Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekenona Show
Speaker 1: and welcome.
Speaker 2: Back eron what's up Nanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, always a pleasure, always a pleasure here to
Speaker 1: do a reading. And I don't know, this may take
Speaker 1: this will definitely take two, This could take three, So
Speaker 1: people be people can be uh patient with us as
Speaker 1: you're a very busy man to get you back on
Speaker 1: and uh and do more of this. But this is
Speaker 1: an essay kind of kind of popular. A lot of people,
Speaker 1: even people on the left push a lot of people
Speaker 1: on the left push this essay. But a lot of
Speaker 1: people who like left the left or say the left
Speaker 1: left them, and then they start coming over to the
Speaker 1: center more or less. Oh, you have to read Repressive
Speaker 1: Tolerance by Herbert Marcuse. So what do you What do
Speaker 1: you know about him?
Speaker 2: I know that very little other than that he was
Speaker 2: he was a Frankfurt school guy now big in the
Speaker 2: big in the sixties, leftist thinker, kind of a post Marxist.
Speaker 2: Didn't wasn't wasn't too into the scientific socialism like I am,
Speaker 2: but more of the socialist humanism and you know, just
Speaker 2: different focuses, but focused a lot on culture and Praxis,
Speaker 2: and you know, I did a little background on this
Speaker 2: essay and him, and it's one of those things that
Speaker 2: I think, I think it's perfect that we're having this
Speaker 2: episode because I love peering into the enemy's plan book
Speaker 2: and seeing what we can seeing what we can use.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep. So let me do a quick little let's
Speaker 1: do the Wikipedia. Marcus born July nineteenth, eighteen ninety eight
Speaker 1: German German American died July twenty ninth, nineteen seventy nine
Speaker 1: German American philosophers, social critic, and political theorist, associated at
Speaker 1: the Frankfort School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcus
Speaker 1: studied at the Humboldt University of Berlin and then at Freiburg,
Speaker 1: where he received his PhD. Was a prominent figure in
Speaker 1: the Frankfurt based Institute for Social Research, which later became
Speaker 1: known as the Frankfurt School married YadA YadA. In his
Speaker 1: written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, Soviet communism, and
Speaker 1: popular culture, arguing that they represented new forms of social control.
Speaker 1: Between forty three and fifty Marcus worked in the US
Speaker 1: government service for the OSS Office Strategic Services, which is
Speaker 1: the people don't Know precursor to this CIA, where he
Speaker 1: criticized the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Union in the book Soviet Marxism, A
Speaker 1: Critical Analysis, released in nineteen fifty eight. In the sixties
Speaker 1: and seventies, he became known as the pre eminent theorist
Speaker 1: of the New Left and the student movements of West Jerymany, France,
Speaker 1: and the United States. Some consider him the father of
Speaker 1: the New Left. His best known works are aeros and
Speaker 1: Civilization and One Dimensional Man. His Marxist scholarship inspired many
Speaker 1: radical intellectuals and political activists in the nineteen sixties and seventies,
Speaker 1: both in the United States and internationally. So that's pretty
Speaker 1: much where where we're at to start this out. And yeah,
Speaker 1: this essay, I mean you just the title is, you know,
Speaker 1: pregnant where you're just like, okay, what the hell's coming?
Speaker 1: You know, So all right, let me share this and
Speaker 1: we'll get it. Go. Oh both, that's not it. That's
Speaker 1: the Wikipedia page there, it is, all right, stop me whenever, man,
Speaker 1: this is this starts out well. Repressive tolerance. Herbert Marcus
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five and he taught at Brandeis University.
Speaker 2: Oh Wow, that's on the street from me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not a shock at all.
Speaker 2: No nice neighborhood.
Speaker 1: This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced
Speaker 1: industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of
Speaker 1: the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions,
Speaker 1: and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions
Speaker 1: which are outlawed or suppressed.
Speaker 2: All right, we'll stop you right there. What is the
Speaker 2: what is the end goal of tolerance? Is tolerance of
Speaker 2: means or an end?
Speaker 1: I should say, tolerance should be a means to achieving
Speaker 1: whatever you wish? I mean, do you I mean, do
Speaker 1: you want? What happens?
Speaker 2: What happens when you and Shapiro is tolerance and means
Speaker 2: or an end.
Speaker 1: When you turn on Ben Shapiro, tolerance is whatever he
Speaker 1: needs it to he needs it to be at the.
Speaker 2: Moment, tolerance is the end goal. It's not. It's it's
Speaker 2: not tolerance of what it's We just need to be tolerant.
Speaker 2: And he'll tell it. People like him will tell you,
Speaker 2: you know, if he'll he'll he'll invite a leftist on
Speaker 2: a show, he'll invite a communist. It's it's really flipped
Speaker 2: where lip you know, modern liberalism still still calls for tolerance,
Speaker 2: but it's conservatism that's flipping the script saying, oh no,
Speaker 2: we're the ones being shut down. So now they're the
Speaker 2: ones calling for tolerance, and he's going to get into uh,
Speaker 2: exactly why that's not going to work out well for them?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and tolerance always you can you use tolerance
Speaker 1: to get where you want to go. I mean the
Speaker 1: way that we've gotten to where we are from where
Speaker 1: where this country was founded, where you make a lot
Speaker 1: of people make the argument, you know, and it's true
Speaker 1: the founders were you know, a lot of them were
Speaker 1: steeped in the Enlightenment, but when it came to tolerance,
Speaker 1: they were they were tolerant of certain things that about
Speaker 1: their culture, about the culture that they created that they
Speaker 1: live in. They were intolerant of other cultures.
Speaker 2: There were there were cultural bumpers put yeah, you know
Speaker 2: on the on the three by five index card of
Speaker 2: allowable opinion.
Speaker 1: Yes and uh and the by there being tolerance and
Speaker 1: tolerance has always been used against the right so that
Speaker 1: the left can basically just gain as much power as
Speaker 1: it wants, and people on the right, you know, the question,
Speaker 1: the question asked often, and I forget where where I
Speaker 1: was having this conversation recently, is is why does the
Speaker 1: right not want to Why does the right never want
Speaker 1: to rule? Why does the right never want to Why
Speaker 1: why do you never have a right with an iron fist?
Speaker 1: You know that wants to roll with an iron fist.
