Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and AD free, head on over to Freeman
Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support. There's a
few ways you can support me there. One there's a
direct link to my website. Two, there's subscribe Star. Three,
there's Patreon. Four, there's substack. And now I've introduced gum
Road because I know that a lot of our guys
are on gum road and they are against censorship. So
if you head over to gum Road and you subscribe
through there, you'll get the episodes early and ad free,
and you'll get an invite into the Telegram group. So
I really appreciate all the support everyone's giving me, and
I hope to expand the show even more than it
already has. Thank you so much. I want to welcome
everyone back to the Peginiano Show. Charlotta Magne's back. How
you doing, Charlot Mane?
Speaker 2: Excellent. I was actually just listening to your episode with
Turnip Seed right before we started, so always very interesting
to hear his trials and tribulations, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Right before we started, I was listening to him speak
live with orin on YouTube. He was talking about the
same subject. So yeah, just trying to get as much
from learn as much from him, because you know, I
see the same thing in churches all over the place.
I've started seeing that kind of stuff twenty years ago,
where you started seeing the infiltration of leftist ideology making
a its way in and I mean I saw that.
I noticed it in the Southern Baptist Convention. It's two
thousand and one, two thousand and two, and you know,
pretty much since Vatican, Vatican to the Catholic Church has
been fighting with us. So you know, both of the
both of the churches I went to on a pretty
regular basis, are suffering the same kind of same kind
of issues everyone else is. And I mean the Southern
Baptist Convention has gone, you know, completely off the rails
in a lot of ways. And Catholicism, well, all we
can hope, I think at this point, all we can
hope to do is find a home parish where the
priest is is you know, older, old fashioned, and yeah,
that's really about it. And I think that's what a
lot of people are doing. As far as Protestants. Everyone's
doing is like you find that one church and then
you hope that the pastor. If you have a base pastor,
you hope he doesn't retire and then incomes you know,
pastor Jim, who you know has has a goatee and
long hair.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I've been pretty lucky with this. I
haven't interrogated this subject, but I just estimate that, you know,
after about two years or so of attending Mass here,
the word Ukraine and Israel has not been mentioned once
by anyone. So I'm just going to assume that it's
h He's pretty based.
Speaker 1: Well, shockingly, there's two Catholic churches I go to here
on a regular basis, And I mean we're in the South,
We're in the Bible, you know, there's the Bible Belt.
I do notice that a lot of the people who
go to Catholic churches down here are transplants from from elsewhere,
or people who may have found Catholicism in the military
or something like that, if they are Southern, if they
are from around here. But yeah, lucky too, not hearing it,
not hearing that at all. And if I did, it
would be it'd be sad because where I live, finding
a Catholic church is like it's like going out and
trying to find a trying to find a you know,
bar of gold in the in one of the local
streams or something like that. All right, let's talk. I
asked you to come on and talk about ideology and
something I've been thinking about lately, and I'll just I'll
give you a short introduction of where my thought was.
A simple way I'm thinking is that people on the
people on the far right, and I'm not talking about
far right like how you know, people we know. I'm
talking about people who would consider themselves to be on
the far right, but more normy, like you know, some
of the MAGA people, some of the Mega people who
were even you know, quoting Carl Schmidt now and putting
out talking about Franco or things like that. They're set
in their ways. The progressives all the way to the
to the other side are set in their ways. So
coming at them with an ideology that is counter to
what they already believe it is probably a fool's Errand
and then for the most part, I think the people
in the middle who've checked out or who are they
vote for, whoever they think is the coolest or something
like that, that they're pretty much non ideological. So when
I look at like the political landscape in the country.
If you want to make in roads into politics now,
if you want to be able to get one of
the existing parties to at least listen to you, you're
going to have to be pretty much lined up with
their ideology, maybe slightly, you know, maybe slight difference, but
if it's too far out of the realm of possibility,
or if it's too far out of what they already believe,
they're not going to listen to you. That's either side.
And then this when you come at the center with ideology,
people who are non ideological, they just think you're some
kind of bookworm, you know, lunatic, and they kind of
side on you. Am I seeing the American public, the
American electorate, if you want to call it that properly, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think so people are either strictly ideology or strictly
non ideological. I've been thinking about ideology a bit myself
lately because it sort of relates to the subjects I've
been researching and reading on for my speech that I'm
giving in a two weeks or so at the Old
Glory Club, where I'll be talking about political formulas primarily
and also our Constitution in the United States, and I think, well,
it's interesting researching the history of what we would now
call classical liberalism, because this concept wouldn't really appear in
people's thinking at the time when that type of thinking
would have been prevalent. Like if you look at English
common law, and if you look at things like the
Declaration of Independence, which our friend Christopher sand Badch just
wrote a little piece on Twitter, and if you look
at our constitution, the way Anglo American law developed isn't
really from an ideological basis so much as a normalative
basis that described like basically the circumstances under which people
were already accustomed to being ruled. And you know, documents
like the Magna Carta, for example, aren't really ideological documents
so much as codifications of the normative expectations of the
English people, saying goes for our you know, Declaration and Constitution.
On all these famous documents, they you know, the founders,
you know, get get maligned by people on the right,
especially as like these classical liberals, and of course Curtis
Jarvin you know, sort of assaults them as these big
liberals in the face of right wing absolute monarchy. But
this sort of ideological type of thinking didn't really come
around until mainly the nineteenth century, and it wasn't really
something that motivated people back then. So it's a pretty
new phenomenon, and I think we we often incorrectly project
our modern ideological thinking onto people in the past, and
that leads to many incorrect assumptions about what we should
or shouldn't do based on the traditions of our ancestors.
