker 1: of what I think to be right. I learned methods
Speaker 1: there that I can use to reach others with what
Speaker 1: I have found to be right. The speaker of propagandists
Speaker 1: must first understand the idea. He cannot do that in
Speaker 1: the middle of making propaganda. He must start with it.
Speaker 1: Through daily contact with the masses. He learns how to
Speaker 1: communicate that idea. It is not the task of propaganda
Speaker 1: to discover knowledge, but to transmit knowledge, it must adjust
Speaker 1: to those it wishes to reach with that knowledge. The
Speaker 1: Propagandas's speeches or posters that are aimed at farmers will
Speaker 1: be different than those aimed at employers. Those aimed at
Speaker 1: doctors will be different than those aimed at patients. He
Speaker 1: will adjust as propaganda to fit those he is speaking to.
Speaker 1: You can see that all the critical standards used by
Speaker 1: other parties to evaluate propaganda missed the point, and that
Speaker 1: most complaints about the NSCAP is propaganda result from a
Speaker 1: false understanding of propaganda. If someone tells me your propaganda
Speaker 1: has no civilized standards, I know there is no point
Speaker 1: in even talking to him. It makes no difference if
Speaker 1: propaganda is at a high level. The question is whether
Speaker 1: it reaches goal. My first goal when I came to
Speaker 1: Berlin was to make the city aware of us. They
Speaker 1: could love us or hate us, as long as they
Speaker 1: knew who we were. We have reached that goal.
Speaker 3: He's a wrestling heel.
Speaker 1: We have reached that goal. We are hated and loved.
Speaker 1: When someone hears the term national socialists, he does not
Speaker 1: ask what is that? Once we have reached a first goal.
Speaker 1: We can work on turning hate to love and love
Speaker 1: to hate, but never to indifference. The battle against indifference
Speaker 1: is the hardest battle. That's I mean, it's so true. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just so true.
Speaker 3: If you can evoke an emotion response, what what that
Speaker 3: emotion is doesn't matter, it's it's in their heads and
Speaker 3: there may sometimes you can get people to do your
Speaker 3: propaganizing for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even if it's negative. Just by.
Speaker 3: Yeah, your interactions with your detractors probably convert more people,
Speaker 3: you know, to to taking the next step and watching
Speaker 3: an episode when when you when you really hammer some
Speaker 3: dumb shit on X, like, that's probably just as effective
Speaker 3: at you know, getting them to the next level.
Speaker 1: People will ask you if you're like arguing with an
Speaker 1: account that is, like, why are you arguing with an
Speaker 1: account that has ten followers. I'm not arguing with the
Speaker 1: account for the sake of the for the the account
Speaker 1: with ten followers. I'm arguing with the account for the
Speaker 1: people who are watching.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm publicly crushing somebody that I know has a
Speaker 3: relatively common view and letting it be known to everybody
Speaker 3: that you know might be on the fence.
Speaker 1: You know, when you have thousands and thousands, tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of followers you have. There are followers who never comment.
Speaker 1: There are people who just lurk, and they lurk all day,
Speaker 1: never comment. That's who you're doing it for. Yep, you're
Speaker 1: doing it for the people who are watching what you're doing,
Speaker 1: who are watching your account. I hate when someone comes
Speaker 1: in and goes, why are you arguing with them? Why
Speaker 1: do you keep retweeting them? Why do you keep retweeting me?
Speaker 1: I only have ten followers? Yeah, shut up, yeah, shut up.
Speaker 3: If you can get a couple people to dip their
Speaker 3: toe in the water, then take it. Take it from there.
Speaker 1: Just why am I retweeting an account with ten followers? Just
Speaker 1: be a useful idiot and just let me retweet your account.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: The battling incident. There may be two million people in
Speaker 1: this city who hate my guts, who persecute and slander me.
Speaker 1: But I know that I can win over some of them.
Speaker 1: We know that from experience. Some of those who persecuted
Speaker 1: us and fought most bitterly against us are today our
Speaker 1: most determined supporters. You see that the important thing for
Speaker 1: propaganda is that it reaches its goal, and that it
Speaker 1: is a mistake to apply critical standards that are irrelevant.
Speaker 1: Let me give another example. If someone asked me what
Speaker 1: I think of another person, is it's silly for me
Speaker 1: to say I like him but he cannot play the piano?
Speaker 1: The answer will be, so what he is a corporate lawyer.
