Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekenana Show.
Speaker 1: I am here again with Thomas seven seven seven, but
Speaker 1: we have something a little different, a little diversion plans
Speaker 1: for today. How are you doing, Thomas.
Speaker 2: I'm well, thank you, thanks for hosting me again as always.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I had contacted you and said, instead of
Speaker 1: Cold War Part six with the holidays coming up, let's
Speaker 1: pick that up after the holidays were over. But there
Speaker 1: was a book that I read a few years ago
Speaker 1: when I found out how how many people at the time,
Speaker 1: influential people, people who became leaders, were inspired by it.
Speaker 1: Reflections on Violence by Sorel. And then I found out
Speaker 1: that the Imperium Press version had a forward by you,
Speaker 1: So I decided to have you on and let's discuss it.
Speaker 1: I think that this can go in a lot of
Speaker 1: different directions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity man definitely.
Speaker 1: When did Cerell come on your radar? Like, when did
Speaker 1: you read him first?
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting because a lot of people, a
Speaker 2: lot of people associate Cerel like and some of these
Speaker 2: other thinkers with with kind of the rise of like,
Speaker 2: you know, a kind of right wing subculture on the Internet.
Speaker 2: I came to Cerel before that. I'm not trying to
Speaker 2: sound like some like original like or something like O G.
Speaker 2: He was like, oh I knew about Cerrell before. But
Speaker 2: in the stuff in the National Alliance would put out
Speaker 2: and then Situde for Historical Review, that stuff is pretty
Speaker 2: weighty man, you know, like William Pierce whatever, whatever anybody
Speaker 2: thinks of him or things of that whole scene. You know,
Speaker 2: he was, he was in He was a serious intellectual.
Speaker 2: You know, he read tons of stuff, some some of
Speaker 2: which I I didn't really connect with. You know, he
Speaker 2: was a big will William Gelly Simpson guy, and he
Speaker 2: was a big kind of you know, you spent a
Speaker 2: lot of time with you know a lot of this
Speaker 2: kind of like social Darwinist stuff that I don't put
Speaker 2: a lot of stock in. But uh, he'd reference George
Speaker 2: Sorell okay like on some of his adv broadcast us
Speaker 2: and more than a passing capacity, and the I HR
Speaker 2: and guys like Hke Thompson and Teth Stimley and and
Speaker 2: and the like like, they they'd raised Currel all the
Speaker 2: time and they considered him to be like a serious thinker.
Speaker 2: And one of the reasons why is because part of
Speaker 2: their whole part of their whole mandates, the IHR. I mean,
Speaker 2: they're just still putting out great content that's very very relevant.
Speaker 2: They made the transition to to the information age very seamlessly.
Speaker 2: But during the Cold War, you know, during the early
Speaker 2: Reagan era was kind of when when they launched and
Speaker 2: became really active. So obviously, like they were constantly kind
Speaker 2: of defending the revisionist perspective against allegations like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you know, the Second World War among the things that
Speaker 2: you know, it was a fight against these like socialist
Speaker 2: uh conceits and and and the brutalities that derived there
Speaker 2: in and you know, the Third Reich it was just
Speaker 2: another socialist government and we all socialism as godless thing
Speaker 2: that you know, it doesn't have any likes to stand on.
Speaker 2: And why would anybody on the right, you know, paid
Speaker 2: any mind? And Sorell the the answer to that is
Speaker 2: because of the thinkers like Sorell. And even if you've
Speaker 2: gott no interest in kind of the different iterations of
Speaker 2: socialism and the revolutionary imperatives that you know kind of
Speaker 2: became the the the animating mythologies of these of these
Speaker 2: inner were of the of these early twentieth century and
Speaker 2: then later interwar ideologies. If you even you don't put
Speaker 2: a lot of stock in that, you get if you
Speaker 2: want to understand, if you want to understand European politics
Speaker 2: after nine, after seventeen eighty nine, you've got to be
Speaker 2: in dialogue with socialism and you've got to understand, you know, what, how,
Speaker 2: how how the right, how the revolutionary right was dealing
Speaker 2: with those realities, you know, And Sorell was kind of
Speaker 2: first among those thinkers. And if I basically accept Ernest
Speaker 2: Nolty's paradigm that uh the uh that that that that
Speaker 2: Italian fascism and things that the Flange Party in Spain,
Speaker 2: they were reacting. They were reaction against, you know, kind
Speaker 2: of the monarchist right and like the reactionary right as
Speaker 2: much as they were a reaction against Marxist Leninism, and
Speaker 2: then national socialism was u was a reaction to that.
Speaker 2: And in dialectical terms, like you know, some premises that
Speaker 2: were hostile and some that were not. But that's why
Speaker 2: I understand George Sorel. And in America and people think
Speaker 2: of the right, you know, they think of uh, they
Speaker 2: think of uh that, they think of Jeffersonians who uh
Speaker 2: you know, like like John C. Calhoun or they think
Speaker 2: of like America first guys in the twenty overth century,
Speaker 2: you know, and like that the Taft Republicans who were
Speaker 2: you know, who are anti New Deal and anti interventionists,
Speaker 2: and both of those guys, I mean, even the latter
Speaker 2: obviously they were kind of traditional Hamiltonian nationalists. But you know,
Speaker 2: their whole idea is you know, like get the government
Speaker 2: off your back, you know, uh, you know, and uh
Speaker 2: and and and decentralized authority and you know, the kind
Speaker 2: of ha on the on their own terms to the kind
Speaker 2: of class identities that most kind of European paradigms suggest
Speaker 2: are are what informs political reality. But Sorell wasn't a
Speaker 2: class warrior. And like we'll get into that, you know,
Speaker 2: like his Sorel's his his kind of he was, you know,
Speaker 2: like Nietzsche did before he viewed Crell viewed culture is
Speaker 2: like peaking early, you know, like the pre Soprietic Area era,
Speaker 2: you know, like the pre Peloponnesian War era of Dori Gathens.
Speaker 2: That's what Sorel, That's what thought was like the zenith
Speaker 2: of like human culture and political organization, like it wasn't
Speaker 2: some guy he was saying like, oh, we just got
Speaker 2: to give And he wasn't even he wasn't even like
Speaker 2: he wasn't even like the the Stefan George circle or
Speaker 2: like Earns the Younger. He wasn't even saying like, oh,
Speaker 2: we just we just got to inundate you know, the
Speaker 2: working class with some kind of like patriotic or like
Speaker 2: racial life identity. He wasn't saying that at all. He
Speaker 2: was saying that, you know, there's a way, there's a
Speaker 2: way to insinuate into revolutionary consciousness among the workers, like
Speaker 2: something that's like culturally elevated, you know, and that that
Speaker 2: will change things and you know, educate people in a
Speaker 2: way that you know is progressive, if not progressive with
Speaker 2: a capital key, but you know is progressive in terms
Speaker 2: of you know, allowing them to can septualize themselves and
Speaker 2: conceptualize you know, political action, and in ways outside of
Speaker 2: this like narrow like paradigm of like you know, hostility
Speaker 2: to capital and you know, control of one's labor and
Speaker 2: you know, like material justice in terms of you know,
Speaker 2: getting paid for one's labor. Like if you that's kind
Speaker 2: of banal, you know, not like that's not important. Obviously
Speaker 2: it's important, but they can't be the end all purpose
Speaker 2: of your political activity. And it certainly doesn't rationalize you know,
Speaker 2: like like murdering your own countryman wholesale. I mean, if
Speaker 2: that's what it comes down to, because that's you know
Speaker 2: what the proverbial gods ordain. Okay, I mean, you've got
Speaker 2: to deal with that in a manly and serious way
Speaker 2: and a stoic way. But that's not something you bind
Speaker 2: for just because uh, you know, it's it's like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, God is dead, so we were just gonna
Speaker 2: find some kind of catalysts, you know, for violence that
Speaker 2: can be rationalized in the language of the day. Like
Speaker 2: it wasn't saying that at all.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so let's talk a little bit about this
Speaker 1: because this is I mean, I've even written a little
Speaker 1: bit on this recently. It's the the socialist right. When
Speaker 1: you say, well, the national Socialists were on the right,
Speaker 1: people lose their minds. I mean, mind you, these are
Speaker 1: the same people who use the term capitalism and don't
Speaker 1: realize where the you know, they know where the term
Speaker 1: came from. So they're like, well, we're just taking that
Speaker 1: term for ourselves. And I think what they would say
Speaker 1: is the difference between the left and the right is egalitarianism.
Speaker 1: The left is egalitarian. So was the socialist right egalitarian.
Speaker 2: Not in the sense of like like not not in
Speaker 2: a biological sense, and uh not in not in the
Speaker 2: way that like not not not in the way that
Speaker 2: in contemporary discourse people think of it. And I'll qualify
Speaker 2: it too. Even a lot of people, a lot of
Speaker 2: people shouldn't know better, misunderstand to what Marxy and equality was,
Speaker 2: you know, the whole like the secular human is. They've taken,
Speaker 2: you know, the idea of quote human dignity and kind
Speaker 2: of extraptly they all kind of strange things out of it.
Speaker 2: But Marx, I've got nothing nice to say about Marx
Speaker 2: and Lenin. When Marx was talking about quote equality, he
Speaker 2: was talking about a kind of equal dignity across the
Speaker 2: class divide and across you know, kind of the like
Speaker 2: the you know, and and and eliminating and eliminating these
Speaker 2: kinds of contrived distinctions between people based on rank, you know,
Speaker 2: and uh, you know this and and and and from there,
Speaker 2: you know, like affording that kind of elevated dignity to
Speaker 2: the workers whom you know, in his estimation, were were
Speaker 2: the we're the ones responsible for generating the wealth of
Speaker 2: the nation. Okay, he wasn't saying like, oh men, women
Speaker 2: are exactly the same, or like there's no differences in
Speaker 2: intelligence between men. Like that's a weird kind of cope
Speaker 2: that that that that like post ninety forty five cope
Speaker 2: that you know, people who wanted to kind of maintain
Speaker 2: people who were not going to attack the capitalist system
Speaker 2: on structural terms. You know, that was kind of like
Speaker 2: what they'd invoke in order to say like no, actually,
Speaker 2: like we're we're more morally sound than than, you know,
Speaker 2: than than the Marxists and in in the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: and their satellite states. That's important to keep in mind.
Speaker 2: But the uh, the idea of socialism, you know, it
Speaker 2: didn't originate with Marx and that was that was one
Speaker 2: of Spangler's important points. Like even if you don't accept
Speaker 2: Spangler's view of history and you think it's like, you know,
Speaker 2: just kind of needlessly esoteric and mystical, his uh, his essay,
Speaker 2: his essay Prussian Prussianism and Socialism, and then later well,
Speaker 2: let's a degree is a book. I mean it's yeah,
Speaker 2: it's like a longer. I say that it's been turned,
Speaker 2: it's been beefed up with like secondary analyzes, but the
Speaker 2: hour of decision like basically the modern state as we
Speaker 2: know it in structural terms like os to the Prussian
Speaker 2: state okay, everything from the military draft you know, to
Speaker 2: public education you know, to having like pensions for for
Speaker 2: retired people like that that came from the Prussians, Okay,
Speaker 2: and I mean even that that's literallyly in America too,
Speaker 2: like early education is kindergarten, okay, like it's not an accident. Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean, so that's some and this is something that
Speaker 2: you could be openly acknowledged, like it's not so much anymore.
Speaker 2: I mean some that's political something that's just because people
Speaker 2: are kind of ignorant. But you know, it's not like
Speaker 2: it's not like when Marx and Engels put their proverbial
Speaker 2: ink to paper. It's not like they it's it's not
Speaker 2: like it's not like Europe was, you know, like this
Speaker 2: feudal society or some or something in Jeffers in Yalemen
Speaker 2: society like the Confederate States, and they were like, you
Speaker 2: know what, we need to like beef up a government
Speaker 2: that and you know provide equity, you know, to people
Speaker 2: based on their labor and can like look after like
Speaker 2: old folks. What they were doing was they were taking
Speaker 2: something that already existed in places like Prussia and to
Speaker 2: a lesser degree, you know, in places like France and
Speaker 2: the Habsburg Empire and saying like, okay, we've got to
Speaker 2: like improve upon this and make it into a progressive
Speaker 2: instrumentality to advance history. So this that's important your mind too.
Speaker 2: Like if you're a European writing, you know, in the
Speaker 2: in the in the nineteen hundreds, like Sorell, like you
Speaker 2: were looking backwards at you know, your political heritage going
Speaker 2: back about three centuries. We're just looking at Mars and saying, oh,
Speaker 2: I see Marx's idea. I can improve upon that and
Speaker 2: make it acceptable to the right. So that's important to
Speaker 2: keep in mind. And you know, kind of the kind
Speaker 2: of the first truly socialist institution is the modern military,
Speaker 2: Like it is okay, Like it's not the military's a
Speaker 2: lot of things. What it's not is it's not some
Speaker 2: robustly capitalist thing. Okay, I mean it's and the Prussians,
Speaker 2: arguably this was their strength and their weakness. Prussia really
Speaker 2: is a wasteland. There's like nothing there, Okay. I mean
Speaker 2: you can like farm dirt and rocks and uh you've
Speaker 2: got you've got port access. But I mean other than that,
Speaker 2: it's and you're surrounded by hostiles, okay. And I mean
Speaker 2: and obviously like Prussia was, Prussia was the Germans weren't
Speaker 2: the original occupants of Prussia, Okay, there was, there was,
Speaker 2: There was. There was a barbarian element there, like a
Speaker 2: truely like pagan barbarian element of indigenous Slavs that the
Speaker 2: ethnically cleansed. Notcause the Germans are bad guys. I mean
Speaker 2: at the cleansing is it was just wasn't It's just
Speaker 2: the way it thinks, especially that part of the world.
Speaker 2: But the kind of key institution of the Prussian state
Speaker 2: was the Prussian Army. That's what made it possible. It
Speaker 2: was literally like this garrison state, okay. And so from
Speaker 2: that that's what they extrapolated kind of like their model
Speaker 2: of what of what of what society should look like
Speaker 2: and how it should be organized. Like there's very much
Speaker 2: an odds like the Anglo American sensibility, but that's a
Speaker 2: lot of things you can say that that's authoritarian. You
Speaker 2: can say that doesn't respect people's freedom or individual liberty.
Speaker 2: You can say that in some way it stunts like creativity,
Speaker 2: and maybe it does. I don't see it that way,
Speaker 2: but I also want to hold it out. It's like
Speaker 2: the zene of the human political development. But one thing
Speaker 2: it's not is it all like left wing or or liberal.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's the opposite and extreme terms, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean because yeah, like a military type structure, a
Speaker 2: venture model, like, yeah, there's some kind of basic there there,
Speaker 2: there's there's some kind of basic cohesion and respect for
Speaker 2: like the various ranks. But it's it's singularly obsessed with rank,
Speaker 2: you know. It's it's the elm of hierarchy. It has
Speaker 2: no conceit that like, oh world equals here, you know
Speaker 2: at uh, it's very in fact that it very much
Speaker 2: repudiates that. So that's another important keep in mind, and
Speaker 2: that that's basically what Sorel was getting in that, you know,
Speaker 2: it is uh like what he was calling for is
Speaker 2: you know, uh, a socialism that you know makes meaningful
Speaker 2: cultural activity possible and that reflects you know, basic human
Speaker 2: nature in some way that's not totally at odds and
Speaker 2: reality but again too, he was like he looked at
Speaker 2: dance like as a means of because again like his model,
Speaker 2: he's not saying like, oh, the kaiser Reich is so great,
Speaker 2: or you know, Frederick, the seconds Prussia is so great.
Speaker 2: Like what he was saying was that, you know, things
Speaker 2: went wrong when uh, things went wrong when men like
Speaker 2: Socrates became powerful in ancient Athens. You know, like his
Speaker 2: his ideal was the the pre Socratic uh, you know
Speaker 2: pelopon Uses.
Speaker 1: So the socialist right when they're coming to power, are
Speaker 1: they is there a rebellion against establishment liberalism or is
Speaker 1: there a rebellion against what is growing communism.
Speaker 2: At the time, I mean it was both, but it
Speaker 2: depended than where you were at. If we're going to
Speaker 2: use Vymar as kind of the I mean, obviously like
Speaker 2: Swell with writing in the pre Buymar era in a
Speaker 2: situation in France is more complicated. But if you're talking
Speaker 2: about the real like if you're talking about the true
Speaker 2: kind of divide dialectically and socially as well as politically
Speaker 2: and in terms of our conflict, obviously you know it
Speaker 2: came down to like actual civil war that plays like Munich.
Speaker 2: There's a couple of things going on in the Weimar years.
Speaker 2: You had UH, you had organizations like the Stalhelm you know,
Speaker 2: that were basically you know, kaiser wright veterans who wanted
Speaker 2: to turn things back to the way they were. But
Speaker 2: they and you know, and they they they were fighting
Speaker 2: the case. They were the guys who constituted the early
Speaker 2: Free Corps. But then you had guys, you had guys
Speaker 2: like Ernest Rahm and Joseph Gerbels who basically saw the
Speaker 2: Communists as essentially correct in their methods, that they were
Speaker 2: just you know, wrong in their in their ideological conceits.
Speaker 2: You know. Gerbels would go as far as he he'd
Speaker 2: organized street protests with the KPD, you know, to bring
Speaker 2: to bring down the UH, the unions that were like
Speaker 2: friendly to the Social Democrats, you know, and UH. And
Speaker 2: this made a lot of people upset. And Gebels was
Speaker 2: the one kind of stress or infection national socialist dinner
Speaker 2: party man who survived the night at June h of
Speaker 2: June nineteen thirty four. You know. So that's something to
Speaker 2: keep in mind. I think what really like, I think
Speaker 2: national socialism like ossified into what it truly was when
Speaker 2: when Hindenburg told the Hitler that Ernst Rahm and all
Speaker 2: of his fellows and Stress had to die. And then
Speaker 2: Hitler gave the order, and then Himmler and Seb Dietrich
Speaker 2: and the rest of them not just carried it out,
Speaker 2: but they also murdered guys like Kurt Schliker. I mean
Speaker 2: that that was that's kind of like what turn national
Speaker 2: socialism into like a a pretty conventional right wing tendency. Honestly,
Speaker 2: like I uh, not not in the sense of you know,
Speaker 2: not not not not right wing in terms of like
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, or not even right wing in terms of
Speaker 2: like Robert Taft, but by European standards, the Third Right
Speaker 2: was more conventionally right wing than people will acknowledge. I
Speaker 2: mean they because there's there's moronic stuff like like Joan
Speaker 2: Goldberg saying like, oh Fishers or a bunch of like
Speaker 2: Hillary Clinton liberals or something like. But but there's serious
Speaker 2: people too who aren't prone to that kind of moronic stuff,
Speaker 2: who don't like really understand because they you know, they
Speaker 2: read these like dispatches from uh, from from Dietrich Eckert
Speaker 2: then and from Ernst ron like saying that yeah, God
Speaker 2: is dead, you know, like the hell with the capital
Speaker 2: listen to Jews like burn everything down. You know, we're
Speaker 2: gonna we're gonna march on everything, and we're gonna kill everybody,
Speaker 2: and we're gonna build those like new Society of the
Speaker 2: barss like that. I mean, those don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2: Those guys are serious about that. That wasn't That wasn't
Speaker 2: just like so much talk. And a lot of them
Speaker 2: are frankly cyple bands. Well they they that that that
Speaker 2: that came to an end in June nineteen thirty four.