So I think ideological thinking is very polluted by this
phenomenon in general, because it goes a long way to
actually obscure our perspective of the past. Then again, people
are ideological now, and we do have to grapple with
that before I say more, what do you think of anything?
Speaker 1: I just said there, No, it makes a lot of sense.
You know, when you think about the Constitution. If you
read the Constitution, it doesn't take very long. It's not
a long document. It's when you get rid of the
Bill of Rights, when you get down into the into
how they're designing government. What can you say in there
is classically liberal? What can you say in there is enlightened?
Is enlightenment thinking? I don't know that there really is
anything in there. I mean it leaves the door open
for taxation. I mean you could it leaves the door
open for one hundred percent taxation if need be so. Really,
I mean a lot of people will look at the
Constitution and have taken it apart, people who are honest
and said, you know, it's very easily can lead to tyranny.
It can be used for tyranny. Jarvin makes the argument
that you know, you could basically use you could make
yourself a dictator just using the Constitution. And I've read
his argument at length and it makes it makes one
hundred percent sense. So yeah, you know, this is one
thing that when you start looking at dissonant thought, when
you start looking at the counter Enlightenment thinkers, you start
to understand that ideology or I will say constitutions carta. Yeah,
these aren't things that were put in place to control
a people. They're more looking at the constitution or the
magnet carta or any kind of proto document before the
American Constitution. You're looking at a people are putting down
on paper a reflection of the values of the people
that this paper is the polity that this paper is
dealing with. And I don't think that that can be argued.
I think it can definitely be argued that people say
that the most totalitarian states are the ones that have
the most laws. You have to keep adding laws and
adding laws and adding laws. And if you have to
keep adding laws, if you have to keep changing things,
if you have to keep amending, then what the document
was originally supposed to reflect is gone. It doesn't reflect
the people that it's not a picture of the people
that it's supposed to reflect in the first place.
Speaker 2: Now you mentioned at the beginning there whether or not,
you know, the Constitution itself is a liberal document or
something like that. You know, I have been reading Schmid's
The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy lately, which I think is
his best book, to be honest, I mean, one of
the one of the great things about Schmidt is that
he he spends a lot of time defining all these
terms like liberalism and democracy in parliamentism and disambiguates them
from one another. Too often, liberalism and democracy or treated
as the same thing, and they're not. You know. He
makes the point that democracy can serve basically in the end,
it can be reactionary, or it can be liberal, it
can be socialist, it can be really whatever you want.
This sort of ties into your original point that you know,
to the extent, people are ideologically democratic, and you can
you can work that with a political formula that remains
true to the idea of democracy and yet serve some
entirely different end than liberalism. Right if they're not strictly
ideologically liberal, but they're more ideologically concerned about having a democracy,
which is what you know, maybe you would say, like
the American writer, conservatives or centrists are they're not necessarily liberals,
but they are democrats. That's that's that's a means by
which you can sort of subvert the the tying of
liberalism and democracy together. So I think it's it's important
to have a grasp on what these terms actually mean
and whether or not, you know, the foundation of this
country is fundamentally uh, liberal or not, and whether or
not you can work the constitution if people care about that,
which they do, uh to be more reactionary. This is
something we have to address, you know, in terms of
right wing ideology. Right people have gotten very ideological about
republicanism and the Constitution, and there's this sort of reaction
where it's like, Okay, we just need to throw out
the Constitution, like that's our goal. That doesn't really make
any sense because it's a very that's actually a very
anti traditional perspective. If you look at, you know, the
history of the English and American people, you're basically talking
about throwing out the type of government system we've used
to the last five hundred years, which is kind of
a bizarre position for a right winger to take. It's also,
you know, just entirely impractical. Like people, you know, Mosca
talks about political formula, right. You know, Mosca himself, interestingly enough,
regards if you read the ruling class representative governments as
basically the best form that Europe could be under, at
least when he was alive, which is quite interest right,
because he's sort of this. You know, today people kind
of throw around the idea of political formulas. It's like
cynical conception and it's just something the elites used to governess.
But you know, Mosca seems to think there's there's something
too a republican form of government anyway. You know, if
people people really care about the constitution, right, and they do,
you can you can sort of argue to people that
the Constitution still longer, you know, like really enforce in
the way it was when the country was created. Right,
And that's a useful point that are In McIntyre makes.
It's like people have to have to like get over
the constitution, right, Like you can't just appeal to it
as as an argument at this point because you know
your your opponents don't care anymore. That said, you know,
taking that and trying to convince people that you know,
we just need to throw out the constitution because it's
like fundamentally liberal or something doesn't really make any sense either,
because that's very much against American idiot logical sensibilities. So
you're sort of like, uh, you're you're working against yourself
when you try to do that. It's it's much better
to try and argue, Okay, how can the we we
actually we're not anti democracy. What we're against is we're
we're illiberals. And what we want is, you know, a
democratic society in which the people who are enfranchised with
the right to vote and the people who are citizens
maybe those aren't even the same thing, are a limited
set of people. And this is classically democratic by by
any conception, and it can be completely reactionary. So you
don't have to you know, lump all these ideas together,
and you don't have to like insist that we need
some sort of you know, based monarchy or something like that,
which just a ridiculous idea to to you know, pitch
to Americans. Right, that doesn't make any sense. No one's
going to accept that, and you, you know, you're you
basically try to impose your sort of boutique ideology on people.