Speaker 1: Why don't you see if he is good at what
Speaker 1: he does. That is a good answer, and it applies
Speaker 1: just as well to propaganda. Our propaganda follows a clear line.
Speaker 1: Adolf Hitler once told me that it is not necessary
Speaker 1: to give a programmatic speech to a public meeting. The
Speaker 1: public meeting requires the most primitive approach. If the fine
Speaker 1: gentleman say, you're only a proper gun, the answer is this.
Speaker 1: Was Christ any different? Did he not make more? But
Speaker 1: did he not make propaganda? Did he write books or
Speaker 1: did he preach? Was Mohammed any different? Did he write
Speaker 1: learned essays or did he go to the people and
Speaker 1: say what he wanted to say? Were not Buddha and
Speaker 1: Zarathustra propagandis true? The philosophers of the French Revolution built
Speaker 1: their intellectual foundations. But who got things moving? Robes, Pierre
Speaker 1: Danton and the others. Did these men write books or
Speaker 1: did they speak in popular meetings. Look around today, is
Speaker 1: Mussolini more an author or a great speaker? When Lenin
Speaker 1: took the train from Zurich to Petersburg, did he repair,
Speaker 1: did he repair to his study and write a book,
Speaker 1: or did he speak to thousands? Fascism and Bolshevism were
Speaker 1: built by great speakers, by masters of the spoken word.
Speaker 1: There is no difference between the politician and the speaker.
Speaker 1: History proves that great politicians were always great speakers. Napoleon Caesar, Alexander, Mussolini, Lenin,
Speaker 1: name whomever you want. They were all great speakers and
Speaker 1: great organizers. If a person combines rhetorical talent, organizational ability,
Speaker 1: and philosophical ability, if he has the ability to transmit
Speaker 1: knowledge and to gather people under his banner, then he
Speaker 1: is a brilliant statesman.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: And that's why we don't have any statesman. We don't
Speaker 1: you know who that is.
Speaker 2: Right there right now, Kelly, Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and really yeah, and really he's like his philosophical
Speaker 1: ability is I mean, it really comes it comes out
Speaker 1: more when he's questioned.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, yeah, especially by a hostile party.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: He is the master of replying to his detractors and
Speaker 3: just strengthening himself. Yeah, there's a Massachusetts representative that he
Speaker 3: just got BTFO by bou Kelly. Oh yeah, I saw that,
Speaker 3: something about like moving, like relocating a painting in an airport.
Speaker 3: He's like, yeah, we moved it two feet and like
Speaker 3: shut up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, laconic phrases. All right. If someone tells me
Speaker 1: today you're a demagogue, I answer him in this way.
Speaker 1: Demagoguy in the good sense is simply the ability to
Speaker 1: get the masses to understand what I want them to understand.
Speaker 1: Of course I can adjust to the feelings of the
Speaker 1: broad masses, which is demagoguy in the bad sense. Then
Speaker 1: I change not only the form of what I say,
Speaker 1: but also the content. You cannot tell me that things
Speaker 1: have changed. Formerly, speakers built movements. Today we live in
Speaker 1: the age of the press, and it is the writers
Speaker 1: who are influential. This theory is obviously false. Of course
Speaker 1: the press is important, but if you examine well written editorials,
Speaker 1: they turn out to be speeches in disguise. The Marxist
Speaker 1: did not win through their editorials, but rather because each
Speaker 1: Marxist editorial was a little propaganda speech. They were written
Speaker 1: by agitators they sat in their offices or in their
Speaker 1: smoke filled bars, writing not elegant, intellectual and polished essays,
Speaker 1: but rather brutal direct words with the average which the
Speaker 1: average man understand.
Speaker 3: We have a litany of those right now, But all
Speaker 3: I can think of is BuzzFeed. Wait, what did he say?
Speaker 3: They were written by agitators, they sat in their offices
Speaker 3: or in their cum filled rooms.
Speaker 1: Jeez, probably do have some great propaganda's coomers. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: is why the masses devoured the Red Press. We must
Speaker 1: learn from their example. Marxism did not win because it
Speaker 1: had great profits. They had none one because its nonsense
Speaker 1: was promoted by agitators of the ability of August, August
Speaker 1: Bebel and Lenin. They led Marxism to victory. If the
Speaker 1: Volcish movement had had such agitators at its disposal, its
Speaker 1: stronger intellectual foundations would surely have let it to victory.