Speaker 1: And because most of the people who would call my
Speaker 1: opinion is most of the people whould call themselves right
Speaker 1: now have been completely possessed by leftism, by leftist by
Speaker 1: leftist tolerance, by Enlightenment tolerance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but it's uh, that's going to be a
Speaker 2: hard buck to break.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. In other words, today tolerance appears again as
Speaker 1: what it was in its origins at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the modern period, a partisan goal, a subversive, liberating notion
Speaker 1: and practice. Yeah, and you just to scroll down here
Speaker 1: to the definition of partisan because a lot of people
Speaker 1: the modern version, the modern definition of partisan is pussy shit.
Speaker 1: A partisan is someone who's prejudiced, prejudiced in favor of
Speaker 1: a particular cause, and prejudice to the point where they're
Speaker 1: they're willing to fight for that cause.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you'd also call it activist now, yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today
Speaker 1: is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the
Speaker 1: cause of oppression.
Speaker 2: Wow, he's just fucking bad.
Speaker 1: In one thousand, the author is fully aware that at present,
Speaker 1: no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate
Speaker 1: liberating tolerance into practice. But he believes that it is
Speaker 1: the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and
Speaker 1: preserve historical possibility which seem to have become utopian possibilities.
Speaker 1: That it is his task to break the concreteness of
Speaker 1: oppression in order to open the mental space in which
Speaker 1: the society can be recognized as what it is and does.
Speaker 2: That's critical theory in a nutshell.
Speaker 1: Ye. So, and this is just basically like the just
Speaker 1: an outline. Now we get into the meat of the text.
Speaker 1: So tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of
Speaker 1: violence and the reduction of suppression to the extent required
Speaker 1: for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are
Speaker 1: preconditions for the condition of a humane society.
Speaker 2: It's just a given, man, don't question it.
Speaker 1: Such a society does not yet exist. Progress toward it
Speaker 1: is perhaps more than before, are more than before arrested
Speaker 1: by violence and suppression on a global scale.
Speaker 2: I think I'm going to be pleasantly surprised at how
Speaker 2: much I agree with this, but not for the reasons
Speaker 2: he thanks.
Speaker 1: And I would say that when he mentions utopia here,
Speaker 1: when I say utopia, I don't mean I have my
Speaker 1: own version of utopia. Utopia is getting the ideology in
Speaker 1: reality that you want. Like so, if you have it
Speaker 1: in the box, ideology you get. If you can get
Speaker 1: it to exist in reality, you have utopia. My you know,
Speaker 1: my understanding is you get My goal is to have
Speaker 1: the best and most orderly society I can. Considering man's
Speaker 1: fallen nature.
Speaker 2: It's funny because you know, he was working for the
Speaker 2: precursor to the CIA in the late fifties early sixties
Speaker 2: basically critiquing Soviet Communism, and it was at that precise
Speaker 2: point in history that Soviet Communism was, you know, at
Speaker 2: their apex in terms of you know, their comparability and
Speaker 2: material conditions.
Speaker 1: Totally, he's working for them from forty three to fifty,
Speaker 1: so he's even got two years of World War Two
Speaker 1: in there, and then and then the after and then
Speaker 1: the aftermath, which is I mean, you want to talk
Speaker 1: about one of the most interesting times in history, the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union between nineteen forty five and nineteen fifty, not
Speaker 1: only considering the the absolute horror that they imposed upon Germany,
Speaker 1: but also the purging of a certain group from the
Speaker 1: government that brought about the rise of the neo conservatives
Speaker 1: in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the glass ceiling for the j words. Yeah, strictly imposed.
Speaker 1: All right, as deterrence against nuclear war, as police action
Speaker 1: against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism
Speaker 1: and communism, as methods of pacification in neo colonial massacres,
Speaker 1: violence and suppression are are promulgated, practiced, and defended by
Speaker 1: democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to
Speaker 1: these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary
Speaker 1: for the preservation of the status quoz. He definitely was
Speaker 1: educated in Germany. I mean, just look at that sentence.
Speaker 1: It's such a German sentence. Structure, well, the structure of it.
Speaker 2: But you wouldn't have to go you wouldn't have to
Speaker 2: have too much of an imagination to replace all of
Speaker 2: the things that he mentioned with current day things that
Speaker 2: that we would mention instead of uh, wait, where is it?
Speaker 2: It's nuclear war police action against the version technically in
Speaker 2: the Yeah, I mean you could mention, you know, entire
Speaker 2: groups of black kids beating on white kids. You could
Speaker 2: mention surgical removal of genital genitalia. You know, take your pick,
Speaker 2: go on your Twitter timeline and you can just take
Speaker 2: those out and fill in with whatever you want. And
Speaker 2: once again, we can we can agree with everything he's saying.
Speaker 3: Mhm.
Speaker 1: Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior
Speaker 1: which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if
Speaker 1: not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear
Speaker 1: and misery.
Speaker 2: So he's talking about culture. I know that most schools
Speaker 2: of socialism don't like to talk about culture because it's
Speaker 2: stockgrounded in materialism. It's transcendent. But he's talking about culture.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the
Speaker 1: majority against which authentic liberals protested authentic liberals. The political
Speaker 1: locus of tolerance has changed. While it is more or
Speaker 1: less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it has
Speaker 1: made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance has
Speaker 1: turned from an active into a passive state, from practice
Speaker 1: to nonpractice. Lais fair the constituted authorities. It is the
Speaker 1: people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition
Speaker 1: within the framework determined by the constituted authorities. Is that's
Speaker 1: what Chompsky invoking Chompsky would talk about right about that
Speaker 1: six seven years later. Also, he's just basically he's he's
Speaker 1: making arguments that I make all the time. The assebity
Speaker 1: had posted to the way to save this country is
Speaker 1: it was founded on the principles of liberty. We need
Speaker 1: to go back to the way. The only way it's
Speaker 1: gonna we're going to get it back is to go
Speaker 1: back to the principles of liberty. And I just like
Speaker 1: one sentence, maybe those principles are how we got here.
Speaker 2: Is that an opposition within the framework determined by the
Speaker 2: cost student authorities. We need to we need to roll
Speaker 2: back the state.
Speaker 1: Let's go tolerance toward that which is radically evil now
Speaker 1: appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the
Speaker 1: whole on the road to affluence and more affluence. The
Speaker 1: toleration of the systematic, more moronization of children and adults
Speaker 1: alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness and
Speaker 1: aggressive driving, the recruitment for the train and training of
Speaker 1: special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception
Speaker 1: in merchandising, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations.
Speaker 1: They are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance
Speaker 1: as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and
Speaker 1: suppressing the alternatives. Do you disagree with any of that? Peter?
Speaker 2: Are we are we frank for school? Now?