Speaker 2: And if if you're if you're killing people because a
Speaker 2: man like Hindenburg is telling you that, like you know,
Speaker 2: these men are these met are red revolutionary rebel. We
Speaker 2: have to be stopped. Like you're a lot of things,
Speaker 2: but you're not left wing, okay when you're executing that order. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's my opinion. I know some people disagree
Speaker 2: with I. I've been studying the topic for a lot
Speaker 2: of years. I think I have some insight into.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about what you you said
Speaker 1: about Europe and how Europe defined things differently than here.
Speaker 1: When socialism or communism is mentioned here, it almost seems
Speaker 1: like we just have this we know exactly what's being said.
Speaker 1: But from a European standpoint, especially at that time when
Speaker 1: socialism was spoken of or communism was spoken of, how
Speaker 1: did the European culture make it a different interpretation? Even
Speaker 1: when you read Yaki, you know Yaki when he's talking
Speaker 1: about when he's talking about Europe, it's a different language
Speaker 1: than the language that we're used to reading in the
Speaker 1: books that you know, we're basically written by the victors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, definitely. Well it's also too it goes back
Speaker 2: to it goes back to sociological origins, you know. I
Speaker 2: mean America has some depending on where you fall on
Speaker 2: it ethically, but also just depending on what kind of
Speaker 2: weight you put on the different variables. You know, America
Speaker 2: is something of an incomplete society. I mean that's either
Speaker 2: good or bad. But you know, everything that Europe was
Speaker 2: trying to do in the modern era, okay, and it's
Speaker 2: zenith in the twentieth century. We were trying to repair
Speaker 2: the social fabriak in some ethical way that had been
Speaker 2: smashed after them after the Middle Ages. Okay. In the
Speaker 2: Middle Ages, there's this basic interdependence between everybody, you know, Uh,
Speaker 2: the lords were dependent upon the serfs. Both were dependent
Speaker 2: upon the king, and the intermediary between the two of
Speaker 2: them was the clergy. You know, these people couldn't survive
Speaker 2: without each other. Like that cannot be overstated. You know
Speaker 2: this idea that if you were like a lord of
Speaker 2: the manor you know, you could just act like the
Speaker 2: character in that silly mad Max movie who's like, you know,
Speaker 2: for widering people to worship him from border or something like.
Speaker 2: That's not That's not the way things were. Like I'm
Speaker 2: not saying if you were a medieval serf, I'm not
Speaker 2: saying to have some great life, and I'm not saying
Speaker 2: you had some I'm not saying you had adequate remedies.
Speaker 2: If if you had a cruel master, but he needed you.
Speaker 2: You know, he could not defend the land without you,
Speaker 2: he could not chill the land without you. He had nothing.
Speaker 2: If if if you were not willing to work. But
Speaker 2: in contrast, like you had, you had no access to justice,
Speaker 2: and you had you had no nobody to navigate for
Speaker 2: you with with with royal authority, like if he did
Speaker 2: not exist. I mean, you had the church too, but
Speaker 2: that was that the church weren't men who worked. They
Speaker 2: did very important things, but they they operate in a
Speaker 2: totally different world. I mean, so it's you didn't have
Speaker 2: a direct line to authority unless you know, you had
Speaker 2: a rapport with the lord of the manner. So that's
Speaker 2: fundamentally important. Would changed in the modern age and reached
Speaker 2: kind of its critical and in every sense you know,
Speaker 2: and like in existential terms and consideral terms, reached it's
Speaker 2: kind of critical state. In the twentieth century, you know,
Speaker 2: people were ripped off the land, they were thrown into
Speaker 2: factories that literally employed tens of thousands of people in
Speaker 2: these dangerous conditions where you were insinuated into some machine,
Speaker 2: you know, for hours and hours a day. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you died on the job, nobody really cared, or
Speaker 2: if they did, it's say, well it's so much it's
Speaker 2: a mark in a Ledger book, you know, like you
Speaker 2: don't have any rights. And it's not even even if
Speaker 2: somebody wanted to confer upon you some kind of voice
Speaker 2: or wanted to you know, kind of make you a
Speaker 2: lot like better. Just like the velocity of production and
Speaker 2: the traje three of things, like there was you didn't
Speaker 2: you didn't matter, you know, you were you became totally dehumanized,
Speaker 2: you know, and that's what the socialists were trying to do.
Speaker 2: And they're like we on the right and the left,
Speaker 2: they're like, you know, we we've got to repair this
Speaker 2: kind of social fabric and this inerdependence and there's basical
Speaker 2: basic ethical unity of classes and functions, you know, so
Speaker 2: that people aren't being treated like a commodity and so
Speaker 2: that like when they die in the job, you know,
Speaker 2: they're just not like shoveled away like so much garbage,
Speaker 2: like literally, you know, I mean, that's that's the way
Speaker 2: to keep in mind. That's the thing to keep in mind.
Speaker 2: Like in America, there there wasn't some medieval order from
Speaker 2: which things originated, like even in the South, like people,
Speaker 2: I know, the Southerners themselves kind of looked at themselves
Speaker 2: as uh as uh as. It's kind of like lords
Speaker 2: and knights, which wasn't totally inaccurate, but it was more
Speaker 2: like but again, it was more like Athens than it
Speaker 2: was like uh then then it was like you know,
Speaker 2: a thirteenth century England, you know, like you had like
Speaker 2: the South is made up of like Kulak twypes. You know,
Speaker 2: there were white serfs and there were black slaves, but
Speaker 2: they weren't the majority. The majority was not like rich
Speaker 2: plantation owners and like poor serfs and like slaves who
Speaker 2: were property like. The majority was like small freehold farmers
Speaker 2: who were doing their own thing. And that's that's supposedly
Speaker 2: the American ideal. Okay, like now it's like a small businessman.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that the actually the way things are,
Speaker 2: but that's like what's idealized. But you know, the in America,
Speaker 2: if you're on the right, your idea isn't like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, we gotta we gotta bring things back to
Speaker 2: you know, the throne and altar and like reverence for
Speaker 2: God and God's emissaries on earth, and you know, we
Speaker 2: got to create some kind of codependent between the classes
Speaker 2: that's not dysfunctional. Like the ideal is like, you know,
Speaker 2: I need I need to be given the opportunity to
Speaker 2: like till the land and get what's mine and you know,
Speaker 2: had the government stay off my bed, not take the
Speaker 2: fruit of my labor. I mean, the totally different sensibility,
Speaker 2: but one is not superior to the other. I mean,
Speaker 2: obviously I'm more sympathetic to the American model because that's
Speaker 2: my heritage and I you know, and then plus that's
Speaker 2: just like what's realistic, Like you can't, well there is that,
Speaker 2: did GOPHI when? I mean I realized some of those polemical,
Speaker 2: but some of these idiots actually believe this. Like when
Speaker 2: when like when like regime loyal people are when these
Speaker 2: like mother Jones types claimed that like Donald Trump's this
Speaker 2: big fascist or something. I mean, that's like retarded from
Speaker 2: as a reason. But like some radical right wing guy
Speaker 2: like if George Wallas become president or he would want
Speaker 2: to become president, it would not look anything like Germany
Speaker 2: in nineteen thirty three. You're like Italy in nineteen twenty two.
Speaker 2: Like that's ridiculous. That's not the way we do things here.
Speaker 2: Like that's like that's like saying that that says retarded
Speaker 2: as saying like oh, if Donald Trump paid his way,
Speaker 2: you know he would he would he you know, he
Speaker 2: would be like the holy Roman Emperor. Like it doesn't
Speaker 2: it doesn't make any sense. But I you know, like
Speaker 2: I made the point before that the entire like civic
Speaker 2: religion of America is like is anti fascism, which which
Speaker 2: is particularly kind of aside in this country. But yeah, well.
Speaker 1: That that set me up perfectly, so we know because
Speaker 1: you know, Genteel Gentili wrote what fascism was in Italy,
Speaker 1: but as far as I know, you know, really nobody
Speaker 1: in Germany at the time was writing what socialism meant
Speaker 1: to them? What socialist? You know, you can listen to
Speaker 1: the Strasser debates and everything, and you can get it.
Speaker 1: You can get an idea, but in your opinion, what
Speaker 1: what the national socialism of Germany? What did what did
Speaker 1: that socialism actually mean?
Speaker 2: I mean they were drawing upon a couple of things,
Speaker 2: and if you read there's not a lot you can extrapolate.
Speaker 2: I was telling people to read Hitler's second book because
Speaker 2: it's instructive, but it flushes out as geostrategic ideas and
Speaker 2: some other things, and it's just interesting reading. You know,
Speaker 2: it was never published, like the manuscript was found by
Speaker 2: the US Army and then it was handed over to
Speaker 2: its handled an Army intelligence and chain of custody was weird,
Speaker 2: but it is. It has been authenticated. I mean it
Speaker 2: was it was Taylor's actual manuscript, but it wasn't published
Speaker 2: and available at public until after the war. But you know, people,
Speaker 2: there's not like there's not only you can extrap away
Speaker 2: from mine. Cop that's why it's idiotic. But people, oh,
Speaker 2: it's a boring book. It's like, well, yeah, it's it's
Speaker 2: it's it's an electioneer screed from the nineteen twenties, Like
Speaker 2: why why would it be interesting today? But what is
Speaker 2: interesting like when he talks about when he when when
Speaker 2: Hiller talks about his his ideas on conflict between human populations,
Speaker 2: like that's that's instructive. And also, you know, I made
Speaker 2: the point of people before Hitler was he was just
Speaker 2: Catholic Habsburg, Austrian who uh basically identified his movements as
Speaker 2: the legacy of the Prussian state. And you know, the
Speaker 2: the December eleventh speech the Reichstag, which is really Hitler's
Speaker 2: last public address of the Reichstag. You know, that's like
Speaker 2: when he issued the declaration of war against America, he
Speaker 2: talks about, uh, he talks about we like the royal
Speaker 2: we like in a reference to the Prussians and the
Speaker 2: Napoleonic Wars. Okay, so I mean he's saying like and
Speaker 2: then then that's notable because like, you know, Prussia was
Speaker 2: at odds with the rest of the German kingdoms. I
Speaker 2: mean that's a little bit off topic, but he as
Speaker 2: it may like Adalf Hitler himself. If Adolf Hitler is
Speaker 2: like the standard bearer of like right wing socialism in Bymar,
Speaker 2: which I mean, I think I think we can say
Speaker 2: that he was, because he's the man who became king. Proverbially,
Speaker 2: his view was what I just said, It was that
Speaker 2: you know, the the proper like German, the proper German
Speaker 2: model of a national life is is Prussia, and and
Speaker 2: the Prussian model was based on was based on the army,
Speaker 2: and you know the the cynegepe baratus that that were
Speaker 2: vote around that. So I mean that's the way, that's
Speaker 2: what you can think of German socialism. Of course, to
Speaker 2: your point, guys like Strasser, guys like ram Uh Kurt
Speaker 2: von schleik Or I think was a lesser aristocrat who
Speaker 2: was basically cynical and he didn't really care, but he
Speaker 2: was obviously through his lot with with Strasser and Rahm
Speaker 2: because he wanted to destroy Hitler. But all these guys,
Speaker 2: at least what they were advocating in public was they
Speaker 2: were saying, like, you know, Hitler is a tool of
Speaker 2: the bourgeoisie. He's not really a revolutionary, he's just a reactionary,
Speaker 2: and he's a petty bourgeois buffoon. So I mean the
Speaker 2: note true Scotsman stuff about socialism. A lot of that
Speaker 2: was interesting rivalry between national socialists. It's not like the
Speaker 2: German street was. We're like nineteen seventies era, like you
Speaker 2: know Berkeley types, you know, talking about like who's a
Speaker 2: real socialist. It was a lot more. It was a
Speaker 2: lot less existential and like a lot more like polemical
Speaker 2: and kind of cynical than that. I mean, that's my view,
Speaker 2: and I think i'm something. It's not an expert. I
Speaker 2: think I have some I think I have some expertise
Speaker 2: on the topic. At least.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to Sorel, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to mention this. So you mentioned that Prussia was based
Speaker 1: off of the military. A lot of people, a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans, point out that, you know, Prussian schooling is
Speaker 1: you know, what's his name, I can't even remember his name. Now,
Speaker 1: he went to Prussia, saw saw how the schooling was done,
Speaker 1: and basically brought it back. And but what a lot
Speaker 1: of people will say is that all that schooling is
Speaker 1: meant to do is turn people into a cog in
Speaker 1: the machine to be plugged in. So if that is true.
Speaker 1: It seems like that is creating a group of people
Speaker 1: in that there the students. If the students are all
Speaker 1: learning the same thing, then that could be seen as egalitarian.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well the difference two of courses. Yeah, it's not
Speaker 2: just that. Know, the Prussian model identifies that, you know,
Speaker 2: the vast difference in human intellect and abilities and kind
Speaker 2: of organizes people and the perobial slots or organize them
Speaker 2: based on you know, how those things can be cultivated
Speaker 2: and utilized. But also like the core of the Prussian
Speaker 2: ethos is, you know, the the racial community. So if
Speaker 2: you take that Prussian model, when you utilize it as
Speaker 2: kind of a way of of the rant and people
Speaker 2: and saying, Okay, you're not like a Mexican, You're not
Speaker 2: like a white man. You're not you're not black. You know,
Speaker 2: you're not you're not Asian, You're you're just you're just American.
Speaker 2: You just have the civic identity where you're not gonna
Speaker 2: speak your own language anymore. You know, you're not gonna
Speaker 2: go to your own church anymore. You're not gonna you know,
Speaker 2: you're not gonna abide these habits anymore of your forebears,
Speaker 2: you know, like that's like that's what's really asitious about
Speaker 2: like the New Dealer or like American model. It's not
Speaker 2: it's not so much that it declares that like every
Speaker 2: man is gonna have some kind of like income in common,
Speaker 2: or that it's going to like reduce you know, like
Speaker 2: the proverbial disparity you know, between the ownership cast than
Speaker 2: what was then the working cast. Like what was insidious
Speaker 2: about is that it was tailed to essentially like strict
Speaker 2: people of any ability to live historically and any like
Speaker 2: meaningful you know, actual cultural identity. You know, it's gonna
Speaker 2: like alienate Mann from his heritage and from history in
Speaker 2: absolute terms. Like that's the big difference. And that's also
Speaker 2: why I object a lot. There's something to it when
Speaker 2: people talk about quote cultural Marxism, if they're talking about
Speaker 2: Gramsey and Adorno like contra marx and angles, but they
Speaker 2: don't understand that like a lot of this, a lot
Speaker 2: of this doesn't have to do with Orthodox and Marxism
Speaker 2: or Frankward school stuff at all. A lot of it's
Speaker 2: like New Dealer bullshit, you know, like raceline, Like God
Speaker 2: is dead. You know, we we we know now that
Speaker 2: like everything is reducible to you know, data derived from
Speaker 2: the scientific method. You know, the man's basically just like
Speaker 2: an animal who can talk, and you know, there's no
Speaker 2: more history and there's no more culture. All that matters
Speaker 2: is making man more suitable to governance and eliminating these
Speaker 2: you know, these problems like you know, like like like
Speaker 2: conflict between the races, or like men and women not
Speaker 2: getting along, like that's like.
Speaker 1: That kind of or family. I mean, just read the
Speaker 1: authoritarian personality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, exactly. I mean there's like a pastiche like
Speaker 2: definitely like Frankward school stuff and and and that kind
Speaker 2: of thing became pre eminent like in especially like as
Speaker 2: as the American left broke entirely, not just the American left,
Speaker 2: but in Europe, like with the left just in in
Speaker 2: Macro terms, like broke with like Stalinism and decided like
Speaker 2: the East Block or their enemy. I mean, this was
Speaker 2: long in coming, but they were looking around or some
Speaker 2: kind of or some ideological cannon and they settled down
Speaker 2: like the Frankward school. But this is also what had
Speaker 2: been turned loose on on on on divided Germany, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, so there's a lot of things. Yeah, this
Speaker 2: definitely became part of like the American conceptual arise, like
Speaker 2: in policy terms as well as academic and electual terms.
Speaker 2: But there was a lot of stuff that also like
Speaker 2: preceded it, you know, like these fools like were uh
Speaker 2: who built like that part of education and all that
Speaker 2: kind of stuff, and and these and these, uh and
Speaker 2: even even even a lot of guys who proceeded in
Speaker 2: their dealers like Colonel House, who was uh, you know,
Speaker 2: Wills kind of the Wilson's uh kind of Machiavelli, you know,
Speaker 2: administered without portfolio like uh, even he was like prone
Speaker 2: to a lot of that kind of nonsense. Like House
Speaker 2: wrote that he wrote this really bad science fiction novel
Speaker 2: where there was like this benevolent dictator who was obviously
Speaker 2: supposed to be himself, and uh he basically like you know,
Speaker 2: finds a way to like strip man of any like
Speaker 2: historical identity and he like forces everybody to speak this
Speaker 2: like esperantial language. So now there's like no more war,
Speaker 2: and this great man becomes like God on earth because
Speaker 2: there's no more war. And it's like why why would
Speaker 2: that be remotely desirable? It sounds like a nightmare. Like
Speaker 2: like idiots like Colonel House like there's some like great
Speaker 2: utopia that like you know that quits government of any
Speaker 2: criticism because you know, the the greatest thing ever is
Speaker 2: somehow like if black kids had high test scores and
Speaker 2: like everyone he was going to be prison were war
Speaker 2: is impossible? Like Nova explain like why these things are
Speaker 2: so awesome, but like that's their conceit.
Speaker 1: Let me just uh try to nail down exactly what
Speaker 1: you meant when I when I mentioned the Prussian schooling.
Speaker 1: So in Prussia, if your if your goal is to
Speaker 1: educate everyone and bring them down into a cohesive culture
Speaker 1: that works within itself, and that's what the Prussian that's
Speaker 1: what the Prussian education system meant to do. But if
Speaker 1: you if you transfer that over into the United States,
Speaker 1: now you're stripping a multi cultural society and you're saying
Speaker 1: everyone has to be one. And obviously some are going
Speaker 1: to rebel against that and not and the ones that
Speaker 1: don't rebel against it are going to basically lose what
Speaker 1: kind of social cohesion they have within their own community.
Speaker 2: No exactly, And that's what I one of the things
Speaker 2: that brought to the United States and the Soviet Union together.