Speaker 1: Some critics complain, all you do is criticize. You only
Speaker 1: complain you can't do things any better yourselves. Does this
Speaker 1: sound familiar at all? As anybody ever said.
Speaker 3: That to you?
Speaker 1: Love it like once a day, once a day. Others
Speaker 1: say that the angriff Gerbel's newspaper in Berlin is entirely negative.
Speaker 1: Say something positive for a change. Well, I am not
Speaker 1: in a position to say anything positive about Isidor weis,
Speaker 1: the Jewish vice chief of police in Berlin and a
Speaker 1: regular Gerbels target. I can only be negative, and there
Speaker 1: is nothing positive I can say about the Republic. There
Speaker 1: is nothing positive about it. I can say something positive
Speaker 1: when I eliminate the negative. The most brilliant statementsman on
Speaker 1: earth could do nothing with this Republic, and Marxism preached
Speaker 1: only the negative for sixty years. The result was that
Speaker 1: it took over the state eighth on ninth November nineteen eighteen.
Speaker 1: Hitler once said, keep those no at alls who always
Speaker 1: want to do something positive away from me. We could
Speaker 1: do something positive only when we have first gotten rid
Speaker 1: of the negative. A leader does not emerged from a
Speaker 1: conference table. He develops from the masses.
Speaker 3: And the.
Speaker 1: More a true leader rises from the masses, the more
Speaker 1: he draws the masses to him. The mass is the weak, cowardly,
Speaker 1: lazy majority of people. One can never entirely win the
Speaker 1: broad mass. The best elements from the mass must be
Speaker 1: put in a form where they can be victorious. That
Speaker 1: is the task of a brilliant mind. Yep, we thank fate. Yeah, crucible,
Speaker 1: we thank fate that it has given us one of
Speaker 1: these minds, a mind superior to all others, whom we
Speaker 1: willingly serve. That is to prove that we will win
Speaker 1: if others find their wisdom and majority rule. But a
Speaker 1: movement is led by one person, that movement will win
Speaker 1: when it wins. Is when it wins is irrelevant. It
Speaker 1: will win because that is the way things are. Look around,
Speaker 1: as much as you want, you will everywhere see our
Speaker 1: movements intellectual foundations. The task of the leaders and the
Speaker 1: followers is to drive this knowledge ever deeper into the
Speaker 1: hearts of our shattered nation. Each must make that clear.
Speaker 1: Each must think things through. Everything we do must be clear.
Speaker 1: We will never give up. If everything is clear. One
Speaker 1: does not have to be an outstanding speaker. If he
Speaker 1: can say it all in a few words, he is
Speaker 1: a propagandist. If we have an army of such propagandas
Speaker 1: from the littlest to the fear himself, and if each
Speaker 1: spreads our crystal clear knowledge to the masses, day will
Speaker 1: come which our worldview takes over the state. When our
Speaker 1: organization seizes the reigns of power when we will know
Speaker 1: when we are no longer members of a slave colony,
Speaker 1: but rather citizens of a political state that we ourselves
Speaker 1: have formed. That is our task on this planet to
Speaker 1: create the foundation on which our people can live. When
Speaker 1: we do that, the nation will create works of culture
Speaker 1: that will endure the eons, endure for eons in world history.
Speaker 3: All right, I agree with everything you said.
Speaker 1: Really, is there anything? Is there anything in there that
Speaker 1: that you sill combridge with.
Speaker 3: Little quibbles here and there? Yeah? Was? Uh? Was was
Speaker 3: Gebel's Catholic?
Speaker 1: I don't know what he was. I don't know how
Speaker 1: he is.
Speaker 3: Some weird German offshoot of Protestantism.
Speaker 1: Is that what it says?
Speaker 3: Oh no, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay, I was early life a buh. Both of
Speaker 1: his parents were Roman Catholics with modest family backgrounds. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What's funny is Gerbels does definitely look German, but he
Speaker 1: could also like pass for Sicilian.
Speaker 3: Yeah, looks a little bit too self German.
Speaker 1: Yeah, South Italian, south of the boot like way south.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean when when I read this, all I
Speaker 3: could think is, wow, we have a we have a
Speaker 3: long way to go. If well, you know.