Speaker 1: Disagree with?
Speaker 2: Are we frank for school? Socialists?
Speaker 1: Now? Ship?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Man? Isn't it amazing that once you know, if you're
Speaker 1: one of those people who's on social media the time,
Speaker 1: and you're like, oh, this is what I You know,
Speaker 1: I learned about communism from a meme, Or I learned
Speaker 1: about socialism from a meme. I learned about Marxism from
Speaker 1: a meme. Once you start reading it, you know, I
Speaker 1: learned about critical theory from a meme. Once you start
Speaker 1: reading it, you're like, it's just like reading Marx. Oh
Speaker 1: he's got it figured out. It's just his solution is
Speaker 1: just shit. You know.
Speaker 2: Yep, the prescription is exactly on point.
Speaker 1: The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against
Speaker 1: the increase in juvenile delinquency. They are less vociferous against
Speaker 1: the proud presentation in word and deed and pictures of
Speaker 1: ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs, the mature delinquency of
Speaker 1: a whole civilization.
Speaker 2: Hmm, that's an interesting that that's smacks of bumple Ted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, there, Yeah, it really explains why Ted hates
Speaker 1: the left so much. According to a dialectical proposition, it
Speaker 1: is the whole which determines the truth, not in the
Speaker 1: sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts,
Speaker 1: but in the sense that its structure and function determine
Speaker 1: every particular condition and relation. Thus, within a repressive society,
Speaker 1: even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to
Speaker 1: the degree to which they accept the rules of the game.
Speaker 1: There's an Uncle Ted for you right there.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: To take a most controversial case, the exercise of political
Speaker 1: rights such as voting, letter writing to the press, to senators, etc.
Speaker 1: Protest demonstrations with a priori renunciation of counter violence in
Speaker 1: a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration
Speaker 1: by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which in
Speaker 1: reality have changed their content and lost their effectiveness. In
Speaker 1: such a case, freedom of opinion, of assembly of speech.
Speaker 2: That's Sam France, Sam Francis, Yeah, managerial revolution.
Speaker 1: In in such in such a case, are you thinking
Speaker 1: Burnham or Francis? But as Francis wrote what I think
Speaker 1: is the greatest book on Burnham. He wrote this little
Speaker 1: book where he just does a commentary on every Burnham book.
Speaker 1: It's one of my favorite books. Is it's just because
Speaker 1: you get you know, Francis is so much closer to us,
Speaker 1: and he was just such a great man. Mean, he
Speaker 1: wrote for the USA today to a certain point, that's amazing.
Speaker 1: In such a case, freedom of opinion, of assembly of
Speaker 1: speech becomes an instrument for absolving servitude. And yet, and
Speaker 1: I was just recording with Semi Agogue and we're talking
Speaker 1: about the first paragraph of the Engineering of Consent by
Speaker 1: Bernez where he talks about how freedom freedom of speech
Speaker 1: within a society is just the greatest tool for being
Speaker 1: able to engineer that society. Yeah, yeah, all right, okay,
Speaker 1: And yet, and only here the dialectical proposition shows its
Speaker 1: full intent. The existence and practice of these liberties remain
Speaker 1: a precondition for the restoration of their original oppositional function,
Speaker 1: provided that the effort to transcend their often self imposed
Speaker 1: limitations is intense A five.
Speaker 2: Wait, I need to I need to chew on that. Sorry,
Speaker 2: i'mah yeah, I'm rolling that around a little bit.
Speaker 1: All right. I'll if he's talking about the unit, if
Speaker 1: he's specifically talking about the United States, he may just
Speaker 1: be talking about how you you start by a revolution
Speaker 1: and then basically you maybe your restoration of the original
Speaker 1: oppositional function. Provided that the effort to transcend their limitations
Speaker 1: is intensified, it reverts back to it. All right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you have these liberties, you're bumping up against opposition,
Speaker 2: you know, the the proverbial bumpers, And the more you
Speaker 2: bump up against the limitations imposed, the more intense the
Speaker 2: bumping gets. I get it.
Speaker 1: Generally, the function and value of tolerance depend on the
Speaker 1: quality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced.
Speaker 1: Tolerance itself stands subject to overriding criteria, its range, and
Speaker 1: its limits cannot be defined in terms of the respective society.
Speaker 1: In other words, Tolerance is an end in itself only
Speaker 1: when it is truly universal, practiced by the rulers as
Speaker 1: well as by the rule, by the lords as well
Speaker 1: as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as
Speaker 1: by their victims.
Speaker 2: Once again, that's called culture. It's not tolerance. That's culture,
Speaker 2: fucking libs.
Speaker 1: And such universal tolerance as possible only when no real
Speaker 1: or alleged enemy requires in the national interest the education
Speaker 1: and training of people in military violence and destruction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, acab.
Speaker 1: As long as these conditions do not prevail, the conditions
Speaker 1: of tolerance are loaded. They are determined and defined by
Speaker 1: the institutionalized inequality, which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality,
Speaker 1: i e. By the class structure of society. In such
Speaker 1: a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual
Speaker 1: ground of legalized violence or suppression, police, armed forces, guards
Speaker 1: of all sorts, and of the privileged position held by
Speaker 1: the predominant interests and their connections.
Speaker 2: I see no issue whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Once again, these background limitations of tolerance are normally prior
Speaker 1: to the explicit and judicial limitationations as defined by the courts, customs, governments,
Speaker 1: et cetera. For example, quote unquote clear and present danger,
Speaker 1: threat to national security.
Speaker 2: Heresy, Ye can't yell nigger in a movie theater?
Speaker 1: Well now I know, now, I know which little preview
Speaker 1: clip is not going to be on YouTube within the
Speaker 1: framework such.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, don't say that.
Speaker 1: Within the framework of such, they wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: hear you anyway, damn it. Oh, within the framework of
Speaker 1: such a social structure, tolerance can be safe. Tolerance can
Speaker 1: be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds.
Speaker 1: The passive toleration of entrench and established attitudes and ideas,
Speaker 1: even if they're damaging effect on man and nature is evident.
Speaker 1: And the active official tolerance granted to the right as
Speaker 1: well as to the left, to movements of aggression as
Speaker 1: well as to movements of peace, to the party of
Speaker 1: hate as well as to that of humanity.
Speaker 2: Yep, that's right. That's now we're getting into it, this
Speaker 2: whole idea that you know, those those cultural bumpers that
Speaker 2: I was talking about. You need a bumper on the right,
Speaker 2: but you need to remove the bumper on the left.