Speaker 2: I'm talking you know, like the new Deal Stalinist alliance,
Speaker 2: like on it's based in geo strategic terms, it doesn't
Speaker 2: make a lot of sense. Like I what Lindbergh said
Speaker 2: and what Houston Stewart Chamberlain said, they I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: those guys obviously had political and aesthetic preferences for Germany,
Speaker 2: but in ragio strategic terms, it doesn't really make sense
Speaker 2: for America in the UK to decide they're going to
Speaker 2: annihilate Germany an alliance with Russia. Like what makes sense
Speaker 2: is for you know, Europe, led by Germany, the UK
Speaker 2: and the United States, you know, to house do this
Speaker 2: kind of ramparts against the East. You know, whether it's China,
Speaker 2: whether it's Russia, you know, whatever it is. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: there's there's a basic iologic to uh to what developed.
Speaker 2: And one of the reasons why that happened was uh
Speaker 2: ideological necessity. And the United States from the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: when about irrationality of their objectives domestically, uh, there they
Speaker 2: had similar problems, you know, Stealin's big problem with the
Speaker 2: nationalities problem, you know, like how do I strip everybody
Speaker 2: their ethnic identity and make them into new Soviet Man?
Speaker 2: And the New Dealers were like they had the same problem,
Speaker 2: you know, like how do you like destroy like the
Speaker 2: nationalities in America? You know, And and I mean that
Speaker 2: this still goes on in the day. Like that's why
Speaker 2: in typical fashion, when the regime talks about quote multiculturalism,
Speaker 2: they're talking about the opposite. They don't about like the
Speaker 2: eradication of all cultures, you know. But that's there's very
Speaker 2: few I mean that is now there's not a hell
Speaker 2: of a lot of states or organized like the United
Speaker 2: States or like the Soviet Union was, Like it's not
Speaker 2: it's not a natural political mode of organization. So you
Speaker 2: can do one or two things there. You know. You
Speaker 2: can either you can either you can either rule by
Speaker 2: way like kind of evolve federalism, you know, and and
Speaker 2: basically leave people alone to manage their own affairs within
Speaker 2: their own culture spaces. Or but I mean government never
Speaker 2: is wanting to do that, I mean, at least here,
Speaker 2: so they're always gonna opt for this idea of of this,
Speaker 2: you know, eradicating culture and ripping people out of out
Speaker 2: of a historical existence. And both are I mean, that's
Speaker 2: one of the things that brought down to soy Union.
Speaker 2: And that's all that's also one of the reasons why
Speaker 2: post World War like America does not have moral legitimacy.
Speaker 2: But that was definitely what they wanted to do. And
Speaker 2: the but there's well it's gonna sound like a goofy example,
Speaker 2: but I'm using it because it pops up again and again.
Speaker 2: In the sixties, I read a lot of science fiction
Speaker 2: from the era, and science fiction from that era wasn't
Speaker 2: just entertainment. There's a lot of think tank guys. I
Speaker 2: mean even to the until eighties and Jerry Pornell, who
Speaker 2: was you know, kind of the Drivings my sdi like
Speaker 2: he wrote science fiction and he was when he you know,
Speaker 2: incident to his like think tank and policy work and stuff.
Speaker 2: But you know, there's that cornyal Star Trek episode where
Speaker 2: like Captain Kirk and Spock they go down to this
Speaker 2: planet and it's like the Third Reich and they know
Speaker 2: how this is possible, like you know what I'm talking about, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then they and then ultimately it's unraveled, like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: this guy in like the twenty second century, he created
Speaker 2: like from the craft lands on this planet, the primitive humanoids,
Speaker 2: but there are always a war and he's like, okay, well,
Speaker 2: I know, I know how to resolve this. So we
Speaker 2: created this like third rich style regime and then Kirk
Speaker 2: like addresses gay audience, like, you know, this was the
Speaker 2: most efficient government of all time. But you know they
Speaker 2: they were they were brutal racist, so you know, that's
Speaker 2: why it didn't work. But the idea was sent in
Speaker 2: some way noble and that's that's interesting, and that that
Speaker 2: comes up again and again, not just in like corny
Speaker 2: science fiction, but in like policy papers, like we admire
Speaker 2: the Prussian state because the Germans are great people, but
Speaker 2: they're these brutal races. So that's why it didn't work.
Speaker 2: But we've got to strapolate that here in some way,
Speaker 2: but strip it up of these chauvinistic and like racialized
Speaker 2: views and things. People don't think that way directly anymore.
Speaker 2: It's spent finats in different ways, but that's like what
Speaker 2: underlies it, especially in a place like Chicago, but nationwide,
Speaker 2: like a great which these institutions people like, for granted,
Speaker 2: are like things taken from the Prussian State. It's crazy,
Speaker 2: you know, it really is. You know, the degree that's
Speaker 2: not just me, that that that's not just me you know,
Speaker 2: being ah like a teutonal file or something. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm sure like in part of that too, but it's
Speaker 2: just like can't be denied. Like I'm not even saying
Speaker 2: it's like a good or bad thing. It's just reality,
Speaker 2: you know, and that people one time people were way
Speaker 2: more kind of like directly cognit into that or at
Speaker 2: least willing to acknowledge it. Something that's important to consider.
Speaker 2: All right, Why did it get back to the book?
Speaker 2: Shut everybody?
Speaker 1: This is from Imperium Press reflection by Sorel and from
Speaker 1: the forward. I'm gonna read your words and have you
Speaker 1: comments on this. It says, rather has already been alluded to.
Speaker 1: Surrellian violence can best be understood as an absolute, uncompromising
Speaker 1: and radical commitment to pure history, and blood letting parentheses
Speaker 1: one's own in the case of the martyr, and the
Speaker 1: enemies in the case of the partisan, and blood letting
Speaker 1: is the sanctifying process. And you go on to say
Speaker 1: a partisan unwilling to die or commit homicide is no
Speaker 1: more a political soldier or agent of history than would
Speaker 1: be a lawgiver who is incapable for reasons of moral
Speaker 1: or physical frailty of executing a death warrant. Issued by
Speaker 1: order of the King's bench as an agent of exclusive
Speaker 1: sovereign authority. Sorel viewed the modern bourgeoisie as particularly decadent
Speaker 1: and harmful, but he did not think the conditions of
Speaker 1: his epoch to be otherwise unique. All ruling regimes political
Speaker 1: and social develop over time a kind of moral and
Speaker 1: intellectual apathy that precludes its worthiness, or at least revokes
Speaker 1: its mandate to act in a role of guardianship or
Speaker 1: standard bearer over the subject matter of its dominion. This
Speaker 1: is not to suggest a Currell shared a secularized eschatological
Speaker 1: vision of utopian salvation common to Marxists and progressives, which
Speaker 1: posited that the condition of man or the state or
Speaker 1: national community was capable of perfection by way of revolutionary processes. Rather,
Speaker 1: he and I underline this, he viewed the fervor of
Speaker 1: violence as a hygienic mechanism entirely congruent at Congress with
Speaker 1: his own rejection of the linear view of history.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's the best way, it seems for both.
Speaker 2: But it's it's hard to convey these things in in
Speaker 2: kind of rational terms. But that's yeah, I mean, that's
Speaker 2: the best way to think of to describe it. And
Speaker 2: that's I mean, that's so the the degree of which uh,
Speaker 2: I mean this also this uh, some of this sorell
Speaker 2: was definitely like in in in direct dialogue with the Maestra.
Speaker 2: But some of this, again is found in in the
Speaker 2: kind of pre Socratic hero epics, like like so I
Speaker 2: saw the the Socratic uh what what he used, like
Speaker 2: the decadence of the Socratic uh era in Athens. He said,
Speaker 2: what you were left with was, you know, instead of this,
Speaker 2: instead of this mono class of Yalemen farmers, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: the best of whom you know rose to leadership rank
Speaker 2: whose use education and system mythology and hero epics, what
Speaker 2: you had was they developed this class of professional politicians
Speaker 2: who relied upon intellectuals like Socrates to rationalize their rule,
Speaker 2: but neither of whom were capable of real action, and
Speaker 2: both resented each other and both were afraid of an
Speaker 2: hostile to the ya women warriors. So you're love of
Speaker 2: this kind of like parallel paralysis where the men who
Speaker 2: should be the ones like most capable of direct the
Speaker 2: action and violence are declared that you know, this kind
Speaker 2: of thing is illegal linear moral because they're terrified of
Speaker 2: their own position being swept aside, and then they're on
Speaker 2: like you know, lives being threatened by such a process.
Speaker 2: So there's this kind of like ongoing paralysis where this
Speaker 2: just kind of like meaningless discourse takes the place of action.
Speaker 2: And yeah, like I said in the intro that you've
Speaker 2: just reiterated, it's not a swelfout. Violence was so great
Speaker 2: or like the sexy thing that we all got to
Speaker 2: get into. He was saying that, you know, in political terms,
Speaker 2: you're not serious unless you know you're willing to implement
Speaker 2: your will through violence. And in fact, he took human
Speaker 2: life and they're taking out very seriously. And that's one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why there's something Sago saying about the
Speaker 2: revolutionary process. If you're literally willing to kill people, even
Speaker 2: if they're your enemies, maybe especially if you're enemies, Like,
Speaker 2: that's a very serious thing. You know, it's not something
Speaker 2: you do flippantly, and that's certainly not something you deal
Speaker 2: with pettigouse agreements. And if you're willing to do that, uh,
Speaker 2: there's a sacred aspect to that that commands a certain
Speaker 2: reverential observance. I mean, it's it's all of those things.
Speaker 2: But that's also why that's also and until things reach
Speaker 2: that state, whether it's because you know, the like the
Speaker 2: extens system is feeling structurally at such a point that
Speaker 2: people find themselves in these just dire circumstances where there's
Speaker 2: survivals and jeopardy, or when you're talking about, you know,
Speaker 2: a revolutionary circumstance incident to you know, uh, a wire
Speaker 2: kind of strategic pairing of warfare. You know what what
Speaker 2: necessitates these things is is is a convergence of extreme
Speaker 2: conditions and and the human will and the hardening of
Speaker 2: the human heart within that will. So like when people
Speaker 2: in America, like at present, I mean like likes talk
Speaker 2: about it like, oh, Donald Trump is an extremist or oh,
Speaker 2: you know, we're we're under siege by by by quote Marxist,
Speaker 2: You'll know. You'll know when that's underway, man, because the
Speaker 2: bodies being dropped. And thankfully that's not happening because in
Speaker 2: the Americans condition and then under present conditions, I don't
Speaker 2: I don't think I would lead anything positive frankly, Okay,
Speaker 2: I just don't. That may change, but for now, we
Speaker 2: would it would, it would, It would mean a lot
Speaker 2: of suffering, and a lot of a lot of dead
Speaker 2: people being stacked up for no real purpose. But yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's also and also like I don't want to
Speaker 2: get too far afield, but this is intrinsic to anything
Speaker 2: that European political theorists wrote about really till the twentieth century,
Speaker 2: This idea, this kind of rollsy and live capital liberal
Speaker 2: idea that people have in America kind of like on
Speaker 2: all sides of the political are both sides of the
Speaker 2: political spectrum of like, oh, politics are just as rational
Speaker 2: process that people decided to create and implement, Like no
Speaker 2: Europeans thought that way. Politics is mysterious and like the
Speaker 2: zene of the political occurrences is warfare, and you know, politics,
Speaker 2: like warfare itself is its origin is mysterious. We don't
Speaker 2: really know why things are ordered this way, you know,
Speaker 2: even if you don't believe in God, there's there's some
Speaker 2: kind of they're they're there, there's some kind of design.
Speaker 2: Even even even if it just man acting out, you know,
Speaker 2: is is programming like as in as in an ant
Speaker 2: colony would that's very mysterious and strange. We don't know
Speaker 2: why that happens, you know, So all you can really
Speaker 2: do is you're truly like in quite literal terms, like
Speaker 2: writing the peribial tiger to try and manage, you know,
Speaker 2: political occurrences and in violence, they're in chooses us. We
Speaker 2: don't really choose it. So there's an inherent uh kind
Speaker 2: of providential uh, there's not an identificcasion of providential things
Speaker 2: and phenomenon within the European mind. Conceptually said that that's
Speaker 2: important to keep in mind. Like this really jumps out
Speaker 2: at me, I think, because I mean, I'm very much
Speaker 2: like a God centric person. I'm a Bible Protestant, but
Speaker 2: I'm like an old stock American, so like I'm I'm
Speaker 2: inundated with uh with uh with with kind of like
Speaker 2: American viewpoints and things, you know. And I always was
Speaker 2: even guys like Russell Kirk, you know, who was a Catholic,
Speaker 2: but he was kind of the quintessential like American like
Speaker 2: twentieth century political historian. Like even he like falls into
Speaker 2: this kind of trap of of kind of like ralls
Speaker 2: in and and and Hobbisian ontology about man kind of
Speaker 2: like rationally choosing to like organize politics this way and
Speaker 2: that's nonsense. And then maybe as a topic for another episode,
Speaker 2: but yeah.
Speaker 1: I like that you mentioned and how Europeans view politics
Speaker 1: versus Americans, especially back then, because and then earlier you
Speaker 1: had mentioned how you know, people read Spengler and he
Speaker 1: seem it seems esoteric. Because I recommended Imperium to somebody
Speaker 1: and they started reading it and they're like this, does
Speaker 1: it stay this esoteric? And then that's when you realize
Speaker 1: it's like, well, politics isn't one thing we've been we've
Speaker 1: been convinced, we've been taught in this country that politics
Speaker 1: is just one thing, or it's it's this side against
Speaker 1: this side, and no, politics has a very spiritual side
Speaker 1: to it. That's why I think a lot of people,
Speaker 1: especially people who are Biblical, when they read Imperium and
Speaker 1: they read part one, they're completely blown away because they've
Speaker 1: never read politics like that before.
Speaker 2: That's a good point. Yeah, And Imperium's a really well
Speaker 2: written book. It's not just because I like Francis Yacky
Speaker 2: a lot. I mean, even before I even knew any
Speaker 2: about frand of Yacky, like his book will always pop
Speaker 2: up on AhR uh you know, I uhr newsletters and
Speaker 2: what was Cardo obviously would always plug it and I
Speaker 2: got it. There's a there was a used bookstore in
Speaker 2: Evanston and like Noontime Press at that time, which was
Speaker 2: Willis Carter's outfit, like they weren't currently stocking it. So
Speaker 2: this was like in nineteen ninety seven or so, Like
Speaker 2: I I I had this. I just I just used
Speaker 2: bookstore in Emiston like order meal like an old hard
Speaker 2: copy of Imperium, and then I like took it home
Speaker 2: and read it, and uh, I was like, wow, this
Speaker 2: is really intense stuff and it's really insightful. So I
Speaker 2: mean I came to yacky by reading his book and
Speaker 2: realizing like this is this isn't this is incredibly you know,
Speaker 2: highly developed and serious stuff. And yeah, I said, it's
Speaker 2: just really well written. Some of Jacki's language at the
Speaker 2: time seems overwrought because uh, you know, he was a
Speaker 2: little he was he was he was he was a
Speaker 2: he was a litigation attorney, and I mean that kind
Speaker 2: of comes out, but uh, that's all. That's also as
Speaker 2: part of like the time though, like in the early
Speaker 2: like really until like the nineteen fifties, that's just kind
Speaker 2: of like the way people wrote, even kind of square
Speaker 2: people just like you know, writing on behalf of some
Speaker 2: kind of like even somebody like writing like a like
Speaker 2: an op ed on behalf of like eyes and how
Speaker 2: we're in like the early fifties, like what it would
Speaker 2: seem kind of like overwrought to us properly, like but
Speaker 2: at the language I need. But but yeah, that's some
Speaker 2: you know, it's a it's a it's a serious book
Speaker 2: like whether you know, even if you even if you're
Speaker 2: basically kind of hostle to fishism or you know, postfishes ideas,
Speaker 2: and even if you're not you know, any kind of
Speaker 2: any kind of Germanic phile. I mean you can't like
Speaker 2: like the people claim like imperiums like mystical garbage, like
Speaker 2: none of them I've actually read the book. I know.
Speaker 2: It's like I've engaged them, like, well, what do you
Speaker 2: object to specifically? Like they can't tell you. There's like repeating,
Speaker 2: there's like repeating some nonsense they like read online or
Speaker 2: they're just you know, it's just like some conceit they
Speaker 2: have that I guarantee you they have not actually read it.
Speaker 2: I'm so great, maybe them like a bookworm I've actually read,
Speaker 2: like I I've read Martian Angles for twenty years, like
Speaker 2: when I I don't only sound off about a body
Speaker 2: of political theory that I haven't read, and you'll notice,
Speaker 2: like when you're raising them and read it till you're
Speaker 2: right off, Like I haven't read that, but I don't
Speaker 2: most people. Most people don't sit around like you know,
Speaker 2: reading Dost Capital. Most people don't sit down and read
Speaker 2: like all six hundred pages of Imperial They just don't.
Speaker 2: Owing to the fact that everybody's got to live their
Speaker 2: life doing what they gotta do. I'm lucky to have
Speaker 2: the time to like read this kind of shit. But
Speaker 2: it's also I mean people that I don't think people
Speaker 2: with the attention span anymore, like even smart guys like I.
Speaker 2: One of the things I learned to do in law school.
Speaker 2: If if I drive anything of value, that experience is
Speaker 2: like I can sit down for like nine hours and
Speaker 2: like power through like pays and pays and pays a
Speaker 2: dense text. There's things that what's rather do than that?
Speaker 2: But I can do it and like it doesn't you know,
Speaker 2: it doesn't like it's not like torture to me. So yeah.
Speaker 1: The part of the forward is under the title Modernist
Speaker 1: violence and service of Ancient Virtues and something that I
Speaker 1: A couple sections I gonna pick out here. He viewed
Speaker 1: the organization, management, and economics of the homestead, and the
Speaker 1: cultural values intrinsic to this enterprise as being inextricably linked
Speaker 1: to and mutually reinforcing of military competence and endeavors and
Speaker 1: the waging of war itself. Moving down, he further views
Speaker 1: the Yeoman Homestead as a school of command. A man
Speaker 1: must rule his wife and children firmly, but also caringly
Speaker 1: and justly. He must also demonstrate his worthiness to wield
Speaker 1: his authority. A man's wife and children are obliged to
Speaker 1: obey his commands, but only insofar as his command's command
Speaker 1: role is tempered by correct virtues and practical reason. Do
Speaker 1: you think that is why the founding of this country
Speaker 1: actually worked in the beginning, In the beginning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And then like I said, it calls back to
Speaker 2: tom If you read uh, if if you read what
Speaker 2: these confederate like mental letters were writing about, I mean
Speaker 2: that that's what that was their mythology. They were calling upon.