If if you try to, like, you know, come at
normal Americans with life like some idea of of of
you know, Catholic monarchy or whatever kind of monarchy you
have in mind, or even fascism like this just doesn't
appeal to people. So you need to figure out how
to how to work the existing you know, political formula,
degenerated as it is, in your favor, using the concepts
people expect, right, Americans just expect that we're going to
be governed by some sort of republican system that's federalized
among many states. Uh, There're just there's no world in
which you're going to like convince people that actually we
need like a king or an emperor or something that
I kind of view that as a ridiculous and kind
of productive. So what do you think.
Speaker 1: Well, one thing I wanted to bring up is, and
I agree with you, people, people are going to revolt
if you if they've bought into the civic religion and
you try to take the civic religion away from them.
It's just basically the same thing as trying to take
people's religion away from them. They're going to revolt, no
matter how much you may that much you may not
like it. What I wanted to say was from reading
Sam Francis and his reviewing of James Burnham. He says
he's of the opinion Francis that what Burnham is saying
is that ideology is for the masses, that those in
power don't really have an ideology other than power. These
these in the box ideologies like republicanism, progressivism, you know,
and some of these are you know, who knows. Republicanism
you can you can nail down a little more. Progressivism
is whatever works at the time just seems to be
like a power kind of ideology. Or libertarianism, which is
something like this completely in the box. You know, there's
libertarians who are like, we cannot allow anything in this box,
or we're not pure libertarians anymore, that these are basically
goods that are sold to the masses to keep them
arguing amongst themselves, or it's something that is sold by
elites to get them to come on their side. And
you know, people vote for the you know, the conservative,
and you know they never get a conservative. They get
you know, most conservatives famously, I forget who said this.
They they run for office like libertarians and then they
they govern like democrats. So is ideology even real when
it comes down to it, or is it just something
that is sold to the public to make them feel
like they're a part of all of this and that
they have a team and that there are people out
here who are on your side and they're politicians, people
at power.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think Burnham's probably a little too cynical the
way he views ideology. But yeah, I mean mostly and
everything I just described like the way you you sort
of sell yourself to the masses, Like the the ideology
or in its distilled form, the political formula isn't isn't
the rules you follow? Right, That's just how you sell
you being in power or your faction being in power
to people. But you don't have to be bound to
that in terms of how you actually govern, like you
can basically you could set up sort of a sort
of a you know, you could set up a sort
of a pseudo Christian nationalist like oligarchy behind the mantle
of you know, democratic republicanism with federal government, you know,
and everything I just described. Like those things, we don't
have to bind ourselves to strictly following some set of
rules in terms of you know, how we would theoretically
actually govern, you know, assuming any faction like that's sympathetic
to us actually comes to power. I mean, I think elites, certainly,
some elites have ideologies that that drive them. I mean
I think if you look at someone like Thomas Jefferson,
for example, to go back to the Founders, you know,
he clearly uh you know, he was president of the
United States for example, Like we can't we certainly can't
deny that he was among the ruling elite, and he
was certainly much more ideological than you know, his his nemesis,
for example, Alexander Hamilton, who I think was much more Machiavelli,
and that that's necessarily bad. I think Hamilton's kind of
based actually uh, but that's kind of getting off the
subject like the the the elites. Uh, some of them
are more ideological than others.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: Ideology in general is kind of a poisonous word. I
mean it, like you said, people treat it like a religion.
I think it's for for for us. I think it's
more important for us to be true as true to
our you know, religious faith as much as possible, and
assuming any of us were anywhere near power, we would
have to be in the difficult situation of making whatever
compromising is with that where we're necessary, because that's the
reality of politics, right, And I think a lot of
people on the on the sort of online right don't
get that either. Is, you can't ever govern in this
sort of idealized way. There's always going to be deep
compromises you have to make, and ultimately, for better or worse,
you do kind of have to end up being more
concerned with just maintaining your power than anything else, you know,
because people people react strongly and can be provoked to
react strongly by other opposing factions if their you know,
material interests aren't met or you know, as we see,
if they're deep seated ideo ideological beliefs are violated, you know,
be it a sacred democracy right now or you know
something something Bootler, you know, that sort of thing. So
I guess to answer your question, I mean, I don't
take the view strictly speak. I don't take this this
deeply cynical view that that elites just don't believe really
anything other than power. I think there's there's some there,
you know. I don't like to view elites just as
this singular group either as some people do. There there
are some people who are more ideological, you know. I
think we can see that someone like Elon Musk certainly
has certain ideological convictions. I think he's less committed to
free speech than he claims to be right, but he
certainly has some real conviction there in regards to freedom
of speech. And that's sort of like this sort of
libertarian thing he has. I don't think I think it
would be kind of weird to deny that, you know,
Musk himself doesn't have some sort of like genuine ideological belief,
although his actions clearly, you know, demonstrate certain compromises specifically
around you know, the subject of you know, Jews in Israel,
in order to to maintain his power. Anyway, what do
you think.