Speaker 2: So that way the direction, as you know, as you
Speaker 2: and I and everybody else have said, the direction can
Speaker 2: only go one way. That's that's what he's calling for.
Speaker 1: I call this nonpartisan tolerance abstract or pure inasmuch as
Speaker 1: it refrains from taking sides, but in doing so it
Speaker 1: actually protects the already established machinery of the discrimination.
Speaker 2: That's right, Silence is violence.
Speaker 1: The tolerance, which enlarged the range and content of freedom
Speaker 1: was always partisan, intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive
Speaker 1: status quo. The issue was only the degree and extent
Speaker 1: of intolerance. In the firmly established liberal society of England
Speaker 1: and the United States, freedom of speech and assembly was
Speaker 1: granted even to the radical enemies of society, provided they
Speaker 1: did not make the transition from word to deed, from
Speaker 1: speech to action. Remember the I forget who was it was?
Speaker 1: It was, Chris Cuomo said on CNN during the summers
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty. Where does it say in law that
Speaker 1: the protesters can't get violent? As it's right here in
Speaker 1: the constitution, It's like right right there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's probably a lot of places in the criminal Code,
Speaker 2: I imagine too sure, But yeah, I know that's you know,
Speaker 2: tolerance of repressive structures is in itself intolerant. Therefore, the
Speaker 2: direction can only move left, because left means destroying oppressive
Speaker 2: power structures, and the right means keeping them or building them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wish all right. Relying on the effective background
Speaker 1: limitations imposed by its class structure, the society seemed to
Speaker 1: practice general tolerance. But liberalists theory had already placed an
Speaker 1: important condition on tolerance. It was to apply only to
Speaker 1: human beings in the maturity of their faculties. John Stuart
Speaker 1: millt Yeah, where is this goingr that again then, But
Speaker 1: liberalist theory has already placed an important condition on tolerance.
Speaker 1: It was to apply only to human beings in the
Speaker 1: maturity of their faculties.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I want to be frank for
Speaker 2: school anymore, pete.
Speaker 1: John Stuart Mill does not only speak of children and minors.
Speaker 1: He elaborates liberty as a principle has no application to
Speaker 1: any state of things anterior to the time when mankind
Speaker 1: have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.
Speaker 1: Anterior to that time, men may still be barbarians, and
Speaker 1: despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians,
Speaker 1: provided the end of the end be their improvement, and
Speaker 1: the means justified by actually affecting that end. We're going
Speaker 1: to make men better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you you have to have whatever whatever
Speaker 2: you need to do to benefit the condition of mankind.
Speaker 2: If that means a dictatorship, if that means a police state,
Speaker 2: if that means you know, uh, a military industrial complex
Speaker 2: with a health a health care industrial complex with it.
Speaker 2: If that is what you need to get to this
Speaker 2: betterment of mankind, then it is what it is. That's
Speaker 2: That's not what markc Use is saying, but that's what
Speaker 2: Mills said.
Speaker 1: Mills often quoted words have a less familiar implication, on
Speaker 1: which their meaning depends the internal connection between liberty and truth.
Speaker 1: There's a sense in which truth is the end of liberty,
Speaker 1: and liberty must be defined and confined by truth.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, in what sense can liberty be for the sake
Speaker 1: of truth? Liberty is self determination autonomy That is almost
Speaker 1: a tautology, but a tautology which results from a whole
Speaker 1: series of synthetic judgments.
Speaker 2: Wow, I like where this is going.
Speaker 1: It stipulates the ability to determine one's own life, to
Speaker 1: be able to determine what to do and what not
Speaker 1: to do, what to suffer and whatnot. But the subject
Speaker 1: of this autonomy is never the contingent private individual as
Speaker 1: that which he actually is or happens to be. It
Speaker 1: is rather the individual as a human being who is
Speaker 1: capable of being free with the others.
Speaker 2: So this is getting into just Frankfurt School socialism's whole
Speaker 2: end goal is the pursuit of self actualization. It's the
Speaker 2: removal of any impediment in that pursuit. So whether that
Speaker 2: be material or cultural, which is what the Frankfurt School
Speaker 2: focuses on, any any type of impediment towards self actualization.
Speaker 2: How this, how this connects back to repressive toll. This
Speaker 2: idea of repressive tolerance is that you need you need
Speaker 2: some type of practice, and he's going to get into
Speaker 2: practice later, but some type of practice to remove those impediments,
Speaker 2: meaning people like us, out of your way towards self actualization.
Speaker 1: And the problem of making possible such a harmony between
Speaker 1: every individual liberty and the other is not that of
Speaker 1: finding a compromise between competitors, or between freedom and law,
Speaker 1: between general and individual interest, common and private welfare in
Speaker 1: an estatelish society, but of creating the society in which
Speaker 1: man is no longer enslaved by institutions which vitiate, which vitiate, vitiate?
Speaker 1: I swear I know that word self determination from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Let's go down and let me see that word appreciate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: to make ineffective. Okay, So basically lazada. But of creating
Speaker 1: the society in which man is no longer enslaved by
Speaker 1: institutions which make ineffective self determination from the beginning. In
Speaker 1: other words, freedom is still to be created, even for
Speaker 1: the freest of the existing societies. And the direction in
Speaker 1: which it must be sought, and the institutional and cultural
Speaker 1: changes which may help to attain the goal, are at
Speaker 1: least in development, in developed civilization, comprehensible. That is to say,
Speaker 1: they can be identified and projected on the basis of
Speaker 1: experience by human reason.
Speaker 2: You can point to an oppressive structure and say that
Speaker 2: is inhibiting my pursuit of self actualization.
Speaker 1: It opens It just throws open the doors to basically
Speaker 1: any anything being repressive, anything be anything, anything I can
Speaker 1: think of is stopping my self.
Speaker 2: Realism is permanent.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, In the interplay of theory and practice, true
Speaker 1: and false solutions become distinguishable, never with the evidence of necessity,
Speaker 1: never as the positive. Only with a certainty of a
Speaker 1: reasoned and reasonable chance, and with the persuasive force of
Speaker 1: the negative. For the true positive is the society of
Speaker 1: the future and therefore beyond definition and determination, while the
Speaker 1: existing positive is that which must be surmounted open ended
Speaker 1: progressives open there is no there is no goal. We
Speaker 1: have this goal. It's completely unachievable, but we are going
Speaker 1: to strive to do it. And it doesn't matter how
Speaker 1: many tangents or rabbit drills it goes up.