Speaker 2: They were they were calling upon Athens. Okay, I mean
Speaker 2: like later, you know, you read everything from Walker Percy
Speaker 2: to UH to Michael Sharah, you know, guy with the
Speaker 2: Killer Angels you know, they they vote like our Thorian
Speaker 2: legend and stuff. But I mean really, the way the
Speaker 2: southerns thought of themselves, it was like that, you know,
Speaker 2: and and that's why, like you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: like place names everything else, you know, like Athenian references
Speaker 2: you know, were ubiquitous and the anti belle themself and
Speaker 2: to some degree that still are in themself. And yeah,
Speaker 2: that's the way they viewed it because again, the South
Speaker 2: was not the South was not the Habsburg Empire. It
Speaker 2: was it was it was, it was. It was a
Speaker 2: ye woman reed who viewed themselves as kind of like
Speaker 2: a monocast, you know, like that's why. And I mean
Speaker 2: part of that was possible because like, uh, slave was racialized,
Speaker 2: you know like that. But so I mean you dated
Speaker 2: somebody's like a monocast, like even even like a poor
Speaker 2: even like a poor like white like tenant farmer and
Speaker 2: like a lord in the manor, like they had some
Speaker 2: kind of political interest in common, like cont for the slaves.
Speaker 2: Now I know that, Like I know, people like Howard
Speaker 2: Vinn would be like, oh, that's because they were just
Speaker 2: educated and you know, racial prejudice, like that's not the case,
Speaker 2: Like they're at people do obviously identify in communitarian terms,
Speaker 2: like along racial and cultural lines, and that's only possible
Speaker 2: that then that's really only possible if there is like
Speaker 2: an US and them like paradigm. That's not good or bad,
Speaker 2: it's just the way it is. And yeah, that's if
Speaker 2: you and then North it was a little bit different.
Speaker 2: But at the same time too, like I said, even
Speaker 2: you know, the uh, the the old right what was
Speaker 2: called old right in the twentieth century, you know America
Speaker 2: first and Robert Taft and stuff that those guys were.
Speaker 2: Those guys were Hamiltonian Republic. They were like northern city slickers.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, you know, they they viewed, uh,
Speaker 2: they viewed the American ideal. You know, it's like the
Speaker 2: small business man, like our version of the Kulak, you know,
Speaker 2: like they so that I'm maintaining it's not just a
Speaker 2: Confederate conceit that is truly like the old American ethos.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's got no, it's got nothing. Uh you know,
Speaker 2: there is no Caesar in that equation. Okay, So it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's not there's no Caesar and there's not
Speaker 2: even a King Arthur. You know, there's a the the
Speaker 2: ideal like like the American hero, he's an archetype. He's
Speaker 2: not he's not a king or he's not like a
Speaker 2: man in a certain in a certain official role. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I think I think that's fundamentally important. And I mean
Speaker 2: that's the way I think, like not even consciously, like
Speaker 2: I you know, that's why I think some of these
Speaker 2: like trad guys in the internet are wro. It's like
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about like like actual like Russian guys.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about you know some of these, uh,
Speaker 2: some of these Moslim guys who who are by that
Speaker 2: world I thought, I know, like guys from Terry Hood, Indiana,
Speaker 2: but like decide that they're like trade Catholics or something.
Speaker 2: It's like, bro, like what you want you want to
Speaker 2: like you know, you wanna you want to you want
Speaker 2: to you want to want to pretend it's you know,
Speaker 2: we got a king here or something, or you want
Speaker 2: to pretend you're in the court of Caesar, Like why
Speaker 2: the fun would you want to do that? And plus,
Speaker 2: I mean it's not like our heritage anyway, you know,
Speaker 2: Like that doesn't that doesn't work.
Speaker 1: People hate to hear this, but I mean we're a
Speaker 1: Protestant country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, Yeah, I agree with you, Michael Joneses,
Speaker 2: like if you are like, you know, culturally Catholic. I
Speaker 2: mean Jones is right, like America it wasn't as a
Speaker 2: massively anti Catholic country. And I don't think that's a
Speaker 2: good thing because I'm not a bigot, but that this
Speaker 2: idea you can like saw reconcile Americanism with Roman Catholicism
Speaker 2: and just make the Pope some kind of like first
Speaker 2: deacon or some kind of like you know, or some
Speaker 2: kind of like equivalent of Billy Graham. Like that that's ridiculous,
Speaker 2: like that, that's that's not Catholicism. Then you know, you're
Speaker 2: just like some guy like like go with the math
Speaker 2: occasionally and you know, uh, Christmas Eve at midnight, you know,
Speaker 2: goes like a local perish. But that Catholics in man's
Speaker 2: actual implications for politics and authority and like the pope
Speaker 2: is either that the pope's either the Emperor of Europe
Speaker 2: in absolute terms or he's not. You know, I mean
Speaker 2: he's not he's not Billy Graham, He's not this, he's
Speaker 2: not this deacon in a weird hat who like we
Speaker 2: all kind of listen to when we want to, you know,
Speaker 2: like he he has either God's emissary on earth or
Speaker 2: he's not. You know, in my fight, I'm not a Catholic,
Speaker 2: but if you are, you can't. You can't be a
Speaker 2: Catholic and then decide to like you're going to like
Speaker 2: pretend Joe Biden as the president, you know, like.
Speaker 1: I wanted to. I wanted to read this one section
Speaker 1: under anti modern modernism. He says, uh Sorel shared with
Speaker 1: Pradon and Hobbes a pessimistic view of nature. This is
Speaker 1: one facet of Sorellian thought that fundamentally alters the way
Speaker 1: in which Sorel's relationship to socialism is to be understood.
Speaker 1: Cyrel viewed man as basically mired in sin and driven
Speaker 1: by his own avarice and egoism and desire for his
Speaker 1: own gain. This tendency, in the Cirellian view, and this
Speaker 1: is the part I underlined, is only overcome by submission
Speaker 1: to sovereign authority customary as well as formal in ordinary conditions,
Speaker 1: and when necessary, by immersion in collectively dynamic and violent efforts,
Speaker 1: often themselves both revolutionary and restorative in character. Sorel's commitment
Speaker 1: to socialism must be understood within this context that socialism,
Speaker 1: for better or worse, was considered a historic inevitability in
Speaker 1: structural terms, and if nothing else, it was at least
Speaker 1: grudgingly stipulated, even by many of its staunchest critics on
Speaker 1: the European right, that at least some concessions to the
Speaker 1: popular demands of socialist parties would need to be made
Speaker 1: for any future government to enjoy the legitimacy it required
Speaker 1: to effectively rules.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's why, and that's how, and that explains
Speaker 2: the ascendency of of of of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 2: I mean, Hitler was always more popular than the party,
Speaker 2: but eventually, you know, Hindenburg, U Hindenburg personally disliked Hitler,
Speaker 2: and I think him, I think Hindenburg personally disliked the
Speaker 2: National Socialists. But you know, again, it was the Stalhelm
Speaker 2: wasn't going anywhere for that for that reason that uh
Speaker 2: Currell outlined and that I just kind of like explicated
Speaker 2: in plain English, the uh you know this there's I
Speaker 2: realized that you know, in from the twentieth century onward,
Speaker 2: especially with the advident visual media, as well as you know,
Speaker 2: the concentration of power in in Key Loki and the
Speaker 2: ability of consolidated governments to you know, to kind of
Speaker 2: dictate policy. You know, there's there's a power to kind
Speaker 2: of create a conceptual horizon, you know, like the media
Speaker 2: like in the in the Oliver Stone movie Natural Learn Killers.
Speaker 2: You know, like what he Harrelton says. He says the
Speaker 2: reporter like media is like whether, but it's man made
Speaker 2: whether like that that's actually really poignant, Okay, And like
Speaker 2: I stipulate that that's very true. At the same time,
Speaker 2: you can't just generate some kind of like revolutionary tendency
Speaker 2: out of the air or and he can't just quash
Speaker 2: one that's emergent. So this idea that you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: I think Annolf Hiller believed everything he said, for better
Speaker 2: or worse, whether you think Hitler was great or what anything.
Speaker 2: He was evil, Like he wasn't a liar, and he
Speaker 2: wasn't he wasn't a politician in the conventional sense, Like
Speaker 2: he believed everything he said. He didn't take on like
Speaker 2: a socialist program like like Thaloman claimed and the KVD claim,
Speaker 2: you know, just for cynical reasons, like he believed in it,
Speaker 2: like even if you didn't, like, yeah, it was the reality.
Speaker 1: Was that he might be wrong, but he never lied.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the and the Vimart voter, the var voter
Speaker 2: at a social sensibility, like you could say that that
Speaker 2: was bad or that you didn't accept that. It's like
Speaker 2: well okay, but then you're not in the game, you know,
Speaker 2: So there's no there's no way to kind of like
Speaker 2: reactionary party or or some kind of like kaiser Reich
Speaker 2: ravancist party like what would have gone anywhere in Germany,
Speaker 2: Like you just wouldn't have you know. And and like
Speaker 2: I said, that wasn't just that was that wasn't just
Speaker 2: like the fervor of like you know, the kind of
Speaker 2: red wave after nineteen twenty one twenty two. It was
Speaker 2: that was like deeply insinuated into like the German consciousns
Speaker 2: you know, like the uh, this idea you know, like
Speaker 2: like we talked about that at the at the top
Speaker 2: of the hour, like the the you know, uh, socialism
Speaker 2: as we know it especially you know, came from it
Speaker 2: came from Prussia and and came from uh that that
Speaker 2: state of organization with yourself was derived from this desire
Speaker 2: and this fundamental imperative to kind of repair the social
Speaker 2: fabric that it ceased to exist after you know, the
Speaker 2: medieval era disappeared into into historical time. I gotta raise
Speaker 2: up in a minute, though, So let's we can we
Speaker 2: can go part two on this if you want. But yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: there's anything else you want to hit, just real quick though,
Speaker 2: in terms of key points. So let's take those up now.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's just do one one last question. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: do you think America has ever had a right wing
Speaker 1: and if they did, when did it disappear? Do they
Speaker 1: have a right wing?
Speaker 2: Now? Yeah, I'm gonna deal with the first part of
Speaker 2: the question. First, the War between the States, there was
Speaker 2: there was something of a there was not conventionally right
Speaker 2: left paradigm to that, but it was the precursor of it. Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean there was guys in the North who were
Speaker 2: who were kind of nullifiers, who didn't really want to
Speaker 2: you know, in there, who were the free soilers. They
Speaker 2: didn't really want a part of the war between the States,
Speaker 2: but they were highly racially conscious and highly anti government. Uh.
Speaker 2: But if you're talking about the actual partisans, you know,
Speaker 2: like the kind of like kind of the true like
Speaker 2: rebels in the South, and uh, and you were talking
Speaker 2: about the fire years in the North, you like, and
Speaker 2: and the the like the radical abolitionists, like there was
Speaker 2: there was something of a precursor to like right left
Speaker 2: divide in America. It's an imperfect analogy, but there's that later.
Speaker 2: I agree with basically when Patty Cannon wrote in the
Speaker 2: eighties and nineties about the old right being you know,
Speaker 2: the the Hamiltonian uh, Robert Taft right, the America first right,
Speaker 2: that was that that was the emergent American right in
Speaker 2: modern terms, okay, and uh, you know in the in
Speaker 2: the in the you know, in the in the twentieth century,
Speaker 2: the words win the state wasn't ancient history. It was
Speaker 2: less than one hundred years in the past. Okay. So
Speaker 2: I mean the like America is like a consolidated uh
Speaker 2: national union was was a pretty new thing. So there's
Speaker 2: that too. The I believe, Uh, I'm always making the
Speaker 2: point that you know, the Nuremberg system replacing the Westphalian
Speaker 2: system that had not just profound implications for international order
Speaker 2: and more in peace and and and and the conceptual
Speaker 2: horizon of of of of heads of state, but it
Speaker 2: also uh, it made it made the political right quite
Speaker 2: literally illeal because that that that was part, that was
Speaker 2: that was half of the reason for holding the Nuremberg
Speaker 2: proceedings in the first place, is to say that you know, okay,
Speaker 2: like you know, the Allies were on the side of
Speaker 2: of providence and history and opposition to that which is
Speaker 2: the right wing. You know, this is a criminal conspiracy
Speaker 2: of racist murders, you know, and and and obviously you know,
Speaker 2: no no rational actors such as you know, the Marxist
Speaker 2: Leninists in Moscow and the New Years in Washington whatever
Speaker 2: started war. So wars were only started, you know, by
Speaker 2: the trigues and conspiracies of of breakings and criminals and races.
Speaker 2: And that's what the right wing is, you know. So
Speaker 2: where it's it's it's illegal to hold these views because
Speaker 2: they result in genocide and warfare. That's why after that's
Speaker 2: why there was no like Hewing Long or Robert Taft
Speaker 2: after nineteen forty nine or forty eight forty nine, okay, like, uh,
Speaker 2: you the closest thing was a guy like Joe McCarthy.
Speaker 2: But obviously you know, there were there were the uh
Speaker 2: the deep state closed ranks to wipe him out. And
Speaker 2: I'm that said McCarthy was like a great guy. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying morally, I mean, I don't think he was.
Speaker 2: I think it was kind of a bumpkin. I don't
Speaker 2: think he was a great figure hit and I've got
Speaker 2: my own issues with him. But certainly the name was
Speaker 2: Roy Cohne didn't do any favors but the for all
Speaker 2: kinds of reasons, but that are Cold War series. But
Speaker 2: the but that was that was basically the American right
Speaker 2: as it was as it was Acipha and you know,
Speaker 2: hewing long Robert Taft Wallace was a resurgence of that,
Speaker 2: you know, And and of course Nixon took on the
Speaker 2: Wallace Coalition, which became the Reagan Coalition, which became Mega.
Speaker 2: That's right wing in the American sense. I mean, I
Speaker 2: I think it's somewhat of a protest movement. But at
Speaker 2: the if those people had better leadership, and if they
Speaker 2: had UH and if they had a stronger intellectual foundation,
Speaker 2: I think they'd very much like identify with Taffian principles,
Speaker 2: like actual America First principles. So yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 2: think I think that's basically genuine. I I think there's
Speaker 2: a lot of silly stuff like within I mean, if
Speaker 2: we can still consider like MEGA to be a movement
Speaker 2: like the you know, the I was on the ground
Speaker 2: in January sixth, And I'm not saying that to sound
Speaker 2: like I mean like figure that one killer and not
Speaker 2: trying to come off like Rodoni Junior's characters that you know,
Speaker 2: like I was there when the ship went down at Gretade.
Speaker 2: I was there. I'm not trying to come off like that.
Speaker 2: But like I raised that a lot because like people
Speaker 2: say all kinds of crazy stuff about January sixth, and
Speaker 2: like when I tell them like they're wrong, and it well,
Speaker 2: how do you know? It's like, well because I was there,
Speaker 2: fucker like that's how But and and those people were gutsy.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of them for like turning out
Speaker 2: in depth, you know, to exhibit their discontent, which was
Speaker 2: entirely well placed. But there's also just like a lot
Speaker 2: of like fucking real goofs man and like guys doing
Speaker 2: dumb shit, you know, like like that freaking weirdo like
Speaker 2: oupainting himself up like brave Heart, like running around like
Speaker 2: like an idiot. Like I saw a lot of like
Speaker 2: that kind of shit, and there's like goofy stuff like
Speaker 2: that that you know, like on the MAGA, right, So
Speaker 2: I mean there's like more than like a seed of
Speaker 2: potential and they are in some real way like the
Speaker 2: airrors to like you know, the Taff Hamiltonian and later
Speaker 2: like the you know, the Wallace, Nixon Reagan uh coalition.
Speaker 2: But it's problematic because like America is problematic in terms
Speaker 2: of how colitics break down. I mean, that's my view
Speaker 2: of it. I'm not I'm not saying bad I'm not
Speaker 2: trashing mega people like I mean, most of my friends
Speaker 2: are our constitute or people like that. You know, I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not some snob. I mean, how can I be.
Speaker 2: So I don't want people to think I'm like saying
Speaker 2: new things about them but them. But yeah, uh that's
Speaker 2: my view and at a.
Speaker 1: Glance, and you need to get out of here, do
Speaker 1: plugs real quick and we'll do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Pete. You can find me on Twitter
Speaker 2: at Chriskellian jahad. Uh. The T is a number seven.
Speaker 2: But if if I think, if you serve for Thomas
Speaker 2: seven seven seven, I come up. I I got kicked
Speaker 2: off at t RAND for criticizing Uh, mister Zolensky, which
Speaker 2: is interesting. On t gram there's guys that literally post
Speaker 2: like really gross like pornography and like pictures of dead people,
Speaker 2: like really awful stuff. I don't sounds like some fucking
Speaker 2: shrinking violet, but I mean I find that kind of
Speaker 2: stuff upset it, you know, and like I but so
Speaker 2: that's okay, but like you trash like Lensky, like you
Speaker 2: get like moved. So I mean, hey, it's it's neither
Speaker 2: here or there. We don't need t gramm anymore because
Speaker 2: the centenship regime is is has been broken in some way,
Speaker 2: like enough at least that we can get our message out.
Speaker 2: But so I'm not on t gram anymore. But in
Speaker 2: my substack it's real Thomas seven seven seven dot substack
Speaker 2: dot com. There's a chat in there, and if you're
Speaker 2: a subscriber, like you don't need to pay, but you
Speaker 2: do need to subscribe to access to chat. And like
Speaker 2: that's like where we've been congregating. And you can always
Speaker 2: like hit me up on email if you want to
Speaker 2: talk to me direct. It might take me a week
Speaker 2: or two reply just because I get a lot of email.
Speaker 2: It's zartex z e r t a X seven seven
Speaker 2: seven at ProtonMail dot com. And yeah, that's that's all
Speaker 2: I got.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. Man.
Speaker 2: Likewise, man, this is great. Thank you. One.
Speaker 1: Back to the Pin Show, returning for part two on
Speaker 1: George Sorell. It's Thomas seven seven seven. How are you done, sir?
Speaker 2: I'm very well, thanks man, And all I got indicated
Speaker 2: before we went live. There's been an overwhelmingly positive response
Speaker 2: to covering Sorel and then our first episode on Sorell.
Speaker 2: I mean, and that's that's fantastic, Not because it gives
Speaker 2: my ego a boost, although frankly it kind of does,
Speaker 2: and I'm not ashamed to say that, but the fact
Speaker 2: that people are engaging with Sorel in a meaningful way
Speaker 2: is great. It's essential to understanding the twentieth century and
Speaker 2: the trajectory of the political right and and how European
Speaker 2: the political culture developed in fundamental ways, and you know,
Speaker 2: more and more of what we do. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: important to educate our people in our faction, as it
Speaker 2: were anyway, but you know, mein Shamagademia just is not
Speaker 2: taking these things up. The exception is guys like Paul
Speaker 2: Gotfried but I mean he's really on his own, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean, I was Godfrey, you know, one
Speaker 2: of us uh Rick large. But he is a serious
Speaker 2: political theorist. But he's you know, he's he's found a
Speaker 2: niche audience, kind of like Michael Jones says. But you
Speaker 2: know that my point being that what what we're doing
Speaker 2: is really kind of filled uh uh phi satisfying a demand,
Speaker 2: you know, and the fact that demand exists in the
Speaker 2: first place, it is a very positive tendency because that
Speaker 2: was not the case twenty years ago. But yeah, we
Speaker 2: we can dive in. We can dive in immediately. Man.
Speaker 1: All right, well, yeah, here's something to start out with.