Speaker 1: I think Musk is at the point now where he's
just I think he has goals that he hasn't shared
with anyone, which is good. I mean, he doesn't have to,
and he's basically doing whatever he needs to do right
now to achieve those goals. And I'm not saying that
those goals are benevolent or whatever. They're his goals, and
they may include large sections of mankind that's neither here
nor there. I mean there's right now he has. I mean,
he has enough power to make you know, thirteen members
of media matters get be fired and watch them crying
on Twitter, which is you know. I mean, the schadenfreud
is terrible, but you know you got to love it.
I guess what I'm thinking is in our country, if
we were to actually have order again, if we were
to actually have a country again. Is you mentioned religion?
So you know, one should be ideological about what they believe,
One should be ideological about how they how they treat family,
how they treat ken, how they treat people who are
like minded and share their values. Do you think the
constitution or the people at large and the people of
the country would be okay with I mean to me,
if you have an If you have a group that
shares an ideology, the main goal of power should be
to protect that ideology and make sure that it goes
forward and make sure it's not subverted. That's what you use.
As much power as you need for that. Economics, all
that kind of stuff that's you know, that's in the background,
that's not as important as having a cohesive unit, a
cohesive group of people that are not being subverted from
the outside or within. So if you know, in my opinion,
and people who share values, the state is to has
one goal, and that's to protect them and to make
sure that those value they can practice those values, and
that those values aren't under attack. Those values stay in
you know, stay in place. Is that a realistic goal
for this country? For not even national but state or
I mean, I think it could work out locally, but
state or national? Does that even seem like it's remotely
remotely what people who are constituted, you know, love the
Constitution would agree to.
Speaker 2: Probably not in a direct way.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, one of the reasons we are no longer
governed by the Constitution as a political formula right now.
It's sort of our current formula ties back to that ultimately,
but we just say, now our political formulas more just
like mass democracy and liberalism. Uh, if you want to
actually protect your ideology, then well, I mean you have
to make sure the people themselves have to be fit
for it, right, Like, one of the problems we have
on the right is that the people for the most part,
including many of us, really are no longer even fit
to be governed in the ways we sort of harken
back to, like we're not actually fit to maintain that.
So if you if you want to actually implement some
sort of you know, right wing ideology, I guess what
the state should be doing to the extent that you,
as a right wing or have any influence over it
at all. Local whatever is is a putting in policies
that make the people more fit for the type of
the type of people you want them to be, maybe
the type of people they were or their ancestors were
in the past. I guess you could use the word
the German word the mention material, right, And I don't
mean that in like the strictly biological sense, Like we
don't actually have the mention material at this point in
America to really be governed by anything other than that
liberal democracy. So really the first goal, starting from yourself
at family outward, is to actually even make people fit
to be governed by a different political formula that's not
liberal democracy, before even really trying to convince them, because
there's no there's no way to have that be implemented
and accepted and stable if the people aren't fit to
be governed by it, because they're not going to maintain it,
because you know, ultimately, as we say, the masses do
have to accept the political formula that they're under to
view their their government as legitimate at all. And you
can't really sell a highly reactionary mode of government to
people who simply aren't fit for it. So, yes, I
think it is. It is a reasonable goal to you know,
have whatever level of government is possible to try and
protect an ideology, if you want to put it that way.
But I would say that the better way to phrase
that is your goal should be to have your government
improve the you know, physical spiritual health of the people
so that they are better fit to be governed more appropriately,
rather than try and I guess force it down people's throats,
because then you're just going to get expelled because people
won't put up with you, so you kind of have
to go about it in this I guess you could.
You might call it like a long march, because it
takes a long time to get in shape, right if
you're if you want to boil this down to the
idea of like exercising yourself, it takes a long time
to like make yourself physically fit. Same thing for you know,
spiritual and mental fitness for uh a more Christian or
traditional political formula. Uh, the people are going to have
to be uh massaged and worked into that over a
very long period because you know, just everyone's a liberal
now is really what it comes down to. So it's
it's never going to be realistic, I think for for
us to have some sort of hugely reactionary government in power,
like get at a federal level, because it's just going
to take far too long for changes to propagate that far.
So I don't know, what do you think.
Speaker 1: I would love for, you know, for us to yeah,
have the goal of everybody becoming you know, like a
like an Rinch younger type anarch But the I don't
even know if that's how possible. Is that when you
look at you know, the last hundred years. Technology just
seems to have beaten toughness out of people. You know,
the toughest people you're going to find in this country
are really the people are working, still working on farms,
still working manual labor, still breaking rocks, still digging with
their hands. I think we've talked about Zinsky before, you know,
in Jocola Lowell as well. I mean, I just don't
know what it would take to be able to get
You'd have to get basically every you know, the patriarch
of every family or most families, and the community leaders.
It would have to start at the most well, I
think it would have to start at the most local
level and work its way out for that to become
a thing. Yeah, and the you know, sure, the government
talking up, talking up programs of you know, physical fitness
and working with your doing things like that. Being able
to basically take care of yourself and take care of
the people around you. I'm yeah, I think you're right.