Speaker 2: I mean, we see this playing out every single day.
Speaker 2: Once they get one thing they want, then it's onto
Speaker 2: the next.
Speaker 1: But the experience and understanding of the existence of the
Speaker 1: existence society may well be capable of identifying what is
Speaker 1: not conducive to a free and rational society, which impedes
Speaker 1: and distorts the possibilities of its creation. Freedom is liberation
Speaker 1: a specific historical process in theory and practice, and as
Speaker 1: such it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood.
Speaker 2: So one thing that the Frankfurt School kind of improved
Speaker 2: upon Orthodox Marxism is that it's a lot less rigid
Speaker 2: in defining the historical process and these stages of history
Speaker 2: they're they're a lot more vague about it. And you
Speaker 2: can see this, I mean those that the last paragraph
Speaker 2: that you just read is talking about this prop this
Speaker 2: arduous march towards true freedom. It really has no beginning
Speaker 2: and endpoint. It's just a constant cycle. And I've listened
Speaker 2: to a couple of podcasters talking about this. But uh,
Speaker 2: like what the actual end goal is is? It depends
Speaker 2: on depends on who you talk to. I mean we
Speaker 2: we did a reading of ucal ted and the the
Speaker 2: end goal is you know you're you're a meat your
Speaker 2: transhumanist meatbag battery.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The uncertainty of chance in this distinction does not
Speaker 1: cancel the historical objectivity, but it necessitates freedom of thought
Speaker 1: and expression as preconditions of finding the way to freedom.
Speaker 1: It necessitates tolerance. How However, the tolerance cannot be indiscriminate
Speaker 1: and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither
Speaker 1: in word nor Indeed, it cannot protect false words and
Speaker 1: wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the
Speaker 1: possibilities of liberation.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's the terms of service you signed a party.
Speaker 1: Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation
Speaker 1: and academic discussion. It is indispensable in the scientific enterprise,
Speaker 1: in private religion, but society cannot be indiscriminate where the
Speaker 1: pacification of existence, where the freedom and happiness themselves are
Speaker 1: at stake. Here, certain things cannot be said, Certain ideas
Speaker 1: cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, Certain behavior
Speaker 1: cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the
Speaker 1: continuation of servitude.
Speaker 2: Man, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: Man, this, I mean, you know, and then I've been
Speaker 1: really it's really hard to like for me to sit
Speaker 1: down and read a thousand page book, but I've really
Speaker 1: been pouring over the authoritarian personality by Adorno and oh
Speaker 1: this is this is all. It's just all right. The
Speaker 1: danger of destructive tolerance, of benevolent neutrality towards art has
Speaker 1: been recognized. The market which absorbs equally well, equally well,
Speaker 1: although with often quite sudden fluctuations art, anti art and
Speaker 1: non art, all possible conflicting styles schools forms, provides a
Speaker 1: complacent receptacle, a friendly abyss in which the radical impact
Speaker 1: of art, the protest of art against the establishment reality,
Speaker 1: is swallowed up.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If everything's if everything is permitted, then nothing can
Speaker 2: be radical.
Speaker 1: Yeah, However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under
Speaker 1: all circumstances. The authentic of war? Is it of war?
Speaker 1: Or how the hell do you pronounce that? I should
Speaker 1: have left that up before I read and just jump
Speaker 1: over and read let Me Go twenty one? A work
Speaker 1: of art, music, or literature. It's a French word, of course,
Speaker 1: where is it? There are cases where an authentic piece
Speaker 1: of art carries a regressive political message. Dostoyevsky is a
Speaker 1: case in point. But then the message is canceled by
Speaker 1: the work of art itself. The regressive political content is
Speaker 1: absorbed in the artistic work, in the work as literature.
Speaker 1: Is that saying that? Is he saying in this paragraph
Speaker 1: that once art that art can be, can be completely
Speaker 1: you know, revolutionary, but as soon as it's accepted, you know,
Speaker 1: like you know how you had artists in the sixties
Speaker 1: who are just doing just absolute garbage and it was like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, like like Andy Warhol was a complete degenerate, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, all these rich people
Speaker 1: discovered him, and now it's not so edgy anymore. Is
Speaker 1: that is is that the message is being relayed? Here
Speaker 1: is how it just something can be revolutionary, but then
Speaker 1: it just becomes what it is, a piece of art,
Speaker 1: a piece of literature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess in a in a truly tolerant society
Speaker 2: where anything goes, then you know, even even if you
Speaker 2: do put up you know, take take four Chan for like,
Speaker 2: four Chan would be Marcus's Dostoyevski. If everything's permitted on
Speaker 2: four Chan, then you, as a four chan consumer, like,
Speaker 2: aren't going to be inspired by really anything on it?
Speaker 1: M M, yeah, all right, here we go. Tolerance of
Speaker 1: free speech is the way of improvement, of progress and liberation,
Speaker 1: not because there is no objective truth and improvement must
Speaker 1: necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but
Speaker 1: because there is an objective truth which can be discovered
Speaker 1: ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which, that which is,
Speaker 1: and that which can and ought to be done for
Speaker 1: the sake of improving the lot of mankind.
Speaker 2: It's just it's funny, how it's I wish we were
Speaker 2: we had as much certain certainty and just like fanatic
Speaker 2: belief in what our outlook on what improving mankind looks like.
Speaker 1: That Thoughts like that were made illegal in the late
Speaker 1: nineteen forties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, made very criminal.
Speaker 1: Yes, the common and historical ought is not immediately evident
Speaker 1: at hand. It has to be uncovered by cutting, through splitting,
Speaker 1: breaking asunder the given material, separating right and wrong, good
Speaker 1: and bad, correct and incorrect. The subject whose improvement depends
Speaker 1: on a progressive historical practice is each man as man.
Speaker 1: And this universality is reflected in that of the discussion,
Speaker 1: which a priori does not exclude any group or individual.
Speaker 2: So let me see if I can parse this out.
Speaker 2: This is painful. There is an objective way to arrive
Speaker 2: at truth, and it's through the It's through the process
Speaker 2: of critical analysis. Is that basically what he's saying? Sure,
Speaker 2: we imagine, imagine that that just happens to be the
Speaker 2: thing that he went, that he studied for his entire life.
Speaker 1: But even the all inclusive character of liberalist tolerance was,
Speaker 1: at least in theory, based on the proposition that men were
Speaker 1: potential individuals who could learn to hear and see and
Speaker 1: feel by themselves, to develop their own thoughts, to grasp
Speaker 1: their own true interests and rights and capabilities. Also again
Speaker 1: established authority and opinion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but what if they agree with it? What then
Speaker 2: what if they like established authority an opinion well, or
Speaker 2: what if what if the critical theorists become the established
Speaker 2: authority and opinion.