Speaker 1: What did what did cREL consider himself? You're you know,
Speaker 1: you read this and definitely brings up syndicalism a lot, definitely,
Speaker 1: And also we know that he changed his mind on
Speaker 1: some things as uh as his life progress. So when
Speaker 1: you read Sorell, when you read Reflections on Violence, what
Speaker 1: is he how how do you see the framework with
Speaker 1: that he's personally writing it in?
Speaker 2: What I think of And that's that's that's a great question.
Speaker 2: What I think of Cyrel personally, I think is a
Speaker 2: pure I think he was a pure political theorist in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, and that's one of the reasons.
Speaker 2: That's one of the things that distinguishes them from mars
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously he was ideological sympathies and his esthetic
Speaker 2: tendencies were totally to odds with Marxism. But you know,
Speaker 2: like we talked about before, you know, Marx had these
Speaker 2: pretensions Marsian angles both an equal measures. They had these
Speaker 2: pretensions to science, you know, or this idea that you know.
Speaker 2: They were they were you know, they were they were
Speaker 2: positing theories of economics, and nothing of the story was underway.
Speaker 2: That's not my own conceptual bias, Like there is no
Speaker 2: Marxist economics. There's a Marxist sociology. And yeah, it posits uh,
Speaker 2: you know, values and and and uh and observations about
Speaker 2: you know, the human condition and how and obviously, I
Speaker 2: mean that's selling a fundamentally concerned with particularly man and
Speaker 2: his relationship his on labor. But that's that's not a
Speaker 2: theory of economics, you know, it's a it's kind of
Speaker 2: it's kind of political sociology that it places a premium
Speaker 2: on on man as an economic actor. Uh, both severally
Speaker 2: and collectively as it is kind of like his primary
Speaker 2: is his primary kind of function as historically as well
Speaker 2: as Andrew pot But that's not that's that's not economic science, okay.
Speaker 2: And but Sorell I Mesuela is very clear that he
Speaker 2: was he was dealing in pure political theory. Okay. He
Speaker 2: was talking about value creation. He's talking about animates people,
Speaker 2: you know, to to to create political cultures, and you know,
Speaker 2: and and and and to live historically, you know, and uh,
Speaker 2: you know fundamentally conserned the questions of identity with esthetic
Speaker 2: with value judgments kind of rendered by aesthetical tendencies, you know,
Speaker 2: uh the things uh you know kind of the kind
Speaker 2: of kind of distilled down, uh as into human values,
Speaker 2: you know, things like heroism and like what is heroism
Speaker 2: and in the political realm and things like that. You know.
Speaker 2: That's why the seminal text of Sorel if you want
Speaker 2: to understand this point I'm trying to make, and forgive
Speaker 2: me if I'm being up, the skater shot is, you know,
Speaker 2: with Sorell's essay on the Trial of Socrates and why
Speaker 2: Socrates deserve not only deserve to be executed and in
Speaker 2: absolute moral terms, but he was imperative and political terms,
Speaker 2: because people at Socrates had brought horrible damage to Athens,
Speaker 2: you know, and and and really kind of destroyed the
Speaker 2: legacy of Paraples, as it were. And that's why that's
Speaker 2: why Sorell's favorite, uh, Sorell's favorite the pre Socratic thinker
Speaker 2: is Xenophon. I'm not that's a really complicated issue, and
Speaker 2: I'm not a guy who was an expert in the classics,
Speaker 2: but that you know that that's fundamentally important. I'm just
Speaker 2: for our purposes we're talking about here, it's it's premium,
Speaker 2: it's prem efficient evidence that Currell did not pretend that
Speaker 2: he was you know, that he was that that he
Speaker 2: was presenting some like new science of economics, and he
Speaker 2: was not pretending that you know, he he was like
Speaker 2: the air to some kind of rationalist socialism that uh
Speaker 2: was an improvement upon Merks or something like. He He
Speaker 2: was a very he was in a very real sense
Speaker 2: philosophizing with a hammer, uh. And frankly, he was concerned
Speaker 2: with a lot of the same with a lot of
Speaker 2: the same phenomenon that Nietzsche was. But he was far
Speaker 2: more of a practical, uh, political theorist about it. And
Speaker 2: he was driving different conclusions that had superficially sort of
Speaker 2: similar uh the futures, if that makes sense. But I
Speaker 2: draw the distinction or I make the comparison not accidentally
Speaker 2: or or or not because I'm trying to be funny.
Speaker 2: But like the other day online, like I was a
Speaker 2: bar of people who were mad at me because they
Speaker 2: thought that I was putting shade on and they're kind
Speaker 2: of nichean sensibilities and that's not really what I was doing.
Speaker 2: But people like us, I feel, can read wherever they want, okay,
Speaker 2: and I'm not I'm not like the grand like Bury
Speaker 2: and of philosophy or something, just kind of authority they
Speaker 2: like tell people like like, hey man, you should like
Speaker 2: read this, but not that. But you know when people
Speaker 2: do approach me and say they're interest didn't understanding you know,
Speaker 2: the twentieth century, and they tell me that their interest
Speaker 2: didn't understanding, you know, uh, developing kind of like a
Speaker 2: practical paradigm of political action. You know, you should be
Speaker 2: reading stuff like cREL a lot more than you should
Speaker 2: be you know, sitting around reading. You know, there's arthustru
Speaker 2: and you know, genealogy and worlds and things like that.
Speaker 2: But they you know, I and I try and steer people.
Speaker 2: I mean, even even if people are just kind of
Speaker 2: like died in the wool intellectuals. I mean, it's great, okay,
Speaker 2: I mean, there's nothing at all wrong with it as
Speaker 2: long as its tempered by a kind of pragmatic grounding
Speaker 2: in the world, and it's not some kind of you know,
Speaker 2: it's not some kind of psychological coping mechanism of retreat.
Speaker 2: But the uh if if one of the things that
Speaker 2: people that caused people that gravitated towards thinkers like Nietzsche,
Speaker 2: and there's some degree Heidegger, although they were very different,
Speaker 2: is uh you know, there was there was there was
Speaker 2: a real historical crisis that that reached the zenith you
Speaker 2: know in in uh in in in elite modernity, you know,
Speaker 2: the mid really really the mid nineteenth century, just when
Speaker 2: they started to impact like regular people's individual lives, you know,
Speaker 2: and obviously it reached a horrible zenith in the twentieth century.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't I don't see that for the
Speaker 2: reasons what court of storians do. Obviously, as I mean
Speaker 2: I drew I drived that observation for radically different reasons.
Speaker 2: But you know, this can't be denied. And I try
Speaker 2: and expand people's conceptual horizons and make them see that,
Speaker 2: like what Mitra was not the only uh andoth very
Speaker 2: powerful language that really resonates with with people, especially especially
Speaker 2: younger guys. Which is fine, young guys have great energy
Speaker 2: that we need. But I try and help steer people
Speaker 2: the fact that you know, he was not the only
Speaker 2: thinker concerned with these things. There was many others who were,
Speaker 2: and there's many on the right who were, And there
Speaker 2: was many who whose ideas and and philosophy's held a
Speaker 2: far more kind of relevant trying to go relevance to
Speaker 2: you know, the the current dilemma. And so that's kind
Speaker 2: where Sorell comes in. But I he was I look
Speaker 2: at Sir as a pure political theorist and a uh
Speaker 2: and and a political sociologist were at large, and he
Speaker 2: was fundamentally concerned with the economic But you know that's
Speaker 2: everybody was. You know, like the Zeit guys do exist
Speaker 2: in is like the Zeit guys do exist in. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got to you've got to, like a whether you
Speaker 2: want to or not, you've got to abide the the
Speaker 2: epoch in which you're situated and the kind of conceptual
Speaker 2: realities that are paramount, you know, and his guys is
Speaker 2: a real thing. You know. You don't have to be
Speaker 2: a gaily End or you don't have to believe in
Speaker 2: God if, but you can't deny that, like the Zeitgeist
Speaker 2: is a real thing. I mean maybe you maybe you
Speaker 2: come at it as like, well, you know, it's just
Speaker 2: kind of a you know, it's just like a functional
Speaker 2: mass psychology or whatever or you know people or or
Speaker 2: like you're like epigenetic memory come uh, basic structures of mind.
Speaker 2: It's like, okay, it doesn't matter for our purpose. It
Speaker 2: is like what causes the Zeitgeist to emerge. But it
Speaker 2: is a real thing, you know, and like what's possible
Speaker 2: politically is very much bounded like pen by those parameters.
Speaker 2: You know. That's why lately, uh, I mean my big
Speaker 2: project right now is uh is is uh, you know,
Speaker 2: making progress on the Nermer with transcript and that that's
Speaker 2: preceding at taste, But I want to write about the
Speaker 2: d d R and uh the radical German left post
Speaker 2: nineteen forty five and things like the botder mindhoff Gang
Speaker 2: you know, more more globally onto the Red Army faction,
Speaker 2: you know, like a lot of these people. And I
Speaker 2: realized this is a tangent, but I'll bring it back.
Speaker 2: I'm going to start with this. This is topable. A
Speaker 2: lot of the people who are involved with it, they
Speaker 2: weren't first of all, like versusly. None of them were
Speaker 2: relacure minorities like they They were very much like German
Speaker 2: boys and girls, okay, And they were attracted to this
Speaker 2: really because that's what was possible within with you know,
Speaker 2: within the conceptual parameters of the Cold War, you know.
Speaker 2: And interestingly Horsechmahler, who was uh, you know, a self
Speaker 2: identified you know, stalotist radical who who became a lawyer
Speaker 2: and he defended a lot of the boder Minehoff people
Speaker 2: in court. You know. He after the after the Berlin
Speaker 2: Wall came down, he joined he joined the NPD and
Speaker 2: he was actually arrested in prison for quote Holocaust and
Speaker 2: island things. I mean, so he basically and some people
Speaker 2: were like, oh, what is synic this man is? I say, no,
Speaker 2: I think there was always what his sympathies were. But
Speaker 2: you know, he was a German guy from the east
Speaker 2: who was you know, born in nineteen forties, Like what
Speaker 2: was he like, what was he gonna do like march
Speaker 2: around like horse or vessel? Was he gonna you know,
Speaker 2: was he gonna try to organize like a march on
Speaker 2: Rome in nineteen sixty? I mean, it's not that that's
Speaker 2: not the way the world was, you know, and it uh,
Speaker 2: and it's not just it's not just a matter of
Speaker 2: of practical potentialities. It's also I mean just what what
Speaker 2: what speaks to people? Like what guys uh, potentialities within
Speaker 2: the political realm emerged, you know, so I I want
Speaker 2: to more about this, you know. And there's also and
Speaker 2: that's one of the reasons too, I'm interested in guys
Speaker 2: like Johann von Leirds. I mean, I'm interested in Islam
Speaker 2: for and it's impact on the political for all kinds
Speaker 2: of reasons. But guys like him and guys like I'm
Speaker 2: at Hubert, it was like the same kind of thing, okay,
Speaker 2: Like they were kind of unusual people and you know,
Speaker 2: kind of like orientalist adventurer types, but they they very much.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not gonna claim to know like what
Speaker 2: I mean, I've never leave the Christian faith, okay, but
Speaker 2: I I can't. I can only speculate, and like what
Speaker 2: motivates people to convert to like what a very alien religions?
Speaker 2: I mean, for all, I know this was very genuine
Speaker 2: and some kind of spiritual uh calling. But I also
Speaker 2: there's a negatively political aspect in the case of people
Speaker 2: like von Leers and Mahler and that oh what I
Speaker 2: just said. The Zeit guy said, the questions of you know,
Speaker 2: what what what is? Uh? What? What was possible? You know,
Speaker 2: within within the conceptual parameters of of the e F
Speaker 2: I I much was situated. I know that was long winded,
Speaker 2: but it's it's it's frankly a big question. But yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's that's that's not that's how I characterized Sorel.
Speaker 2: That's why I believe he's there's an enduring relevance there.
Speaker 2: It's SAE for Werner Sombart. Uh And well, if you
Speaker 2: want to, we'll do a episode on Werner Sombart. You know,
Speaker 2: he was he was kind of like the other like
Speaker 2: socialist of the right, and he was German obviously, and
Speaker 2: he wrote specific America and why socialism is not resonant
Speaker 2: in America, which is fascinating and timely with It's that's
Speaker 2: that's my not so brief answer to the question as
Speaker 2: to how I characterized Sorel or categorize him.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm glad you brought up the zite Geist, because
Speaker 1: I think that operating in the Zeitgeist, when your thought
Speaker 1: is firmly planted within the Zeitgeist, you can make you
Speaker 1: either make very realistic decisions or in my case, in
Speaker 1: the past, you have very fanciful decisions. And I want
Speaker 1: to read this passage right here, and it points to
Speaker 1: a lot of what I was talking about. And this
Speaker 1: is in part three of the chapter Prejudices against Violence.
Speaker 1: I just want to read this chapter. It says the
Speaker 1: army is the clearest and most tangible of all possible
Speaker 1: manifestations of the state, and the one which is most
Speaker 1: firmly connected with its origins and traditions. Syndicalists do not
Speaker 1: propose to reform the state as the men of the
Speaker 1: eighteenth century did. They want to destroy it because they
Speaker 1: wish to realize the idea of marxis that the socialist
Speaker 1: revolution ought not to culminate in the replacement of one
Speaker 1: governing monarch already by another minority. The syndicalists outline their
Speaker 1: doctrines still more clearly when they give it a more
Speaker 1: ideological aspect and declare themselves anti patriotic, following the example
Speaker 1: of the Communist Manifesto. He actually goes on to say,
Speaker 1: it is impossible that there should be the slightest understanding
Speaker 1: between syndicalists and official socialists on this question. The latter,
Speaker 1: of course, talking about official socialists speak of breaking up everything,
Speaker 1: but they attack men in power rather than power itself.
Speaker 1: They hope to possess the state forces, and they are
Speaker 1: aware that on the day when they control the government
Speaker 1: they will have need of an army, they will carry
Speaker 1: on foreign politics, and consequently they, in their turn, will
Speaker 1: have to praise the feeling of devotion to the fatherland.
Speaker 1: The reason I brought I chose that passage is because
Speaker 1: it's very easy. I know a lot of the people
Speaker 1: in my orbit are anarchists. A lot of them call
Speaker 1: themselves right wing anarchists. And it seems to me that
Speaker 1: the reason that anarchy can seem very appealing to a
Speaker 1: lot of people is because they don't see an answer
Speaker 1: in the zeitgeist for their morality what they believe. And
Speaker 1: another thing something that I wrote is it seems that
Speaker 1: moral superiority when you have no solution to present dilemmas
Speaker 1: leads you to become somebody who politics becomes all about morality,
Speaker 1: because it's very easy to win a political argument if
Speaker 1: you just say, well, all war is immoral, all taxation
Speaker 1: is immoral, everything is immoral when you have no when
Speaker 1: there is no vision that you can see of overthrowing
Speaker 1: what is in power now where it seems like these anarchists,
Speaker 1: and I'm including my former self are no different than
Speaker 1: these syndicalists who just want to destroy everything and will
Speaker 1: even resort to anti patriotism and saying that power it
Speaker 1: is possible to destroy power when you're basically moralizing against
Speaker 1: the site geist you know that exists.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and I think in America there's a conceptual
Speaker 2: problem here too. The reason why you know, the anarchists
Speaker 2: who did crazy stuff like attacking the UH the Chicago
Speaker 2: Federal Building and it's like literally blowing it up, and
Speaker 2: these these guys like Sacho and many like is Italian
Speaker 2: anarchists suit your point, we're very much like in in
Speaker 2: bed with cyndical is, you know, like like perceptually in
Speaker 2: Europe that had that was kind of like anarchism like
Speaker 2: had within conceptual vocabulary of European socialism, like anarchism made
Speaker 2: sense even that, even if it was not a good idea.
Speaker 2: In America, I think there are like anarchists in America
Speaker 2: who actually like I think that. I think I think
Speaker 2: they're to your point in doublging and flights of fantasy,
Speaker 2: but they do have a pretty deep understanding of h
Speaker 2: of H of the source material. But I think most
Speaker 2: people in America grantate towards it. Like when they think
Speaker 2: of anarchism, they're not really thinking of anarchism per se.
Speaker 2: They're thinking of kind of like a Habizian ontology of oh, well, naturally,
Speaker 2: there's no there's no course of authority, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: And all we need to do is, you know, kind
Speaker 2: of overcome this tendency to exploit others and you know
Speaker 2: that the state of nature has no government, which is
Speaker 2: nonsense and also too if people kind of associate all
Speaker 2: authority with like this, you know, new dealer, uh, bureaucracy
Speaker 2: committed to social engineering and all kinds of and and
Speaker 2: all kinds of in all kinds of tyrannies like prosaic
Speaker 2: and profound like screw with people vibes, you know, individually
Speaker 2: as well as collectively, culturally, socially and everything else. Like
Speaker 2: it's not some people develop this binary tendency. They don't
Speaker 2: realize that there's various iterations of government, and like government
Speaker 2: quad government doesn't just like equate to you know what
Speaker 2: this like obsolete like cold world of Iathan that we're
Speaker 2: kind of stuck with in America. You know, I governments
Speaker 2: neither good or bad like on its face, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean it's I'm always making the point of people that,
Speaker 2: you know, because uh like a lot of people know
Speaker 2: that I you know, I identify a lot with you know,
Speaker 2: Confederate here and stuff, you know, for for cultural and
Speaker 2: theological and like racial reasons, but as well as you know,
Speaker 2: historical ones. And they're like, well, how can you also
Speaker 2: like admire the Prussian state. It's like because there's a
Speaker 2: commonality there and that you know, the regime that came
Speaker 2: into existence was appropriate for the people within its dominion
Speaker 2: as well as you know, the political challenges that were extants.
Speaker 2: You know it, uh like the Prussian regime was appropriate
Speaker 2: for Prussia, like you know the Confederate Yaloemen re you know,
Speaker 2: truly we're kind of like self governing and in a
Speaker 2: classical sense. So it's as much as that was possible
Speaker 2: you know in the in the nineteenth century. I mean
Speaker 2: that was appropriate for them. You know. It's not like
Speaker 2: there's like one like it. It's not it's not just
Speaker 2: like one modality a government that is appropriate. There's categorically wrong.
Speaker 2: I mean obviously there's something. There's there's some there there's
Speaker 2: some configurations of government that are just absolutely like terrible, okay,
Speaker 2: Like I mean there's something like weird Internet guy. Like
Speaker 2: no nobody was say that, like you know, democratic campu
Speaker 2: Chia like like a great regime, you know, like something,
Speaker 2: but you know, the yeah, people can just make it
Speaker 2: like categorically sweeping judgments like the The problem with regimes
Speaker 2: like that in America and like that which has been
Speaker 2: imposed on Western Europe is that it's it's I compare
Speaker 2: it to like you know, you know, like the old
Speaker 2: Ray Bradbury story Faaraaneck for fifty one, like when I
Speaker 2: was in high school, Like people still like read that,
Speaker 2: like he to sign it, and you know, have like
Speaker 2: the fire department and fair n forty one. Their guys
Speaker 2: actually go out and start fires. Like the US government
Speaker 2: is like a fire department that starts fires because like
Speaker 2: governmental dres its legitimacy from the degree to which it
Speaker 2: guarantees the posterity like the people in their culture and
Speaker 2: and the government is quite literally working to annihilate those things.