I just don't know how much of an insurmountable task
that is at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the way I would approach this is basically, you
need to turn your children into Superman pretty much like
that's that's kind of the way. I mean, I think,
let's be honest, if you're like listening to podcasts on
the internet, you know, frankly, most people now are just
total pussies compared to literally anyone who's ever lived in
the past, right, Like that's just kind of our fallen state,
Like we suck. But when you have blank templates like children,
if you are able, and it might cost a lot
of money, if you're able to give them more classical education,
if you're able to make them, you know, far more
intelligent that they're peers simply by you know, homeschooling them
at an accelerated rate and things like that, and teaching them,
you know, the types of skills and abilities that people
just don't have anymore. You know, there's there's the possibility
that through their their sheer uh standing in a future
community and habit, they will be able to you know,
natural they'll they'll be natural elites.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: I think that there's there's potential in our various communities
to sort of, you know, create natural elites by by
training our own children appropriately and hopefully having large families
all all you know, developed as such so that they
can you know, support one another and you don't have
these single points of failure. I think that's that's the
only possibility. I think, like trying to convince other people
to become patriarchs and other people to do this is
just not going to happen. You know. Maybe through example
in the future you can you can sort of, you know,
help people understand how to do this. But I think we,
I think we really want to like try and almost
recreate on purpose that, you know, the type of person
that hasn't really been seen in the English speaking world
in at least over one hundred years, right, you know,
and I mean like you know, teaching your kids Latin,
teaching them how to play music, teaching them scripture, teaching
manual labor labor skills. You know, there's really no reason
why they shouldn't understand fairly advanced mathematics, you know, as
a teenager, as opposed to you know, waiting to you
in your twenties like we do now. You know, this
sort of thing, if if you're able to actually develop
an individual like that, who is who has a mental, spiritual,
physical capacity that's just way beyond all their peers, you know,
twenty thirty years from now, you know, these could be
the type of person. You know, maybe if things go
like more the way mister you know, Charles Heywood sees
them going. You know, these are the kind of people
who can who can re establish order. It's not going
to happen because like you know, our faction or something
like somehow gets powered the government. I think it's going
to have to be far more bottom up in order
for any sort of order to be imposed on any level.
So what do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Everybody wants to name something, right, It's like, well, what
do you you know? Somebody asked me the other day
what I do for a living? I still people ask
me that. I just I'm a podcasters. You want to
name something? So what would that be? What would that
look like? What would the if you were to call
that an ideology, if you were to give it a name,
if you were to get of it. It doesn't even
have to have a name. Maybe what is the spirit
of it?
Speaker 2: Natural aristocracy?
Speaker 1: Natural aristocracy?
Speaker 2: Yeah, or artificial aristocracy is maybe a better term, because
that's basically what I'm recommended is is you know, try
and manufacture aristocrats, which I think actually is eminently doable.
You know a lot of there are a lot of
like Aristo LARPers, right, I mean, most of us can't
be aristocrats by constitution. I have a lot of books though,
on how to be, on how aristocrats were trained, at
what they were like. You know, I'm confident that maybe,
you know, maybe I can't be an aristocrat, but maybe
I'm good enough to produce someone in the future, you know,
at offspring who could be like that. If I applied myself,
I think it would be extremely difficult, but it wouldn't
be impossible, right, I could never ever turn myself into
an aristocrat. It can't happen. And I mean, like in
Evla's conception here, right, not like having some stupid title
or something. Maybe I could produce a child that could
be like that, and if not, at the very least,
perhaps you know, my grandchildren could could be aristocratic. Right.
That's that's kind of the time horizon I'm looking at.
So yeah, I would just call it natural aristocracy or
just aristocracies is what I'm recommending. And it's you know,
it basically require like your entire life dedicated to the project.
If you're you know, if you're able to become like
a family man, right, But that that is what that's
to be clear, this isn't just something I'm coming up with, Like,
this is what I basically what I intend to do
with my life. That's partly why I moved to Montana,
why I have a homestead Like this is, this is
my life plan basically for the next fifty years that
I'm trying to figure out, you know, how to actualize.
So I have every intention of attempting to do this. Obviously,
you know I can't. I can't tell you how it's
going to work out because you know, I'm only just
started basically, but that is what I intend to do
along the lines of, you know, what we're trying to achieve.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks for bringing up the fact that you, you know,
you had moved to Montana because that's where I wanted
to go. Next is you know, I've been telling people
since twenty twenty to get out of cities. That's what
I did. I was I didn't live directly in Atlanta,
but I was adjacent enough to be you know, pretty
much all my neighbors lived worked in Atlanta. But you know,
and I catch crap for that because it's like, oh,
you talk about how culture is important, but then you know,
if your whole family's in a city and everything. I
get that, Believe me, Believe me. It's a struggle. And
you know something I struggle with. I struggle with my
thoughts and my ideas all the time. People. It's you know,
it's it's something that we constantly have to be tweaking
and thinking about. But how honestly can you see building
these natural aristocrats? Can you see doing that in a
city setting, in a suburban setting. I mean, I'm just
I'm trying to picture how that works in my mind considering, Yeah,
there's just too much.
Speaker 2: Frankly, no, there's too much pollution, like ideological pollution. It's
it would not be possible, you know, you would have
to they would have to be sufficiently isolated from the
modern world in their formative years, or else the entire
project would come to naught. Right, So, like, you know,
don't give them iPads and unlimited internet access and all
this garbage. No, no modern films, you know that sort
of thing. Uh, you know, a similar you know, frankly,
very similar to the type of childhood people used to have.
Even probably some people who potentially could even listen to
this podcast, you know, they and you're never You're never
going to achieve that if you're you're in a city,
you're just you're not going to be able to protect
your family from these things if you're you know, basically
in the very den of it. This is very contrary
to you know, the type of frankly garbage people like
Yarvard will put out in the terms of like, you
know what they kind of view as an aristocrat, which
you know, are just these like degenerate liberal elites, right,
that's that's no aristocrat. I totally reject this view. It's
impossible to have a person. You know, you can produce
power in cities, but power and aristocracy are not the
same thing, right, And you know, some people conflate these two,
but they're not the same. And I don't. I do
not think the suburbs or the cities are are the
places we can ever hope to to produce such people.