Speaker 1: This was the rationale of free speech and assembly. Universal
Speaker 1: toleration became questionable. Becomes questionable when it's rationale no longer
Speaker 1: prevails when tolerance is administered to manipulated and doctrinated individuals
Speaker 1: who parrot as their own the opinions of their masters,
Speaker 1: for whom he heteronomy has become autonomy. The telos of
Speaker 1: tolerance is truth. It is clear from the historical record
Speaker 1: that the author nic spokesman of tolerance had more and
Speaker 1: other truth in mind than that of propositional logic and
Speaker 1: academic theory. Former libertarians chuckle John Stuart Mills speaks of
Speaker 1: the truth which is persecuted in history, and which does
Speaker 1: not triumph over persecution by virtue of its inherent power,
Speaker 1: which in fact has no inherent power against the dungeon
Speaker 1: and the steak.
Speaker 2: Yeah I quoted, and they're still hitting me.
Speaker 1: And he enumerates the truths which were cruelly and successfully
Speaker 1: liquidated in the dungeons, and at the stake that of
Speaker 1: Arnold of Brescia of fraud Dulcino, of Savon, of the
Speaker 1: alb Albigensians, valdenz Ians, Lollards and Hussites.
Speaker 2: So a bunch of like fringe joh Christian sex.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess that's what's funny. Is Yachi in imperium
Speaker 1: mentioned soeign many times? Tolerance is first and foremost for
Speaker 1: the sake of the heretics. The historical roads towards humanitas
Speaker 1: appears as heresy, target of persecution by the powers that be.
Speaker 1: Heresy by itself, however, is no token of truth. Well
Speaker 1: that that makes sense. Yeah, yeah. The criterion of progress
Speaker 1: in freedom, according to which Mill judges these movements is
Speaker 1: the Reformation. The evaluation is ex post, and his list
Speaker 1: includes opposites. Nourala two would have been would have burned
Speaker 1: the fraud Dulcino. Even the ex post evaluation is contestable
Speaker 1: as to its truth. History corrects the judgment too late
Speaker 1: the correction. The correction does not help the victims and
Speaker 1: does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear.
Speaker 1: Intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and
Speaker 1: torture of innocence for hundreds of years. Does this does
Speaker 1: this clinch the case for indiscriminate pure tolerance. Are there
Speaker 1: historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multitudes
Speaker 1: and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo.
Speaker 1: Can the indiscriminate guarantee of political rights and liberties be repressive?
Speaker 1: Can such tolerance serve to contain qualitative social change?
Speaker 2: Why didn't he just start off with that? We got
Speaker 2: to skip that into higher page. It just read read
Speaker 2: up to those questions you just stask.
Speaker 1: He has to do a little religion bashing.
Speaker 2: They always do.
Speaker 1: I shall discuss this question only with reference to political movements, attitudes,
Speaker 1: schools of thought, philosophies which are political in the wildest sense,
Speaker 1: affecting the whole the society as a whole, demonstrably transcending
Speaker 1: the sphere of privacy. Moreover, I propose a shift in
Speaker 1: the focus of the discussion. It will be concerned not
Speaker 1: only and not primarily with tolerance towards radical extremes, minorities, subversives, etc.
Speaker 1: But rather with tolerance towards majorities, toward official and public opinion,
Speaker 1: toward the established protectors of freedom. In this case, the
Speaker 1: discussion can have as a frame of reference only a
Speaker 1: democratic society in which the people as individuals and as
Speaker 1: members of political and other organizations participate in the making, sustaining,
Speaker 1: and changing policies. In an authoritarian system that people do
Speaker 1: not tolerate, they suffer established policies.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, that's convenient.
Speaker 1: Yeah, under yeah, the road you know, I mean, oh,
Speaker 1: that road is thorny. I think I'll take this one
Speaker 1: over here. Under a system of constitutionally guaranteed and generally
Speaker 1: and without too many and too glaring exceptions, practice, civil
Speaker 1: rights and liberties, opposition and dissent are tolerated unless they
Speaker 1: issue in violence and or in exhortation to an organization
Speaker 1: of violent subversion.
Speaker 2: I'm with them.
Speaker 1: The underlying assumption is that the established society is free,
Speaker 1: and that any improvement, even a change in the social
Speaker 1: structure and social values, would come about in the normal
Speaker 1: course of events, prepared to find and tested in free
Speaker 1: and equal discussion on the open marketplace of ideas and goods.
Speaker 2: That's how it works. Which I'm happy he's like saying
Speaker 2: that that's stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, In recalling John John Stuart Mill's passage, I
Speaker 1: drew attention to the premise hidden In this assumption, free
Speaker 1: and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it
Speaker 1: only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking,
Speaker 1: free from induc indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of
Speaker 1: pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement.
Speaker 1: One might, in theory, construct a state in which a
Speaker 1: multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other
Speaker 1: out and result in a truly general and rational interest.
Speaker 2: Now that's the foundation myth.
Speaker 1: However, such a construct badly fits a society in which
Speaker 1: powers are and remain unequal, and even increase their unequal
Speaker 1: weight when they run their own course.
Speaker 2: So sometimes a free exchange of ideas doesn't go in
Speaker 2: the direction you wanted to. That could be bad.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I think he understands elite theory, and sometimes I'm
Speaker 1: just like, what the hell is he? Where's he going
Speaker 1: with this?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, we all see what happens when the
Speaker 2: free and open exchange of information, like the actual free
Speaker 2: and open exchange of information happens. The characteristics of whatever
Speaker 2: platform that's happening on inevitably comes far right, even yep, yep,
Speaker 2: without a doubt. Then you to start tamping down on
Speaker 2: all these fucking cell phone videos, cell phone videos and
Speaker 2: pop us subways.
Speaker 1: And I mean, am I the only one who you
Speaker 1: know realizes that, like Twitter has become world star hip
Speaker 1: hop world star.
Speaker 2: Yeah? I would like to think that Elon has something
Speaker 2: to do with that, or it could just be that
Speaker 2: he got rid of whatever the whatever, the algorithm, what
Speaker 2: whatever the algorithmic guard against that he just got rid of.
Speaker 2: And this is you know, organic.