Speaker 2: And that that's that's it's beyond like a dysfunctional government.
Speaker 2: That's it's abjectly perverse. You know, it's a it's a
Speaker 2: cross purposes with the raison detro of a government. I
Speaker 2: mean that that's that's really what brought down the Soviet system,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, yeah, there was the planned economy
Speaker 2: doesn't work. You know, you can't, you can't. You can't
Speaker 2: abolish the incentive for creativity. We're large, and they just
Speaker 2: say like, well, we're gonna you know, we're just gonna
Speaker 2: plan all like economic activity and all. And you can't
Speaker 2: like plan spontaneous innovation. Okay, that's ridiculous, you know, and
Speaker 2: obviously like it didn't. It didn't. It didn't deliver anything
Speaker 2: of of of real value to people. And then some
Speaker 2: kind of basic security of material nature, you know, I
Speaker 2: mean in every like their bone sense. But that's not
Speaker 2: like why if that collapsed. There's there's ysfunctional governments that
Speaker 2: just like lurch on for centuries, you know, like the
Speaker 2: out of an empire. Okay, like the Soviet regime fell
Speaker 2: because it was it was literally like this perverse iteration
Speaker 2: of of of of a regime that was literally across
Speaker 2: purposes with with you know what what what should be
Speaker 2: like the t los of government. Then if you if
Speaker 2: you're literally like one of things I agree with the
Speaker 2: Michael Jones on is if you're literally proceeding like if
Speaker 2: you're literally proceeding against a reason, like that's kind of
Speaker 2: like your course set. You know, you're like anti reason,
Speaker 2: like that can't really sustain itself. And eventually people are
Speaker 2: gonna revolt against that. I mean, even if they don't
Speaker 2: understand really like what's wrong with the regime they're under
Speaker 2: and like philosophical or ethical or or any kind of
Speaker 2: you know it like you know, intellectual terms, just because
Speaker 2: it's it's it's gonna like start, it's gonna star like
Speaker 2: from any obstacles their ability to lead a normal life,
Speaker 2: you know, and like do anything constructive, you know, And
Speaker 2: that's that's kind of where we're at now. But yeah,
Speaker 2: I forgive me if that was a long one.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the you would you had talked about
Speaker 1: how understanding the zeitgeist is most important. So if you
Speaker 1: were to take any lessons from Sorel in repairing what
Speaker 1: we have here. Okay, so we don't have we don't
Speaker 1: have a history of communism here, we have a history.
Speaker 1: We don't have a history of Roman Catholicism here. You know,
Speaker 1: we have a history of Protestant farmers, working men who
Speaker 1: basically can have a history of providing for themselves. So
Speaker 1: the you know, what is the answer that's you know,
Speaker 1: it's like a lot of the people I know, their
Speaker 1: answer is, well, we just have to get rid of
Speaker 1: the state. As we get rid of the state, then
Speaker 1: you know, the we can institute good economics quote economics.
Speaker 1: Of course that has never been tried. They just assume
Speaker 1: that it's going to be better. You know, people will
Speaker 1: be able to defend themselves. Well, if we just get
Speaker 1: rid of gun laws, any gun law, then you know,
Speaker 1: violence can take care of itself, because you can if
Speaker 1: somebody comes at you, now you're you can have a
Speaker 1: bigger gun than them. I mean not not taking into
Speaker 1: account that people just with people are large families just
Speaker 1: put together their own armies, you know. And so when
Speaker 1: you try to devise an answer to what we have now.
Speaker 1: I don't think that going backwards in time is what's
Speaker 1: going to solve it. We're going to it's going to
Speaker 1: be something new, but it's going to be something that
Speaker 1: involves a government of some sort, and I think it's
Speaker 1: going to I would assume it's going to be something
Speaker 1: that would be more of a right classic right wing
Speaker 1: government if we're going to hold any of this together, unless,
Speaker 1: of course it just breaks up and balkanizes.
Speaker 2: Well, there some of some of the problems that take
Speaker 2: care of itself. There's not even appalling in or some
Speaker 2: kind of or some kind of Uh. I don't have
Speaker 2: some kind of like eschatology of you know, how the
Speaker 2: government is going to all go down or something and that.
Speaker 2: But what's gonna hit to my point about what I
Speaker 2: raised earlier about or a minute ago, rather about you know,
Speaker 2: not being able to sustain in the course that's literally
Speaker 2: at odds with the reason. I mean, there's there's a
Speaker 2: few things wrong with the government, Okay, one of which
Speaker 2: is structural, you know, like we've talked about like regardless
Speaker 2: how you felt feel about like Roosevelt in a history
Speaker 2: or the New Deal or whatever, like the regimes that
Speaker 2: exist today. It's an anachronism. It's as much of them
Speaker 2: as as the Soviet Union was and like a turanglerea okay,
Speaker 2: because it's it's it's structured to do something that that
Speaker 2: is uh that there's no longer extant. Okay, I mean
Speaker 2: it's it's it's structured to wage the Cold War, Okay,
Speaker 2: and then that's about it, and literally everything else that's
Speaker 2: subservient to that, because even even regimes are totally just functional,
Speaker 2: even even those that are populated by people we don't
Speaker 2: have any meaningful understanding of of high politics conceptually, they're
Speaker 2: they're like bound by basic realities, okay, like going to
Speaker 2: the fact that you know, their ability to act like
Speaker 2: hemmed in by uh by by by critical disincentives to
Speaker 2: you know, to push up against that. Okay. So everything
Speaker 2: was every everything is subserve me at the high politics, okay,
Speaker 2: when particularly when you have uh a situation, strategic landscape
Speaker 2: like that of the Cold War. So I mean, the
Speaker 2: regimes just it's it's it's it's you know, it's a
Speaker 2: it's a quote solution like in constant search of a
Speaker 2: problem to you know, to the rationalize it continued existence.
Speaker 2: So there's that there's also uh, there's this radical uh
Speaker 2: faction that's you know, really really I mean, the New
Speaker 2: Deal was when it was when it was able to
Speaker 2: assert itself politically and truly kind of concrete, organized capacities.
Speaker 2: So I mean frout a century, we've just kind of
Speaker 2: like lampre wrapped around the the structure of government proverbially speaking,
Speaker 2: that's uh that, that's uh that that's actively trying to
Speaker 2: destroy the culture and uh the ability of the people,
Speaker 2: uh who are the you know within that culture live
Speaker 2: historically or to or to harbor any identities of a
Speaker 2: historical nature. Okay, if and that must that have to
Speaker 2: be excised. How it's going to excise, that depends on
Speaker 2: what develops. But the structural problem I was talking about
Speaker 2: about the obsolescence of uh, the regime that's gonna take
Speaker 2: care of itself, and not in some punctuated way. It's
Speaker 2: not gonna be some like Mad Max scenario where everything
Speaker 2: blows up one day. It might take two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years or something, Okay, but gradually it's just not
Speaker 2: gonna be able to assert itself anymore. And you're gonna
Speaker 2: see localities, you know, whether you know, whether it's some
Speaker 2: what you know, whether it's like some some mid size
Speaker 2: city in New Mexico, Arizona that you know, can't rely
Speaker 2: on the federal government, you know, to provide it with, uh,
Speaker 2: with the water it needs and things like that, and
Speaker 2: the infrastructural uh, the things it needs. So you know,
Speaker 2: it's just gonna it's just gonna have to find ways
Speaker 2: to you know, to resort to self help, you know,
Speaker 2: in Congress with you know, like the other states and
Speaker 2: municipalities that are similarly situated. Or whether it's you know,
Speaker 2: some place like Chicago where you know, you take this
Speaker 2: you know, you take like the West Side that's like
Speaker 2: increasingly just like kind of going to hell in a handbasket.
Speaker 2: You know, like the police increasingly you just kind of
Speaker 2: like just don't patrol anymore. You know, you're gonna see
Speaker 2: more and more situations like that where, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: people in true like ghettos like like live like Perl,
Speaker 2: not intersecting lives with like bourgeois people and they don't
Speaker 2: even like really interfere with each other anymore. Okay, like uh,
Speaker 2: and then that that's happening as we speak, Like I
Speaker 2: see it. I'm not just like It's not some science
Speaker 2: fiction thing I came up with. So like things like
Speaker 2: that are kind of gonna kind of gonna conspire to
Speaker 2: you know, just kind of like deprive the regime of
Speaker 2: credibility in uh in hard power terms, and uh that
Speaker 2: will uh that that'll like the the uh the radical
Speaker 2: culture distortion element within that regime. Like on account of
Speaker 2: these kinds of structural frailties that are increasingly emergent, it
Speaker 2: won't be able to impose its will on people anymore.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not gonna be able to insinuate crazy
Speaker 2: ideas to the part of education. You know, it's not
Speaker 2: going to be able to you know, transform like what
Speaker 2: we're you know, basically functional with kind of poor communities
Speaker 2: into like ghettos where like you know, race wars are
Speaker 2: going on. It's not gonna be able to you know, uh,
Speaker 2: it's not it's not gonna be able to mobilize uh people, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, to go and annihilate you know, other societies
Speaker 2: overseas that decide you don't have to be destroyed, and
Speaker 2: that that's already happening too. You know. That's why increasingly
Speaker 2: this reliance on mercenaries and and things like that, So
Speaker 2: what what will emerge from those proverbial ashes. I believe
Speaker 2: once you strip away what I just talk about and
Speaker 2: the core of America, you know, kind of like the
Speaker 2: white Christian core and those people who are you know,
Speaker 2: who perhaps aren't you know, like us ethnically or or
Speaker 2: or or don't like a bid you know, the same
Speaker 2: sex that we do. But where my fellow travelers in
Speaker 2: terms there are billy you to you know, create and
Speaker 2: sustain culture. That kind of core I think kind of
Speaker 2: like the core setting of America is like hamiled vers
Speaker 2: of Jefferson, and a lot of people object to that,
Speaker 2: and that can be like oversimplified, but basically it's the
Speaker 2: federalist versus an anti federalist perspective, okay. And you can
Speaker 2: see some states that uh tend towards the former and
Speaker 2: some towards the ladder, and that's gonna cause tensions, but
Speaker 2: generally it's not in anybody's interests, you know, to wage
Speaker 2: bloody civil wars. And I think by necessity, particularly in America,
Speaker 2: it becomes poor, you know, kind of uh, pragmatism is
Speaker 2: gonna carry the day, you know, but just in practical terms,
Speaker 2: you know, you're not gonna you know, like twitter years
Speaker 2: from now. You know, if you do have you know,
Speaker 2: the geographic division is gonna isn't gonna be between you know,
Speaker 2: like the old North and the Old South, but there's
Speaker 2: gonna be some of the same kind of tendencies that
Speaker 2: you know, cause like a political and and and sociological
Speaker 2: class between them. But you're not You're not gonna You're
Speaker 2: not gonna have this regime that's kind of got like
Speaker 2: endless that that's got kind of like a that's got
Speaker 2: bottomless pockets, you know, uh, and the ability to just
Speaker 2: kind of like you know, martial unprecedented productive capabilities to
Speaker 2: like wage war and dominate you know, anybody you wants.
Speaker 2: The that's not going to exist anymore. You know. That'side
Speaker 2: the fact that that's really kind of self defeating as
Speaker 2: a as as a as a course to you know,
Speaker 2: to unite the country in some sort of in some
Speaker 2: sort of a unitary political culture under a single sovereign.
Speaker 2: I mean that was possible in the War between the
Speaker 2: States for kind of complicated reasons, but it's also you know,
Speaker 2: the the war win the States shouldn't happen in the
Speaker 2: first place. I mean, I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 2: if there's any a civil war discussion, but it my
Speaker 2: point is like I'm not it's there's not some look
Speaker 2: evitability that you know, absent these kinds of a because
Speaker 2: of the alien elements that I just talked about. You know,
Speaker 2: we're literally attacking the body politic and absent this kind
Speaker 2: of obsolescent and very corrupt regime, you know, morally materially,
Speaker 2: that's kind of desperately trying to cling to power. I
Speaker 2: don't see Americans just kind of like going to the
Speaker 2: rifle to kill each other as a matter of first recourse.
Speaker 2: You know, generally these things can be resolved. You know.
Speaker 2: It's and I may be wrong, but I I don't
Speaker 2: think I'm overly optimistic. I mean, I am like a
Speaker 2: basically a gloomy Angle six and Calvin is kind of dude.
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody accuse me of being some like
Speaker 2: optimist Pollyanna who says everything's gonna be all right all
Speaker 2: the time. But I don't. I don't agree with guys
Speaker 2: like Thomas Chitthham and who he he. He is a
Speaker 2: fascinating guy, and he wrote some great stuff in the nineties.
Speaker 2: And it's like Civil War two paradigm, Like he literally
Speaker 2: wrote a book called Civil War two. It was I'm
Speaker 2: sure some of the fellows that are familiar with I mean,
Speaker 2: like I'm an old guy, so I'm familiar with that.
Speaker 2: I read it when I was like sixteen. But the
Speaker 2: kind of ethnic confleet he talks about, yeah, I don't
Speaker 2: doubt that that that's pretty possible, and it's unfortunately in
Speaker 2: some places that's underway, right, But.
Speaker 1: Pierce, you know, even yeah, Pierce the same everything. A
Speaker 1: lot of that talk was in and around the militia
Speaker 1: movement of you know, the late eighties and nineties that
Speaker 1: Clinton declared war on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the the nineties were, the nineties were wild times
Speaker 2: and and mostly in good and bad ways, mostly bad ways.
Speaker 2: And yeah that I do. I mean, don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2: Like there's definitely I can definitely see you know, like
Speaker 2: like eighty years from or whatever, you know, a place
Speaker 2: like Detroit or a place like west side Chicago. You know,
Speaker 2: basically something like gangster world words like on the cops
Speaker 2: like you're not the law here, like we're the law here,
Speaker 2: and like what we say goes and you know where
Speaker 2: the Lord King is sovereign and them being kind of
Speaker 2: like a periodic war with like blackwater Tights who owing
Speaker 2: to some interest for another you know, are being hired
Speaker 2: by uh, you know, either wealthy private agents or by
Speaker 2: what remains of you know, the the seate of sovereign
Speaker 2: government in the state and and like and going to
Speaker 2: war with these people in the localized ways or something
Speaker 2: where I can see like militia type guys, you know,
Speaker 2: pulling like what the Arian Nations did and saying like,
Speaker 2: look like we're seceding because you know, we're like, you know,
Speaker 2: we're like the Arian Community of Christ And if you're
Speaker 2: not white, you're not right. And if you're a fed,
Speaker 2: you're fucking dead. So like you're not gonna you know,
Speaker 2: you're not gonna fuck with our municipality and the government
Speaker 2: just being like, well, we're not gonna like we're not
Speaker 2: gonna fight some like endless war with these people. We're
Speaker 2: not gonna kill them all. So it's like leave them
Speaker 2: alone like stuff like that. I definitely see happening. I
Speaker 2: don't see, like you know, I don't I don't see
Speaker 2: you know, like years from now some kind of uprising,
Speaker 2: some kind of simultaneous uprising and kind of like the
Speaker 2: White underclass against you know, the regime, and like blacks
Speaker 2: against the man, and like immigrants who like you know,
Speaker 2: want to create like you know, Oslon and like the Southwest.
Speaker 2: I just don't see that happening. It's not likely. And
Speaker 2: Shildham was Sham was a dude born in the forties
Speaker 2: who who's sort of experienced, was in was in Vietnam,
Speaker 2: And I mean, I totally get that. And I got
Speaker 2: a lot of respect for dudes like that, you know.
Speaker 2: And then I mean that's my day's generation, you know,
Speaker 2: And I got huge respect from my dad as in
Speaker 2: all of them, guys. I'm not saying like they got
Speaker 2: stupid ideas at all. What I'm saying is like their
Speaker 2: world views, like we was colored by that. And I
Speaker 2: don't have a crystal ball. I'm not some kind of
Speaker 2: like Augur, but I do think I'm pretty good and
Speaker 2: kind of discerning basic the basic trajectory of of political events,
Speaker 2: you know, like in every basic sense. Okay, I think
Speaker 2: that's why people read my content. Frankly, you know, it's
Speaker 2: not it's not because I'm a comediant or because like
Speaker 2: I'm a a great knuckle but you know, I and yeah,
Speaker 2: and plus two I'll turn it back to you in
Speaker 2: a minute. I'm sorry for rambling, but the you know
Speaker 2: frankly too. And I mean, I recognize this because it's
Speaker 2: my culture, and I totally I've got a problem acknowledging
Speaker 2: it to the tendency to like apot not just escatological,
Speaker 2: but like apocalyptic thinking in America, you know, and there's
Speaker 2: an idea that there's gonna there's always gonna be a
Speaker 2: day log, and there's gonna be there, there's gonna be uh,
Speaker 2: you know, there's always gonna be something like punctuated event
Speaker 2: that brings everything down. You know, there's gonna be you know,
Speaker 2: some kind of like massic, some like extinction level event. Honestly,
Speaker 2: that's like when underlies the global warming bullshit. It's like
Speaker 2: the weird old, basic kind of like uh, it's it's
Speaker 2: like a it's it's kind of like the loser, basic,
Speaker 2: bougie version of it. But I mean that's that's why
Speaker 2: it's weird to hear like Europeans parodic because it's not
Speaker 2: a European thing. That's like America thing, you know. And
Speaker 2: but on our sidety, I mean, even intelligent guys and
Speaker 2: some ladies you know who don't ascribe to that kind
Speaker 2: of nonsense. And there's even kind of cogs and the
Speaker 2: tendency I talk about like anthropologically, they still like they've
Speaker 2: got this kind of like instinctive tendency to think in
Speaker 2: terms of like punctuated equilibrium. I'm in in in historical
Speaker 2: events and like apocalyptic stuff like oh, you know, just
Speaker 2: one day everything's gonna come down, or there's gonna be
Speaker 2: a race war, or like infrastructure is just gonna go
Speaker 2: belly up and we're not gonna clean water, Like it's
Speaker 2: not gonna happen. You know, it's it's gonna be a
Speaker 2: death by a thousand cuts, and it's gonna be like
Speaker 2: it's gonna be a couple hundred years, Like a Mary's
Speaker 2: gonna exist in some form or another for a couple
Speaker 2: hundred years. Yet, you know, even even if it's just
Speaker 2: like in even if even if twitter years now it's
Speaker 2: just like in name only kind of like the last
Speaker 2: day is the Holy Roman Empire or something, but it's
Speaker 2: it's going to exist in some sense, and there's gonna
Speaker 2: be a guy who's identified as President of the United States,
Speaker 2: Like what kind of cloud he has, what kind of
Speaker 2: ability he as raised Army. I mean, that's that's a
Speaker 2: different question. But I firmly believe that. But yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I don't mean to monopolize the conversation.