And by the way, I mean, this isn't just like
a purely ideological, h you know, thing to like pursue
in terms of raising a family, like I think it's
the most moral way to raise children like this at
this point is to is to protect them from the
modern world as much as possible, even if you're not
trying to, you know, embark on this sort of strange
project that I'm proposing here. It's just like, why, why
the hell would you want to expose children to the
way the world is right now? I would just it
just seemed like evil to me, right.
Speaker 1: But Charlie, didn't you know that like Italian neighborhoods, you know,
if somebody was messing around, if some black eye came
in there, they used to beat the crap out of
them and kick them out. All we have to do
is bring that back and we can get the cities back.
As literally told this on a Twitter space, I was,
I was on that we have to take back the cities,
and I'm like, I don't. I'm not even one hundred
percent sure that human beings are designed to be in cities.
Well maybe one group, one group of people is designed
to be cosmopolitan. Maybe they've evolved into that, but I mean,
I'm one hundred percent convinced. You know, it's I've lived
in two big cities. I grew up in New York City,
I grew up and I spent a lot of time
in Atlanta. Over a decade in Atlanta, been around a
lot of black people, a lot of violent black people.
You go out to the country where I live and
you meet a black person, and usually they're the nicest
person they you know, is yes, ma'am, yes, sir everything.
I think one of the one of the biggest problems
they have is they're in the cities. And I think
it's another problem we have. Anyone who's ever been to
New York City and walked through New York City and
maybe went in the subway, smile at somebody, smile at
a New Yorker and see what reaction you get. People
go there and they become completely dehumanized. It's dehumanizing. You
can't do. We are not designed to be in cities,
and I will fight people over that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, as you know Thomas seven and seven has
pointed out on this podcast, I think is is that,
you know, cities are kind of antiquated in America, where
you know, they were originally sort of these mass worker
barracks like Detroit for example, and that mode of economic
organization doesn't exist anymore. Others will argue, I've seen them
argue that, like, well, you have to be in cities
because that's where the power is, which I already mentioned
I'm not even disputing that. But to me, it's like,
do you want power or do you or do you
want aristocracy? You can't really have both at the same
time the way the world is currently organized. You know,
I'm in the middle of the nowhere. You know, you're
pretty remote now too, plenty of people are you simply
don't need to be in a city anymore to get
things done. And to be honest, America is developed enough
at this point where if you do need to go
to a city, it's like two hours drive away at most.
I don't even think there's anywhere in the entire country
you could live that would put you more than three
hours drive from the nearest city of one hundred thousand
or more people. So, you know, it doesn't the whole
idea that like you're going to be living like the
Amish or something. It doesn't make any sense. Like, look,
you have a car and things are developed enough in
this country to where you can go to the city
if you want. You don't have to live there now.
Of course, granted, you know, if you live in the city,
you're going to develop these connections. But like I said,
you can have power or you can have you know,
what I'm recommending. You can't have both. The city there's
simply it's too degenerate and we don't need to be there.
There's literally no. You don't take over a city by
like living in it or something, because we're you know,
we don't have the numbers for that. There's I don't understand,
like how we're going to take back the cities. Just
let them rot. We don't need them. A lot of
American cities don't even have some grand historical value or
something like that, you know, like a place like Paris
or Rome, right, And I mean, you know, especially on
the West Coast, it's not like there's some deep, centuries
long tradition of you know, European men living in these places,
like you know, someplace like San Francisco, La. Like it's
sad what's happened to these places? But you know, to
hell with them. We don't we don't need this. We
can we can do our own thing without it.
Speaker 1: I don't get it. It's I get it if like
your family has been there for ever and you have
family there and you don't want to leave your family.
Believe me, I get all that. But I mean, if
your goal is to you know, live a live a
life where you're you it's harder for somebody to reach
out and touch you, or you know, you just want
to build something that is classic, is something that is
more historical. I think, you know, Thomas talks about living historically.
I think it's a lot easier to live historically, you know,
on on an acre of land, in a in a
little house where you can actually grow food and maybe
even have some chickens. Then it is in an apartment
that you're renting, you know, in some some neighborhood where
you know, if you if the power goes out for
a week, you're screwed, or if Hurricane Sandy comes through
your your food supply is completely cut off. It just
I'm not getting the arguments for for that, other than
from people who live in the city and just don't
want to leave, don't think that they could get along
and are you know, just you know, basically accepted cosmopolitanism.
You know, Thomas says he's a city guy, he doesn't
want to leave you never you never hear him complain
about the city though, Yeah, exactly. These are people, yeah,
these are people you know who are like man, you know,
it's like we got to take this, but you're not
taking it back. You're not taking it back. The best
thing we could do, if we had, if we had power,
was to wall it off and let people, let them
meet each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if you, if you are a city person,
Like I'm not saying everyone has to move out of
the city, right. If you, if you thrive in the
city and that's where you want to be, you know,
that's totally fine, you know, wherever you want. But the
idea that like we need to take back the cities,
It's like, I'm not taking back cities, dude. I'm going
to do I'm going to live where I'm comfortable and
where I could feel like and live my life in
like the appropriate way. Right. So if you, if you're
a city person, you know, fair enough, and you know
I also had to deal with you know, it's hard
to move. It's not good, right, I mean really, you know,
my family, you know, sailed on a boat from France
in about sixteen fifty, right, My family's been in New Orleans,
Louisiana since sixteen fifty roughly, and I had to move
and that was a hard choice to make. Most of
my family had moved away already, so it was a
lot easier. I still had to leave a lot of
friends behind, which made it difficult. So it's a difficult choice,
and it's you know, it sucks to make the choice,
but you know it's it is a choice that's available.