Speaker 1: Whatever it is. I'm liking it, well, not liking some
Speaker 1: of those videos I can't watch, but at least the
Speaker 1: exposure is there. Then then the if it fits, it
Speaker 1: fits even worse with a variety of pressures, unifies and
Speaker 1: coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers
Speaker 1: by virtue of an increased standard of living and an
Speaker 1: increasing concentration of power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is where we're at right now, Well maybe
Speaker 2: not right now, where the material conditions right now are
Speaker 2: still pretty good. Everybody more than likely has food, water,
Speaker 2: easy access to food, water, clothing, shelter, that type of thing.
Speaker 2: And then you know, if you really start thinking about
Speaker 2: what our luxuries we have access to, those two for
Speaker 2: the most part. And I mean this goes back to Ted. Kay.
Speaker 2: As that becomes cheaper and proliferated more, it's really easy
Speaker 2: to ignore the structural problems that are taking away your
Speaker 2: i mean your humanity in the background. Yeah, as you
Speaker 2: participate them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I've said this a bunch of times. But
Speaker 1: the more people I talked to who are leaving cities
Speaker 1: and going and you know, even buying a half an
Speaker 1: acre or an acre in the country and you know, saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna grow some of my own food and maybe
Speaker 1: get a couple of chickens. These are people who they
Speaker 1: may not even know what Uncle Ted taught, but they're
Speaker 1: going backwards in order to go forwards.
Speaker 2: It's it's uh, it makes me think of Julius Evola.
Speaker 2: It's some something is transcendent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what it was Evola thing, I've stolen it. My
Speaker 1: my values are that which were be normal before seventeen
Speaker 1: eighty nine.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Then the laborer, whose real interest conflicts with that of management,
Speaker 1: the common consumer whose real interests conflict with that of
Speaker 1: the producer, the intellectual whose vocation conflicts with that of
Speaker 1: his employer, find themselves submitted to a system against which
Speaker 1: they are powerless and appear unreasonable. That's a great sentence,
Speaker 1: Oh bit, such a great sentence. Okay. The ideas of
Speaker 1: the available alternatives evaporates into an utterly utopian dimension in
Speaker 1: which it is at home for a free for a
Speaker 1: free society is indeed unrealistically and undefinably different from the
Speaker 1: existing ones. Under these circumstances, whatever improvement may occur in
Speaker 1: the normal course of events and without subversion, is likely
Speaker 1: to be improvement in the direction determined by the particular
Speaker 1: interests which control the whole.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, mark us, who are those?
Speaker 1: Ah? By the same token, those minorities which strive for
Speaker 1: a change of the whole itself, will, under optimal conditions
Speaker 1: which rarely prevail, be left free to deliberate and discuss,
Speaker 1: to speak, into assemble, and will be left harmless and
Speaker 1: helpless in the face of the overwhelming majority which militates
Speaker 1: against qualitative social change.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're allowed to talk about whatever you want. It's
Speaker 2: just it's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: He Let me let me see something here, looking at
Speaker 1: early early years of Marcus. Okay, I'll leave that alone.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that.
Speaker 2: I couldn't find anything in any early life check.
Speaker 1: Oh it's it's right there. Oh yeah, second sent second
Speaker 1: sent okay, control by the same token those manner did
Speaker 1: I already say that sentence? By the same token those
Speaker 1: minorities which strive for a change. I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'll say it, I'll go No, No, I haven't
Speaker 1: said it. Okay, by the same token, those minorities which
Speaker 1: strive for a change of the whole itself will under
Speaker 1: optimal conditions which were oh no, I did say that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: This majority is firmly grounded in the increasing satisfaction of
Speaker 1: needs and technological and mental coordination, which testify to the
Speaker 1: general helplessness of radical groups in a well functioning social system.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within
Speaker 1: the established framework it is tole are. To a large extent,
Speaker 1: all points of view can be heard, the communist and
Speaker 1: the fascist, the left and the right, the right and
Speaker 1: the negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament, moreover,
Speaker 1: and endlessly dragging debates over the media. The stupid opinion
Speaker 1: is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one.
Speaker 1: The misinformed may talk as long as the informed and
Speaker 1: propaganda rides along with education, truth and falsehood.
Speaker 2: So at the apex of American civilization, you can kind
Speaker 2: of define that by you know, all those I forget
Speaker 2: what it's called, but the roundtable show where they have
Speaker 2: somebody from the right, somebody from the left, the fascist,
Speaker 2: the communist, and they're all just having a calm conversation.
Speaker 2: That is the apex in material condition of America. Now
Speaker 2: what do you have? This pure talk? Well, good, But
Speaker 2: whether it's good or not, it's just an indication as
Speaker 2: to how well your civilization is doing.
Speaker 1: This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by
Speaker 1: the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual is
Speaker 1: in possession of the truth and capable of defining what
Speaker 1: is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting
Speaker 1: opinions must be submitted to the people for its deliberation
Speaker 1: and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic
Speaker 1: argument implies a necessary condition, namely that the people must
Speaker 1: be must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the
Speaker 1: basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information,
Speaker 1: and that on this basis their evaluation must be the
Speaker 1: result of autonomous thought. So deliberating and choosing on the
Speaker 1: basis of knowledge. They basically said, first of all, they
Speaker 1: have to be smart and not be a fucking one.
Speaker 2: Are on, We do this all the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And then stepp Bee comes in and just frigging
Speaker 1: makes us all feel like idiots. They must have access
Speaker 1: to authentic information, doesn't mention what that authentic information is, uh,
Speaker 1: And that on their basis, their evaluation must be the
Speaker 1: result of autonomous thought. So this is somebody who's lived
Speaker 1: it has never been taught how to think what to think?
Speaker 2: I mean, we're in friggin fantasy land here. It's the source.
Speaker 2: I saw it in a dream.
Speaker 1: It was a fever dream though all right. In the
Speaker 1: contemporary period, the democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to
Speaker 1: be invalidated by the invalidation of the democratic process itself.
Speaker 1: The liberating force of democracy was the change, was the
Speaker 1: chance it gave to effective dissent on the individual as
Speaker 1: well as its social scale. Its openness to qualitatively different
Speaker 1: forms of government, of culture, education, work of the human
Speaker 1: existence in general, The toleration of free discussion and the
Speaker 1: equal right of opposites, was to define and clarify the
Speaker 1: different forms of descent, their direction, content prospect. But with
Speaker 1: the concentration of economic and political power and the integration
Speaker 1: of opposites in a society which uses technology as an
Speaker 1: instrument of domination, effective descent is blocked where it could
Speaker 1: freely emerge in the formation of opinion, in information and communication,
Speaker 1: in speech and assembly.