Speaker 1: I want everyone to know that this ad break is
Speaker 1: personal to me because soon as I found out about
Speaker 1: crowd health, I became a member. We know the insurance
Speaker 1: model's broken. With crowd health, you can see any doctor
Speaker 1: you want, no deductibles, exclusions, or copays. You just pay
Speaker 1: the first five hundred dollars of any healthcare event, and
Speaker 1: the crowd health community takes care of the rest. You
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about exclusive doctor networks, huge premiums,
Speaker 1: or high deductibles. There are no surprises. You get peace
Speaker 1: of mind that no insurance company concerns itself with take
Speaker 1: charge of your healthcare today. With crowd health, open enrollment
Speaker 1: is the only time you can hit eject on the
Speaker 1: broken system without penalty, So don't wait, and for a
Speaker 1: limited time, just ninety nine dollars per month for the
Speaker 1: first six months when you use promo code pete Q
Speaker 1: at join crowdhealth dot com. Open enrollment ends January fifteenth,
Speaker 1: so sign up today before it's too late. That's Join
Speaker 1: crowdhealth dot com promo code peteq. Crowdhealth is not health insurance.
Speaker 1: It's a totally different way of paying for healthcare. Terms
Speaker 1: and conditions may apply. No, we can start. We can
Speaker 1: start an argument on when the when the Roman Empire
Speaker 1: started to fall. I mean, some people will say, you
Speaker 1: know what, you know, what Caesar and with the first Caesar.
Speaker 1: But okay, well here's something I wanted to bring up.
Speaker 1: So this book actually talks about violence. It has violence
Speaker 1: in the in the title, but he also he also
Speaker 1: talks about social change. He also talks about political change.
Speaker 1: And from everything you've just said, is the change that
Speaker 1: would happen in our culture where we were born, where
Speaker 1: we are. I don't think any of us are. Most
Speaker 1: of us aren't planning on going anywhere else. Is going
Speaker 1: to be social and is going to be political, because
Speaker 1: that's where sure, if you go back to the War
Speaker 1: between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, then you
Speaker 1: can talk about violence, and you can talk about an
Speaker 1: invasion of a foreign land. But really what started to
Speaker 1: bring down what we have now was social and political
Speaker 1: and it was by you mentioned the term culture distortion,
Speaker 1: invoking Yaki and invoking Spangler, that's what has to be
Speaker 1: won back. And I really think, and people are probably
Speaker 1: sick of hearing me say this over and over again,
Speaker 1: that that's going to have to start at the most
Speaker 1: local level, and probably the most local level is in
Speaker 1: the home and then spreading out to community and going
Speaker 1: forward like that like that.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, definitely. And that's one of the things.
Speaker 2: I mean that that's a Surrealian point too, you know,
Speaker 2: one of the things one of the reasons he was
Speaker 2: hung up on Xenophon and one of the reasons why
Speaker 2: you know, he talked about, you know, the home being
Speaker 2: kind of like the school of command, you know, where
Speaker 2: where like the patriarch, you know, learns how to you know,
Speaker 2: how to how to rule over his wife and children
Speaker 2: in a firm way, but in an equitable way. You know.
Speaker 2: That's that's how that that's where women learn, you know,
Speaker 2: how to like how to like relate to men and
Speaker 2: stuff and like hold down the household. And women do that.
Speaker 2: You know, believe that, you know, that's not some conceit.
Speaker 2: That's very true. So I don't like people mean down
Speaker 2: at females, that's where kids like learn, you know, how
Speaker 2: how how to grow up into adult men and women,
Speaker 2: you know, and uh and and you know and and
Speaker 2: and the nature of like what you know, what is
Speaker 2: just and the parameters of obedience like within within you know,
Speaker 2: within that kind of justice paradigm of command and obedience.
Speaker 2: And that's why you know this in a concrete engagement
Speaker 2: with with what we consider the body politic I mean
Speaker 2: in Sir Alzheimer, now, I mean, uh as the body
Speaker 2: politic and anthem has consisted of of like every liked
Speaker 2: a household, you know, and uh, some of these men
Speaker 2: were rich and some of them were not so rich.
Speaker 2: But you know, they all went to war together. They
Speaker 2: all told the soil together, you know, they all they
Speaker 2: all participated in the assembly together. Like this idea of
Speaker 2: you know, hyper specialization and dividing people into like you know,
Speaker 2: basically neglecy, dividing people's functions within the same kind of caste,
Speaker 2: that's that's a recipe that that's that's a recipe for
Speaker 2: self destruction, among other things. Because that's Therrel's point is, like, well,
Speaker 2: then you have this basically parasitic cast of politicians who,
Speaker 2: even if they themselves aren't aren't wealthy by birth, you know,
Speaker 2: they they basically become like the clients of wealthy patrons
Speaker 2: and aside of everything else that's wrong with that, Like
Speaker 2: these guys don't work, they don't do anything, you know,
Speaker 2: they're like this, there's this weird leisured class that by
Speaker 2: nature's kind of decadences, you know, that develops resentments of
Speaker 2: the Yalemen ry and vice versa, and UH in turn,
Speaker 2: they're dependent upon these kinds of intellectuals and financers, who,
Speaker 2: in Sorel's view like have more are like in bed
Speaker 2: together like verbially, you know, and they and you know,
Speaker 2: these guys view themselves as they they you know, they've
Speaker 2: they've got their own kind of like resentment and fear
Speaker 2: of like the Yalemen re or the proletariat like in
Speaker 2: Cerel's at Bach. You know, but they themselves are as
Speaker 2: parasitic as like the political caste, and just as UH
Speaker 2: and just as prone to intrigues, you know, because they're
Speaker 2: they're they're their situation is always tenguless, you know, because
Speaker 2: they're they're they're they're they're they're by definition they're parasitic,
Speaker 2: you know. They they they rely upon the willingness of
Speaker 2: UH of the two other factions they just identified to
Speaker 2: not just tolerate them, but to sustain them and everything
Speaker 2: else aside, Like even if you had a totally like
Speaker 2: homogenous population, even if at least nominally there was some
Speaker 2: kind of common culture and common religion like ce religion
Speaker 2: and like ethics in common, that that's still a create
Speaker 2: all kinds of weird pathologies, and and it would institutionalize
Speaker 2: social divisions in ways that not that not just their counterproductive,
Speaker 2: you know, until like a virtual society, even just in
Speaker 2: practical terms, like what you don't institutionalize social divisions for
Speaker 2: its own sake because I'm gonna endless conversation and endless
Speaker 2: argument and endless contention is some marvelous thing from which
Speaker 2: we all benefits. That was that was called Schmid's point
Speaker 2: about parliamentarism. My wife's dysfunctional, Like on his face, it's
Speaker 2: there's there's something very ethological about it. I don't mean
Speaker 2: insinuate these kinds of psychological terms in the discussion, but
Speaker 2: I can't think of a better way to describe it,
Speaker 2: because it is it's it's it's uh, it's a maladaptive
Speaker 2: uh conceived of of human mind. Is the pray these
Speaker 2: things It's not like practical, it's not things that exist
Speaker 2: and like you know in kind of political reality that
Speaker 2: we just come upon and have to address, these things
Speaker 2: are very much cultivated and created and it's very artificial,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean you see this today, I
Speaker 2: mean even uh there's you know these like even if
Speaker 2: you took away the culture distortion and aspect like look
Speaker 2: like this, look like this infotainment garbage. Its job basically
Speaker 2: is the kind of like is a manufacture like Widge
Speaker 2: issues us like make people upset about you know, like
Speaker 2: this isn't stuff that's like emerging when people when people's
Speaker 2: actual lives or if this isn't stuff that you know,
Speaker 2: people would uh people would identify as as as being
Speaker 2: something that you know, warning their attention and some like
Speaker 2: oncological capacity. It's like literally just like confabulated and you
Speaker 2: know because people are like, uh, you know, even in
Speaker 2: the best of times, you know, like common people or
Speaker 2: you know, deal with a lot of certain and like
Speaker 2: anxiety uh derived therein you know that that's that's kind
Speaker 2: of formless, you know, something that's just this kind of
Speaker 2: human condition, you know, when they're plugged into figuratively and
Speaker 2: literally like plugged into some kind of media organ twenty
Speaker 2: or seven. You know, one of the things that satisfies
Speaker 2: or one of like the needs of fulfills like psychologically
Speaker 2: and tell them cope with things is like giving form
Speaker 2: to these kinds of amorphous like negative feelings and anxieties
Speaker 2: and so it it's it's it's kind of like a
Speaker 2: these thing are kind of like permanently situated to be,
Speaker 2: you know, like manipulated by a sort of idol like
Speaker 2: parasite political cast whose only real role is to kind
Speaker 2: of is to kind of create like you know, institutionalized
Speaker 2: grievance structures, if that makes any sense. And I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, obviously a high tech and like you know,
Speaker 2: media like change all that. I mean, even like radioven
Speaker 2: for TV, like visual media is a huge game changer.
Speaker 2: But even like radio, like the ability to just like
Speaker 2: literally brought broad being able to broadcast any capacity like
Speaker 2: coast to coast or like across the European continent, you know,
Speaker 2: from like Paris to like Prague, like that was that
Speaker 2: was a game changer, you know, for the reasons I
Speaker 2: just stated, and that uh that that's one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why people ask like why why why It's kind
Speaker 2: of like faux democracy or it's kind of like institutionalized
Speaker 2: uh or it's kind of like institutionalized grievance uh structure.
Speaker 2: I just identified, like why why why it seems to
Speaker 2: like acciomatically coexist with you know, like the modern like
Speaker 2: managerial state. Well, I mean the answer is media. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't mean a time of reductionists, but I I
Speaker 2: think i've I think I've invoked the quote before from
Speaker 2: Natural Born Killers. I really like National Born Killers. It's
Speaker 2: a really dope movie, and I I try and turn
Speaker 2: people onto it because it's not it's not just like
Speaker 2: gross Quentin Tarantino's stuff or like Oliver Stone like preachy stuff.
Speaker 2: It's really really insightful and it's really subversive in some ways.
Speaker 2: But the guy who's uh like the Stark Weather uh
Speaker 2: like Diliger character, you know, Woody Harrelson, when he's talking
Speaker 2: like the media guy, he's like, you know, he's like
Speaker 2: he's like, media is like the weather, but it's man made.
Speaker 2: Weather is this thing you're immersed in and you don't
Speaker 2: even you don't even like notice it. I said, I
Speaker 2: find myself like not really noticing it. I mean I
Speaker 2: discern like what what what's not People's minds and kind
Speaker 2: of like you like, what's something like the Floyd craziness
Speaker 2: George Floyd crasiness was jumping off. I would discern like
Speaker 2: this is what people are thinking about. But it's like
Speaker 2: I don't even like I don't even always like detect
Speaker 2: Immediately they're like, well, that's that's the narrative that's being
Speaker 2: created by what, you know, the media they're immersed in,
Speaker 2: because they're just like take for granted, you know, and
Speaker 2: it uh and and speaking of zeitgeys the uh you know,
Speaker 2: like the day of day uh, like the day day
Speaker 2: fixations of people like within that like brought a paradigm
Speaker 2: like that that comes one hundred percent from media. I
Speaker 2: mean it plays upon like things like intrinsic to mind,
Speaker 2: you know, like symbolically and and things really the impulse
Speaker 2: and appetite and stuff and symbols that are kind of
Speaker 2: universally resonant in like most basic terms, but in terms
Speaker 2: of the actual narrative, like the concrete particulars like of
Speaker 2: those narratives and of like those symbols and like what
Speaker 2: form they take those totems rare, Like that's one hundred
Speaker 2: percent created by uh by by architects of media, and
Speaker 2: I mean that sounds conspiratorial to people. Whatever I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm main a sociological observation.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not it's not conspiratorial. Yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: This is part two. But when I released part one,
Speaker 1: the next episode I did after that was me and
Speaker 1: my friend Buck writing the reading the Engineering and Consent
Speaker 1: by Burne, and he wrote that in propaganda he wrote
Speaker 1: in twenty in twenty twenty one, but he wrote this
Speaker 1: in forty seven and he's already radios in every house,
Speaker 1: TVs are starting to go in every house, and he
Speaker 1: basically says, news is what we say it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so it's the go Aheada'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to say, so two hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: you had ten year olds that could run a farm,
Speaker 1: and they you had a farm that people could survive on.
Speaker 1: Then you have the technology, you know, the Industrial Revolution,
Speaker 1: and now everyone has Everyone is just comfortable enough that
Speaker 1: they won't revolt, but they also have this engineering. And
Speaker 1: I was going to bring this back to what I
Speaker 1: was reading earlier, is when you read about these syndicalists,
Speaker 1: how they want to destroy anything that's anti patriotic. Well,
Speaker 1: in the process of destroying anything that's anti patriotic. You
Speaker 1: have to just destroy family, you have to destroy people's religion.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what the culture disorders that we you know,
Speaker 1: that we've talked about, set out to do. And it's
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy theory. They wrote, you know, Burnez wrote
Speaker 1: about about propaganda and that's why you have to have
Speaker 1: That's why the Internet is the blessing and curse it
Speaker 1: is because it puts out propaganda. But you can also
Speaker 1: destroy that propaganda within minutes in real time. But you're
Speaker 1: basically dealing with culture disorders who are like, Okay, if
Speaker 1: we are going to have the kind of power over
Speaker 1: the people that we want, if we are going to
Speaker 1: be the managers over these people, we have to do
Speaker 1: everything we can to destroy this. And it seems like
Speaker 1: that is something clearly out of the Syndicolas, the communist playbook,
Speaker 1: and even today, people that I know who are the
Speaker 1: you know, some of the great you know, they believe
Speaker 1: there fighting for freedom and liberty for the individual, don't
Speaker 1: realize that they're basically on the same side as the syndicolas,
Speaker 1: who want to destroy every bit of hierarchy. And as
Speaker 1: soon as you destroy hierarchy.
Speaker 2: You are.
Speaker 1: Word, you're where we where we are now you're in menagerialism.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, like I said, the problem is that there's
Speaker 2: a counterfeit hierarchy that is a cross purposes with virtue
Speaker 2: and logos. There's the problem. The problem isn't that you know,
Speaker 2: there's these distinctions exist in the first place, and structural terms,
Speaker 2: I mean in the legitimate ways and like organic ways
Speaker 2: that curs spontaneously. There's also the sendingolists who were on
Speaker 2: the right and some of these guys uh like a
Speaker 2: lot of these guys actually far really are in Spain
Speaker 2: on the right, I mean, you know, against the Reds.
Speaker 2: But they and you found this with with with the
Speaker 2: Rohm fiction two you know in in uh, in the
Speaker 2: in the Reich, Uh there's a there's a type of
Speaker 2: man who like really holds a communist and contempt not
Speaker 2: just for the kind of more obvious reasons, but because
Speaker 2: communism really is just promises. It's kind of like Telluric
Speaker 2: utopia and it doesn't just like rob kind of the
Speaker 2: you know, our living environment, in our our conceptual space
Speaker 2: of anything beautiful, edifying or pool frankly, for if you'll
Speaker 2: forgive the kind of colloquialism. But it also at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, it's not really heroic because it's
Speaker 2: just saying essentially, well, you know, technology is gonna usher
Speaker 2: in this kind of garden of eating of uh of
Speaker 2: like productive surplus. You know, we're all gonna have like
Speaker 2: all the cargo we want and you know we can
Speaker 2: we can like eat as much as we want and
Speaker 2: like sit around as most as we want, and it's
Speaker 2: gonna be great, you know. And uh, the cynical is
Speaker 2: you know, part of the reverence for violence and kind
Speaker 2: of like they're the sorel is. Like, no, the problem
Speaker 2: with communism is that it's just as decadent as that is,
Speaker 2: you know, the as the as the bourgeois worldview, you know.
Speaker 2: And the function of violence is that, you know, it
Speaker 2: forces man to be engaged with mortality and and with
Speaker 2: you know, at least potentially heroic action and like a
Speaker 2: data day sense. You know. Now that can go too
Speaker 2: far and you get like gangster as dudes as well
Speaker 2: as cycle passed, as well as some guys who are
Speaker 2: just kind of like angry and misguided for various reasons.
Speaker 2: You know, they take that to mean like, well, there's
Speaker 2: just kind of like an endless mersh to like burn
Speaker 2: things the fuck down and like fuck people up. And
Speaker 2: like the most kind of pure iteration of that right
Speaker 2: now is like isis or whatever isis is like morphing
Speaker 2: and do currently Okay, you know what you have then
Speaker 2: is you have like a bunch of mongols. Okay, I
Speaker 2: mean that and that's not I mean's all kinds of
Speaker 2: reasons why that's not. I'm sure some guys are can
Speaker 2: saying the comments and being like a pussy or something.
Speaker 2: It's like, okay, whatever, But I I don't think. I
Speaker 2: don't think some kind of like endless like you know,
Speaker 2: mongol rampage against things we don't like. Is is is
Speaker 2: the way forward? But that is like a real tendency man,
Speaker 2: And that's why violence does need to be tempered with reason.
Speaker 2: And I think and and Sorell does not like abandoned
Speaker 2: reason or something like. That's why he's not he's not
Speaker 2: He's not not only is he not an Ichian, but
Speaker 2: he's not some he was. He was not some like
Speaker 2: anti rationalist, uh you know, uh like fu Cove the
Speaker 2: write or something at all, you know, I mean that's
Speaker 2: why uh, his issue with uh you know, is issue
Speaker 2: with Sobegates is that, like Cyberate, he's like, wasn't serving reason,
Speaker 2: you know, rationalisms, logos, you know, it's it's something entirely different.
Speaker 2: And you know that's why I, like I said, I'm
Speaker 2: not an expert at all in the priests of pratics
Speaker 2: as sure as hell, I can't read Greek or anything
Speaker 2: like that. But I do think I've got a pretty
Speaker 2: decent understanding of Cirel annoying to Cirell and oing a
Speaker 2: hiag girl like I read a you know, I read
Speaker 2: the fragments are Clitus that I mean that do exist.
Speaker 2: You know, I spend a lot of time with Xeno
Speaker 2: fun and uh, there's nothing, uh, there's nothing anarchic about
Speaker 2: what Cerell posits in like a coloaquial sense, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, there's he pertacts with some of the
Speaker 2: same uh, some of the same intellectual heritage as like
Speaker 2: actual capital at anarchist did like in his epoch. But
Speaker 2: he's not he was not at all a guy like Ron.