Speaker 1: And it's also one of the problems with having people
Speaker 1: who are a little too smart, because it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: so if you speak in very plain language, if you
Speaker 1: use propaganda, that is what does someone tell me today
Speaker 1: it was what you just posted was rage bait. I
Speaker 1: don't think what I posted was rage bait. I am well,
Speaker 1: I mean it may have been.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: You tell me, is it propaganda? I'll find it. I
Speaker 1: mean it's yeah, I get accused of that all the time,
Speaker 1: but I think you know, when you're talking about when
Speaker 1: you're talking about power and really how how power is
Speaker 1: supposed to work and how power will actually work, then
Speaker 1: you know it's.
Speaker 3: It.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Jake Shields, you know, Jake Shields, m me guy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and huge noticer Yeah, he said, uh, I guess
Speaker 1: speaking about Trump, he said, conservatives try to be fair,
Speaker 1: while liberals imprison their political rivals at all costs. This
Speaker 1: is why conservatives always lose. They need to learn to
Speaker 1: fight dirty or keep on losing. This isn't how America
Speaker 1: should be. But I don't see any other alternative. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and my but.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's a natural proclivity of you know, your
Speaker 3: your garden variety conservative to respect legitimate authority, and you know,
Speaker 3: the the courthouse yesterday was a legitimate authority. And that's
Speaker 3: why today there's no demonstrations. There's just you know, Fox
Speaker 3: News panelist screaming into the TV and uh, you know,
Speaker 3: a bunch of people mad online.
Speaker 1: What you needed to see today was a planned effort
Speaker 1: well in advance of Republican areas of people, Republican DA's
Speaker 1: things like people like that arresting Democrat politicians locally, okay.
Speaker 3: And you know what, like this has always been a possibility,
Speaker 3: and then come July eleventh, during the sentencing, it is
Speaker 3: a possibility that he will go to jail and then
Speaker 3: what like there's we're not even getting to the step
Speaker 3: that talks about organization, Like we're way so far removed
Speaker 3: from any type of will to activism or or or
Speaker 3: anything like that. And because you're a fed now if
Speaker 3: if you talk about that, you're a fed yeh. Which
Speaker 3: is why it's so important that there is a real
Speaker 3: life component that to meet people that you know, share
Speaker 3: a common view with you and propagandize. You know that
Speaker 3: that might be done through propaganda, is a propaganda or
Speaker 3: it might just be like, you know, you happen to
Speaker 3: meet somebody that has already been propagandized successfully and in
Speaker 3: whatever your worldview is. But go outside people banking, you
Speaker 3: go outside, go to the go to the bar, go
Speaker 3: to I don't know, like meet people and real.
Speaker 1: People that talks with people. So my response to my
Speaker 1: rage bait response, as it was called was to Jake
Speaker 1: was politics as friend enemy, simple as how do you
Speaker 1: treat your enemies when you get power over them? And
Speaker 1: then enclosed, I went, oh but my morals, fuck your morals?
Speaker 1: They want you dead? Yeah, yep, I mean, is can
Speaker 1: that be considered hyperbolic? Very? Is it true?
Speaker 3: Are are they willing to die for their morals? Because
Speaker 3: that's something we can work with, but we know that
Speaker 3: they're not, which is why they don't have any potential.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just it's just click it man.
Speaker 3: They get ten cents of click, just click.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anything else you got to say about this?
Speaker 3: No, just feeling particularly jaded and yeah, I me and
Speaker 3: me and Bird just recorded an episode that we don't
Speaker 3: really know if we should release because we spoke very
Speaker 3: frankly about some subjects that came up in in this episode.
Speaker 1: Ah well, I mean if you don't really. If you
Speaker 1: don't release it, just please share it with me.
Speaker 3: Oh I will. Yeah, I'm sure Bird will have no
Speaker 3: problem with that. Okay, and then you release it because
Speaker 3: I want to.
Speaker 1: Go to do your first bt w A in what
Speaker 1: two years?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, it's coming anytime now. I think I'm interview
Speaker 3: rebrand though, are you? Yeah? Rolling around ideas.
Speaker 1: That's good, that's good. It'd be good to see you
Speaker 1: putting out some material. I know you work your ass
Speaker 1: off though, so I guess we gave half the plugs
Speaker 1: already so you can finish doing whatever you do.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You can find me on Twitter at BTWA Underscore
Speaker 3: Returns and every week on Timeline Earth.
Speaker 1: I love every time you said that every week.
Speaker 2: All right, man, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Yep, of course