And if you're in a position where you can make
that choice, you know, I wouldn't discount it. You don't,
you don't like lose, You don't somehow become irrelevant by
being in rural America, like we have starlink and things
like that. Now that this weird, you know again, right
wingers to have a hard time keeping up I guess
with the modern world. And it's gotten to the point
where we've actually progressed past the need to even organize
ourselves in this classical conception of a city at this point,
like you do not you don't need to be in
these places necessarily in order to achieve your goals, or
at least not all of us do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if you want to be there, I mean,
have at it. I mean, can you could you imagine
like trying to, like getting a hundred of your friends
to move into like a neighborhood in New York City
and it's like, Okay, we're going to change the politics
in New York City. What what I mean? What what
are you? What are you talking about? How can become
the weather underground? You can start blowing stuff up? I mean,
you can't do. It's impossible. It's it's completely captured. I
just don't get it. You know, if you want to
live there, don't you know, don't complain about it, And
I won't you And I'm not going to judge you
if you want, if you want to live there, but
you know, don't judge me when I'm telling people get
the hell out of cities because it's best, you know,
it's what's best for you. I I talk to people
all the time and people contact me all the time
who live in cities, and you for if it, you know,
maybe it's their spouse or something like that. They can't
be their job there, this, that and everything is like,
I mean, I get it. Just don't complain about it.
You know. If you're going to complain about it, at
least have a plan to get out. It took me
a good huh like four or five years of planning
to get where to get where I am, and some
stops and starts, you know, some some some starts where
I was like, all right, I'm out, I'm back in.
Oh crap, all right, But I mean my life is
better for it now. And you know, people can say,
well what do you you know, what are you doing
to change where you live? Part of the thing is,
I don't really have to change anything here. This is
pretty comfortable. This is I mean, you know, if you
live someplace where you you know, where the politics is insane,
the taxes are insane. You know you're constantly coming under
attack for your under attack for your beliefs. There are
places you can go that are already you will be happy,
you will be ten you'll be ten times more aligned
with the people around you, and you'll be like, huh,
I don't know, maybe we should be planning to planning ahead,
because you know, something could happen. You know, ten buses
full of Haitians could show up and drop you know,
drop off, drop them off in the center of town
or something like that. But there are places you can
go right now where you you really won't have a
complaint in the world unless you're you know, a complete
you know, you're you're just so everything has to be
so perfect, and you're you know, you're just going to
purity test everything around you. I mean you can't. You're
never gonna have perfect, so give that up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's definitely really hard to move as well. And
if if you're, if you're also if you're concerned about
your your future security, Uh well, if that's if you know,
you have all these rank order concerns, right, you have
proximity to family and grandparents and friends, and then you
have security. I mean you have to figure out what
is your concern. If you're I would tell you flat
out if you're if your top concern is your security,
absolutely get the hell out of the cities. I mean,
these are just dangerous places for any number of reasons.
At this point. You know they're they're not safe to
live in at all. So if that's if that's your concern,
get out of there. I mean, you know, I do
like monthly cost code runs. Right, if I logged off
the Internet, there could literally be and I'm not even exaggerating,
there could be a global nuclear apocalypse and I would
not know about it for a month. Right, if I
just logged off the Internet and had my like monthly,
if I had just completed like my monthly you know
food run. I wouldn't even notice if there was a
global nuclear war that wiped out ninety percent of the
human population, wouldn't even notice. Right, So that's what you
can achieve, you know it only you know, I don't know,
took you four or so years. You can achieve that
sort of thing if you really want to. It's totally doable.
It's a it's a big commitment, but you know, you
have to kind of figure out what your priorities are.
But yeah, I think this, this whole idea of again
taking taking back the cities is just a silly idea.
You know, if you have to figure out what what
are what are your primary concerns? You know, what, what
does the future look like in this place and this
in the city just flat out it doesn't look good
in any city anywhere, I don't care what city are
in the future is only down right, And maybe maybe
you're the kind of person that, like you, you just
have to be in the city, right, I mean I think,
like you know, I mentioned Sandbatch earlier, he just loves
New Orleans, right, If that's where you have to live,
no matter like how bad it gets, and you still
love it, you know, fair enough, right, It's it's this
is sort of a this this question is on an
individual by individual basis and just sort of turning in
into like this movement wide question of like do we
need to be in the cities or not. It's just
totally the wrong way to think about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, you ask what's most important, and
you mentioned safety, and really, I think at this point,
if you are somebody who thinks big, who thinks historically,
who thinks for the future, you know you you do
you understand that you know you're planting trees that you'll
never enjoy the shade of I mean survival. Survival is
your number one and I mean twenty twenty, we don't
know that twenty twenty Kenosha isn't just the you know,
that was just a that was just practice for something
to come into future. Because I think people look at
that and they think, oh, that can never happen again. No,
I are you kidding me? Are you kidding me that
cities couldn't burn again? That they wouldn't especially now where
you or certain groups do not get arrested and the
only people who do get in trouble are the people
who protect themselves against these groups. Survival first and foremost
of you. If it's just you, your wife, if it's
just two of you, your family, if it's all of you,
that should be the most important thing. And to think
that like survival is something that if survival is number
one to you and you're in a city, that exit
plan should have been you should have been formulating that
a long time ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's still plenty of time to I mean,
one of the things people I don't know, one of
the things I see too is like Thomas shits on
this all the time, which is this whole like prepper thing.