Speaker 2: He was not all a guy who you know, he's
Speaker 2: not at all some like criminally minded strange person or
Speaker 2: some or some kind of a faeries outlier who you
Speaker 2: know just uh, it just just identified like a path
Speaker 2: to like revolutionary action. I mean that's the way people
Speaker 2: have to mischaracterize him. I mean, Sorell's probably uh, he's esoteric,
Speaker 2: like his whole body of work is. But those that
Speaker 2: do actually have a deep understanding of a twentieth century
Speaker 2: European intellectual foundations, they will to very directly attack Cerell
Speaker 2: and and painted him as like what I just said, like, oh,
Speaker 2: this guy was like you know, he was he was
Speaker 2: you know he was he was he was something erst
Speaker 2: Rahm type psychopath, but without the without the medals and
Speaker 2: the war record and and uh and the body count,
Speaker 2: and it's not and that's a deliberate slander. I think
Speaker 2: it's not what he was at all, you know it. Uh.
Speaker 2: So that's why there's an there's an enduring the value
Speaker 2: to uh Sorell, not just to the political soldier. I
Speaker 2: guess that's what I'm getting. Yet I even argue like
Speaker 2: kind of hyper modernists and worldly and like secularists as
Speaker 2: Cerell was. I say that guys like the Iron Guard
Speaker 2: and Kadriano who probably had like more in common with
Speaker 2: Cerel and then what he identified as. Uh. I mean
Speaker 2: the kind of Eastern mysticism, uh that you know, the
Speaker 2: Romanian Orthodox guys were into, Like obviously Cerell we have
Speaker 2: like no use for that, but in terms of like
Speaker 2: within their own kind of cultural paradigm, like what they
Speaker 2: were trying to accomplish like that, the Currell probably would
Speaker 2: have like looked approvingly on that more than more than
Speaker 2: any kind of you know, inner inner war, like you know,
Speaker 2: radical right movement at least I think so you know,
Speaker 2: it's uh, and that's all about the Ctic was in Spain,
Speaker 2: like didn't they didn't they didn't go anywhere like they
Speaker 2: I mean, like I said, those guys said guts and
Speaker 2: they had heart, and they fought really hard, and I
Speaker 2: think their sacrad lice should be honored. But I mean,
Speaker 2: is the reason why there is there's a reason why
Speaker 2: I kind of like the dullary Cudgillo Franco this this
Speaker 2: kind of like reactionary uh like Cruk like went out,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean it's not It certainly wasn't because
Speaker 2: of like his charisma or like his great mind or something.
Speaker 2: It was because cynicalism, even if it is tempered by
Speaker 2: a basic decency like in moral terms, it and isn't
Speaker 2: just kind of this like orgiastic you know path like
Speaker 2: orgiastic cathartic violence or something. It does. It does not
Speaker 2: like lea out Asian for sustainable structures or for like
Speaker 2: a new kind of like dialectic that's gonna you know,
Speaker 2: build something in instead. I guess that was a point
Speaker 2: we're coming up in the hour here, man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll get let me get one more, one more question, yes, right,
Speaker 1: So when it comes to violence, is the do you
Speaker 1: think the aversion to violence in the United States? Is
Speaker 1: that because of our political heritage, our Protestant heritage. Do
Speaker 1: you think it's because of the culture distorters coming in
Speaker 1: and you know, basically making it verboten or is it
Speaker 1: a combination of both. Is it the culture distorters using
Speaker 1: our Protestant heritage against us?
Speaker 2: America's got a very perverse relations to violence, And I
Speaker 2: think about something younger kind of got into and stuff
Speaker 2: like you know, and some of is like later and
Speaker 2: some is like quasi science fiction novels had a lot
Speaker 2: more social commentary, like like America's a place one of
Speaker 2: the line people claim like they hate violence, but they
Speaker 2: get all excited the idea of like people being sexually
Speaker 2: tortured in prison. You know, like until recently, it was
Speaker 2: you know an identified you know, quote human right uh
Speaker 2: to a fanticide. Like there's this there's this mass homicide
Speaker 2: machine in the Pentagon that just constantly murders thousands of
Speaker 2: people for the most like ambiguous reasons, you know, like
Speaker 2: aus it's currently doing to Russia, and people people like
Speaker 2: cheer that on, like it's just like not only like
Speaker 2: there was tolerted, Like they get excited about it, but
Speaker 2: then they'll turn around and to say that, like, you know,
Speaker 2: violence is the most horrible thing we can imagine. They
Speaker 2: you know, they but they don't don't really believe that
Speaker 2: they've actually got no real respect for human life. But
Speaker 2: because they don't, it's it's it's a kind of a
Speaker 2: it's it's it's a kind of it's it's kind of
Speaker 2: milk coast aversion to uh, actual sovereign decisionism, like coupled
Speaker 2: with a kind of a couple of couple with the
Speaker 2: kind of like un manly like content for human life,
Speaker 2: where you know that that that kind of like that
Speaker 2: that kind of identifies, uh, you know, living things is
Speaker 2: a commodities to be exploited just like everything else. I
Speaker 2: mean that's the way I read it, but it's also
Speaker 2: too like an ethical terms the way point the way
Speaker 2: these like uh the way these uh like post war
Speaker 2: liberals like John Rawls, they're they're only the eras like
Speaker 2: Jeremy Bentham and like Bentham. Uh you know, the uh
Speaker 2: the Enlightenment liberals and demisterra was always uh the people
Speaker 2: that Demister was always savaging correctly. I mean they they're
Speaker 2: they're whole there, you hope he is a pointless society,
Speaker 2: you know, like we talked about before, like it's it's
Speaker 2: it's the ideology the nursing home or like the luxurious prison.
Speaker 2: It's a place like nothing ever happens. You know, there's
Speaker 2: no value creation, there's no culture, there's no passion, there's
Speaker 2: no love, there's no hate. It's like when people like
Speaker 2: exist like fornicate or present masterbait more properly, you know,
Speaker 2: like defecate and like and and and and uh and
Speaker 2: and eat and sleep and like that's it. But it's
Speaker 2: it's just wonderful utopia because like you know, nothing bad happen,
Speaker 2: nothing quant unquote bad happens. I think it's uh, I
Speaker 2: think it's the intellectual poverty of the enlightenment project, you know,
Speaker 2: couple with that basically kind of see like like agents
Speaker 2: sanility in terms of uh, in terms of the you know,
Speaker 2: the the dominant bourgeoisie cultural string like dominant in terms
Speaker 2: of its ability to like impose its view upon like
Speaker 2: the culture as a whole. And yeah, it's obviously it's
Speaker 2: you know kind of like the culture distorders. Uh, it's
Speaker 2: it's a primary objective of there is the you know,
Speaker 2: the kind of like defang like there the people identify
Speaker 2: as like their mortal like enemies. You know. In one
Speaker 2: way to do that is the is the kind of
Speaker 2: you know condition people against you know, quote unquote violence
Speaker 2: or like you know, conditionally to a tolerance for like
Speaker 2: all kinds of horrible stuff. But you know, uh to
Speaker 2: uh you know, to condition them away from the ability
Speaker 2: to like apply violence constructively or in like you know,
Speaker 2: a political capacity. It's a complicated issue when it's all
Speaker 2: of those things, but it's uh without those conceits though,
Speaker 2: like rationalism, Like rationalism can't bite anything that doesn't have
Speaker 2: some like utilitarian you know, like very basically explicable purpose
Speaker 2: like within its own kind of self referencing paradigm, So
Speaker 2: like why would you care about anything enough to be violent?
Speaker 2: You know, like why why why would you care about
Speaker 2: redemptive action? Like why would you care about you know,
Speaker 2: like writing injustice, Like why why would you care about heroism?
Speaker 2: Like why would you care about like you know, uh,
Speaker 2: massulain honor? Like none of those things matter because they
Speaker 2: don't have some kind of utilitarian end that like helps
Speaker 2: us shit more efficiently or like eat more food or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they make the excuse that we have no problem
Speaker 1: with violence as long as it's in it's in self defense,
Speaker 1: and then they get to define what self defences.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, it's like it's it's like a two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty pound like linebacker, like beating the crap out
Speaker 2: of some like eight year old lady while screaming she's
Speaker 2: trying to kill me. Like that's what.
Speaker 1: America is, well, and that's definitely that's definitely what the
Speaker 1: culture distorts are well.
Speaker 2: I mean it's like it's like how, I mean, what
Speaker 2: like you this idea like Vlander Putin is is like
Speaker 2: a deranged mediacu. He doesn't want people pointing hypersonic missiles
Speaker 2: at Moscow at range of three hundred miles. I mean
Speaker 2: it's like, like America is deployed in something like one
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy bases across the world. What if if
Speaker 2: Russia deploys on its border. It's like this is like
Speaker 2: a deranged act of aggression. I mean, it's like there's
Speaker 2: it's one part like delusion and sinility on the part
Speaker 2: of uh, you know, on the part of uh these
Speaker 2: clowns in government uh since nineteen ninety two. But part
Speaker 2: of it is I mean people are, yeah, people are
Speaker 2: actually I think a lot of people like in these
Speaker 2: kinds of managerial caadres, they're really like they have twos
Speaker 2: some fucking stupid and like morally illiterate, like they really
Speaker 2: believe that like how there, you're not let me punch
Speaker 2: you in the face over and over again. Like it's
Speaker 2: I I didn't realize that for a long time, and
Speaker 2: then I realized, like these people really are. They're they're crapists.
Speaker 2: They're like moral creaman's and they're just like a lot
Speaker 2: of we're just like fucking stupid, Like they're not acting
Speaker 2: like Joe Biden, like Biden, they're not acting yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: Biden really is a fucking moron, Like he's like aside
Speaker 2: from his uh, aside from whatever like organic mention issues
Speaker 2: that they ran out half like the guy the guy's
Speaker 2: are fucking idiots, you know, like it uh like like
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi is like a subnormal fucking moron. You know,
Speaker 2: like they're very rare exceptions. They're they're all like that,
Speaker 2: you know, and it's there's outliers, but they you know,
Speaker 2: they're kind of only in the game. A guy like
Speaker 2: Mary and Paul is only in a game that's like
Speaker 2: literally become kind of like a family business. I'm not
Speaker 2: like putting shade on Randon Paul. He's a by the
Speaker 2: only like he's not the only previous Paul. I I
Speaker 2: I like it all these days. But but my point is,
Speaker 2: like I think Head he had like another kind of
Speaker 2: like path, the clout and money. I I don't think
Speaker 2: he'd be hanging around Washington. I just don't. I Mean,
Speaker 2: that's that's all. That's all other people talking on the
Speaker 2: sociology of the managerial state, like, uh, there's not there's
Speaker 2: some grand uh historical project. They buried that project. Notwithstanding
Speaker 2: you know, whether it's world whether it's war, whether it's
Speaker 2: World War two, or whether it's the code war, like uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the point before like Elon Musk forty years ago,
Speaker 2: he'd be like Jerry Pornell. He would have been you know,
Speaker 2: heading up some pack and like working hand in glove
Speaker 2: with the d O d on like SDI and stuff
Speaker 2: like that. But like I guys like him, like they
Speaker 2: want anything to do with garment these days, why would they?
Speaker 2: Like that's this repository of like losers and like Weirdo's frankly,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean that that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Like how people Definitely he's smart enough to take their
Speaker 1: money though.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's part of the game.
Speaker 2: You know. It's like I I get people putting shit
Speaker 2: on of Elons. There's something that seems like lose rich
Speaker 2: about it. I Mean, the dude is he's an Afri connor,
Speaker 2: a billionaire who's a genius innovator and he he he's
Speaker 2: he's he's one of the only people who's talking about
Speaker 2: truly fallacy and things, you know, like the Congress, the
Speaker 2: space which, despite when people tell you, actually is important
Speaker 2: on its own terms. So there's something like lose rich
Speaker 2: about people that just deciding they hate Elon Musk. But
Speaker 2: he but yeah, I mean the role he's in not
Speaker 2: just his wealth, but because of like how that wealth
Speaker 2: is kind of insinuated into things that touch and concern
Speaker 2: you know, uh, like like you know, technology that at scale,
Speaker 2: you know, the regimes relying upon. I mean, he's gonna
Speaker 2: be like a political actor, okay with it. But the
Speaker 2: reason why, like he doesn't comment like formal office. So
Speaker 2: the reason why he's not you know, engage in like
Speaker 2: think tank stuff is because, yeah, that the end of
Speaker 2: the Cold War brought an end to the ability of
Speaker 2: of of the regime to attract none such as he
Speaker 2: to uh their environs. Yeah. Well yeah, let's uh if
Speaker 2: you want to do a place, well that'd be great.
Speaker 2: Man's up to you. And then we'll after that, well
Speaker 2: we'll get back to the Cold War series and take
Speaker 2: up uh Vina Vietnam era, like what next episode will
Speaker 2: do whichever you want, like either of those.
Speaker 1: I was thinking about jumping back into the Cold War
Speaker 1: I kind of a few episodes and then coming back
Speaker 1: into this because I think a lot of it will
Speaker 1: cross over. I think we'll have what we'll actually even
Speaker 1: generate content for the next surrel talk, especially with what
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about in the next couple uh,
Speaker 1: in the next few Cold War episodes.
Speaker 2: No, that would be great, man. Yeah, there's a lot,
Speaker 2: there's a lot, there's a lot to there's a lot
Speaker 2: there with Vietnam and then then that that dovetails not
Speaker 2: just with my research on this, on this Nuremberg International
Speaker 2: International Jurisprudence manuscript and working on, but it, like the
Speaker 2: Annams vi Atnaun's important in ways that not unlike World
Speaker 2: War Two, is important understanding the current regime. I mean
Speaker 2: not it's like a founding mythology obviously nothing like that.
Speaker 2: But it changed things in all kinds of ways, and
Speaker 2: that that really was like the hot battle field of
Speaker 2: the Cold War and all kinds of like militarily put
Speaker 2: it leap, I mean culturally it changed things. And we'll
Speaker 2: get into all of that. But my point is like
Speaker 2: it's not just some it's not just like a question
Speaker 2: a trivia or some or something something that's like interesting
Speaker 2: to talk about, like you know, it might be to
Speaker 2: talk about kind of like you know, the you know,
Speaker 2: some some kind of like long forgotten you know, war
Speaker 2: ways by the British Empire or something like. It remains
Speaker 2: really important is my point.
Speaker 1: All right, two plugs and we'll get out of here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can still find me on Twitter. I mean,
Speaker 2: they screw with me a lot, but I don't think
Speaker 2: they're gonna band me again. I think those days are over.
Speaker 2: I mean, if they did well, I'm launching a YouTube
Speaker 2: channel just in a few days here, after the first
Speaker 2: week in January, and I'll make sure everybody knows where
Speaker 2: to find it. It's Thomas TV. Uh able to find it,
Speaker 2: but I'll plug it like on Twitter, I'll plug it
Speaker 2: on substack. I'll make sure people can find it. My
Speaker 2: Twitter is at Tris Kelly and Jahad. The first T
Speaker 2: is seven. If you search for Thomas seven seven seven,
Speaker 2: I think you'll find it. But uh, you can find
Speaker 2: me on substack at real Thomas seven seven seven dot
Speaker 2: subsec dot com. I've been canceled from uh t gram,
Speaker 2: which is a ship UH company. In my opinion, I
Speaker 2: was a paid subscriber in a you know mind you
Speaker 2: They welcome garbage like you know, hardcore pornography and like
Speaker 2: really disgusting like boor stuff. But it's run by some
Speaker 2: Zionist crowd, like and apparently like the crime of like
Speaker 2: criticizing uh Somali of the Earls West known as Ukraine
Speaker 2: as like a cancel orable offense. So I've got no
Speaker 2: use for that. I wish people would. Uh. There's plenty
Speaker 2: of other chat options popping up, including a substack itself. Uh,
Speaker 2: you can join my substack chat for free. They it's
Speaker 2: it's a lot more user friendly than t gram. They
Speaker 2: don't censor anybody, and we've got total control of it
Speaker 2: because it's incident to my t gran, my subject account
Speaker 2: and subjects.
Speaker 1: You need to have the sub you need to have
Speaker 1: the substack app and on your phone in order to
Speaker 1: get notifications for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's it's dope and uh so far subtect
Speaker 2: has never ever done anything to sensor any of my content.
Speaker 2: And frankly, uh, people like Genuate generate a health lot
Speaker 2: of revenue for them, and uh, I think they realize
Speaker 2: which side they're uh bread as buttered on as it worse.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's gonna change, but please migrate to
Speaker 2: sub stack. I I'm done with t Graham. I'm not
Speaker 2: I can't a good conscience. I'm not gonna pay money
Speaker 2: to people who cancel me. I'm not gonna utilize a
Speaker 2: platform where people abuse me and I've gotten really disgusting
Speaker 2: and awful communications from from these like Ukrainian sickos and
Speaker 2: like other people. Man, like there's it just really grows stuff.
Speaker 2: I mean, like I I cannot, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: play murder or something. But this idea that like well
Speaker 2: t gram kind of sucks but you know it's good
Speaker 2: for other things. It's not a good platform, man, And
Speaker 2: it's it's a repositive Malbourne spy Wars spywear. It's always
Speaker 2: fucked up like.
Speaker 1: The user in or it's bought.
Speaker 2: Hell yeah, man, it's a ship hole and people I
Speaker 2: don't know why people are like so attached to it.
Speaker 2: It's like what do you what are you getting out
Speaker 2: of this? But whatever, So yeah, that's no more. I
Speaker 2: will never return there. But yeah, forgive the rant, but
Speaker 2: that's definitely can find me. My My second novel, which
Speaker 2: is the second Steel Storm novel, is gonna drop in January.
Speaker 2: I hope you went asking what that, but you know
Speaker 2: that that's all I got for no And thank you
Speaker 2: very much everybody you throw all the kind feedback.
Speaker 1: This will be the first episode of the new year.
Speaker 1: Oh thank you know, thank everybody for this previous year.
Speaker 1: It's been absolutely amazing and just to say about Substack,
Speaker 1: substack will be the only place that someone like you
Speaker 1: or me will ever get a check mark.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, I remember, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember. I. I logged on and I looked at
Speaker 1: my I looked at one of my posts and there
Speaker 1: was a check market next to my name, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: that's weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's it's in some ways, the the market
Speaker 2: is the corrective and and we we make a lot
Speaker 2: of money for those people. Man, they make money because
Speaker 2: of us. I mean they're not they're not. Uh, I
Speaker 2: mean that's that that really is the bread and butter.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not a platform that draws advertising revenue really,
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, so they I'm a huge fan of
Speaker 2: substick man, I I really am. So yeah, please dip
Speaker 2: into the substick ship. It's basically like the core of
Speaker 2: guys and a few ladies, and we we appreciate them
Speaker 2: being among us. Stop. Uh. It's basically like the t
Speaker 2: Grand mob like basically migrated there. But there's still something
Speaker 2: holdouts and I don't know if they're fucking massiveness or what.
Speaker 2: It's like quite the freaking t gram man, It's bad
Speaker 2: for you. Yeah, it's bad for you. But yeah again,
Speaker 2: I can't thank you enough man, and I I'm really
Speaker 2: stoked that people have been so excited about this, this
Speaker 2: this series. And yeah, well we'll get into we'll get
Speaker 2: into uh, we'll get into the Vietnam War next episode,
Speaker 2: and then we'll get back to Sorel and reflections on violence.
Speaker 1: So appreciated, Thomas.
Speaker 2: Thank you