It's like, if you're if you're like one of these
preppers and you're living in a city, like this is
just retarded. You're you're not. There's no like prepping your
way out of it. So sort of get rid of
that fantasy out of your head, right, Like, if you're
going to live in a city, you need to accept
what the future is going to look like, and you
need to have associates or like a way of carrying
yourself and you know, moving your family around that's going
to work for you. But this whole idea of like
preping or whatever. That's that's just some sort of like weird,
delusional fantasy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you you can have if you live
in the country, you can have storehouses of food, you
can be growing food. Sure, sure they can drone you.
It isn't do you find that as amusing as I do.
That Like people who when people who live in cities
are close to cities, when you talk about you know,
why don't you move out further and you know, start
a garden, maybe grow some food, get some chickens, you know,
maybe store some stuff up, do some canning stuff like that,
they like become obsessed with being droned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, who's going to drone me? Like what
possible situation are we going to be in? Where Like
that's a thing. I guess people are imagining some sort
of a civil war. But it's like if there's a
civil war, it's like, yeah, if you're fighting at it,
you're gonna get hit by drones like we see in
the Ukraine. But if I'm just like at home farming,
it's like with the US government's gonna like randomly just
randomly bomb people who are like farming in the woods,
who are noncombatant It's like that doesn't even make any sense.
It's just it's this weird, highly personalized point of view,
like the government's after me specifically, and they're gonna like
send sense send like air force units at me specifically
to like take me out. That's just never gonna happen.
That's something like bizarre fantasy from watching too many movies
or something. So yeah, you have to you have to
get all that stuff out of your head. I mean,
I don't the whole collapse scenario either, you know, I
don't really see the whole civil war thing. I don't
really see you know, that might even be less painful
to live through the sort of you know, long long
struggle we have to go through, you know, be it
material or spiritual, Like it's going to be a tough
century for whoever's you know, living to the the twenty
one hundred's, but it's not going to be like I
don't you know, I don't think there's gonna be like
hunter killer drones from the government like trying to hunt
you down in the woods or something like what scenario
would that happen? And it doesn't make any sense. Just
they don't care about you enough, like they don't care
about you enough to even bother with that, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they'll just bring up Brandy Weaver, a waco of
stuff like that. And it's like, look if I mean,
if you think you're that special, okay, I mean you're
you think you're a special boy, and you know that
they're gonna they're gonna come for you. Sure it's happened
in the past, but it's the exception, not the rule. Yep.
I mean the reason we talk about that is because
it's so it happens so rarely that something like that happens. Yeah,
sure there are swat raids, things like that, YadA YadA.
You know where there aren't swat raids At where I live,
there's no swat raids out here. It's like if basically
the police out here, if they think if the police
out here like got a call like a to swat,
like someone was trying to swat you or something like that,
they're gonna they'll call you first. They'll call you. I
live in a town where the where I tell them
that I'm waiting for something in the post office and
people and people in the post office call me, hey,
it came in. Yeah, you're not going to get that
in a city. You're not going to get that in
a suburb. Okay, I mean it's just I don't know
how people just you know, people want to live, people
want to talk about high trust, want to live in
high trust society. A lot of them already exist. Go
find one, that's my message. I mean, go find one.
They're here, Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2: I mean where I live, people won't even like lock
their doors necessarily, you know I do, so don't try
anything because you're you'll get blown away. But uh, you
know that's the kind of place it is, right, It's
like there's there's zero chance of anyone doing crime to
other community members. It simply won't happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, well let's uh let's wrap this up.
What do you got to uh plug? Well, I mean,
I guess we should definitely be plugging the event. What
do we have like four or five rooms left for
the event?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we actually do only have four rooms left, which
can accommodate up to eight people, you know, depending on
whether people buy the same clor double tickets. So you know,
it's by the time you even hear the podcast, they
could have all been purchased. Everybody, So if you still
want to come to the conference, you know, you can
check it out the old Gloryclub dot com slash tickets
and you have your list of speakers there, notably you know,
Jeff dist and R and McIntyre and John Doyle, uh,
as well as numerous other people. Uh, you know, we're
gonna have a blast there, so definitely, uh, you know,
come to that. For me, I've just got you know,
my substack is mainly where I produce stuff right now,
which is Charlemagne dot substack dot com or Neo Reactor
as I call it. Right now, I'm actually doing some
deep research on the Suez crisis. I have like seven
books or something like that on on Suez that I'm
uh interrogating, and I'm going to publish my next book
review on several of those, and I don't know, maybe
two weeks or more because I'm a little slow on
them with the uh you know, with everything going on
and also with preparing for my speech right but that'll
be coming out and that's that's a little different from
from what I've been doing. But yeah, that's my plugs.
Speaker 1: All right, Charlie. Thank you. Until the next time.
Speaker 2: M