Speaker 2: Yep, Uncle Ted and Mark hus one of the.
Speaker 3: Same when he says here, well, the integration of opposites
Speaker 3: in a society, what's he talking about?
Speaker 2: Oh, just the ability of the fascists and the communists
Speaker 2: to sit down and have a conversation mm hm, which
Speaker 2: I'm guessing at the time he was writing. I mean,
Speaker 2: what the hell was that show with? Was Buchanan on it?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: The McLachlan group, Yeah, yep, yeah, yeah. I mean that
Speaker 2: was probably the apex of society when that was on.
Speaker 1: I used to watch it all the time. I watched
Speaker 1: it up until like two thousand and nine, two thousand
Speaker 1: and ten. Yeah, I was obsessed with it. I couldn't
Speaker 1: couldn't have that. Yeah, no, at least not in any
Speaker 1: man I think. Yeah, I think it does actually exist now.
Speaker 1: I don't think Buchanan's on it. I think there's a
Speaker 1: new version of it. But I mean, I just I
Speaker 1: can't wake up at nine thirty on us. I'm doing
Speaker 1: other nine thirty on Sunday morning. I'm getting to I'm
Speaker 1: getting ready to go somewhere else, all right. Under the
Speaker 1: rule of monopolistic media themselves, the mere instruments of economic
Speaker 1: and political power. That's good.
Speaker 2: So this is the critique that we hear all the
Speaker 2: time of the legacy media, I mean, the corporate press,
Speaker 2: in the context of what the Internet did to them,
Speaker 2: they did have a monopolistic stranglehold on the flow of information.
Speaker 2: You know, what choices you're you're given at the ballot
Speaker 2: box are determined, you know, by the cathedral. He's he's described,
Speaker 2: he's describing, you know that as it's happening.
Speaker 1: Under the rule of monopolistic media themselves, the mere instruments
Speaker 1: of economic and political power, a mentality is created for
Speaker 1: which right and wrong, true and false are pre defined
Speaker 1: wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This
Speaker 1: is prior to all expression and community. A matter of semantics,
Speaker 1: the blocking of effective descent of the recognition of that
Speaker 1: which is not of the establishment, which begins in the
Speaker 1: language that is publicized and administered the meaning of words
Speaker 1: is rigidly stabilized, and I would say, now the meaning
Speaker 1: of words it is actively distorted.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, it's yeah. He's he's a little
Speaker 2: behind the times. He's a little too modernist. Just him
Speaker 2: talking about objective truth at all. Yeah, that's that's like
Speaker 2: a early frank like early Frankfurt school sixties characteristic. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the nineteen forty six Orwell essay politics and the
Speaker 1: English language. I mean it's twenty almost twenty years before this.
Speaker 1: Orwell's talking about the distortion language at that point, how
Speaker 1: it basically means nothing. And academic agent Nima calls him says,
Speaker 1: how most political language and journalistic language is loaded with
Speaker 1: thought terminating cliches. Yeah yeah, or these cliches are just
Speaker 1: fed in there, and it's like, oh, I know exactly
Speaker 1: what to mean now, I don't have to think anymore.
Speaker 1: I know exactly. I know exactly what to think now.
Speaker 2: I was just reading a critical review of Imperium, and I,
Speaker 2: I guess I couldn't really, I couldn't really put it
Speaker 2: into words to articulate like that that exact thing you
Speaker 2: just said, thought terminating just phrases.
Speaker 1: That's what the person who was writing the Yeah critique.
Speaker 2: The entire time he was doing the review, it was
Speaker 2: just cliche cliches. Yeah did in early life check on
Speaker 2: him too, and.
Speaker 1: Rational persuasion. Persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded.
Speaker 1: The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of
Speaker 1: words and ideas other than the established one established by
Speaker 1: the publicity of the powers to be and verified in
Speaker 1: their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other
Speaker 1: ideas can be expressed, but at the massive scale of
Speaker 1: the conservative majority. Outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia, they
Speaker 1: are immediately evaluated, i e. Automatically understood in terms of
Speaker 1: the public language, a language which determines a priori the
Speaker 1: direction in which the thought process moves.
Speaker 2: I can I'm not.
Speaker 1: I want to disagree, but I can't. I can't.
Speaker 2: We I mean, that's where we're we're slipping down the
Speaker 2: slope from the things that he's talking about in his
Speaker 2: day right now, like we are still sliding down that slope.
Speaker 2: You know, the ability to think three steps ahead in
Speaker 2: terms of policy and just in terms of introducing ideas
Speaker 2: to the mainstream, the direction that that's going to, that
Speaker 2: that they're going to take Now it goes back to
Speaker 2: the old trope that there are no conspiracy theorists anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we're gonna do about another another page here,
Speaker 1: and then we'll cut it and cut it and uh,
Speaker 1: we'll do the rest, do the rest another episode. This
Speaker 1: is just take two episodes. In the beginning of this,
Speaker 1: when we were stopping every sentence, I'm like, oh man,
Speaker 1: this is going to take ten episodes. All right, But
Speaker 1: that's the process of reflection, And that's the process of
Speaker 1: reflection ends where it started in the given conditions and
Speaker 1: relations self validated, the argument of the discussion repels the
Speaker 1: contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get it. Yeah, well it's like begging the question,
Speaker 1: like the begging the question fallacy, Yeah, or.
Speaker 2: Just controlling the opposition speaking all you know, referring to
Speaker 2: your opposition to say a cultural trope in the exact
Speaker 2: terms of the enemy, the exact terms the enemy gave
Speaker 2: to you in order to talk about it.
Speaker 1: For example, thesis we work for peace and to and
Speaker 1: to antithesis, why did I want to say anti anti
Speaker 1: thesis so bad? For example, thesis we work for peace
Speaker 1: antithesis we prepare for war or even we wage war.
Speaker 1: Unification of opposites. Preparing for war is working for peace.
Speaker 1: Piece is redefined as necessary as necessarily in the prevailing situation,
Speaker 1: including preparation for war or even war or even war,
Speaker 1: And in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word
Speaker 1: piece is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian
Speaker 1: language operates as a priori categories of understanding, all pre forming,
Speaker 1: all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance, which
Speaker 1: involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the closing
Speaker 1: of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation
Speaker 1: of opposites even where it is really equal, easily lose
Speaker 1: their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning. They
Speaker 1: are far more likely to strengthen and the established thesis
Speaker 1: and to repel the alternatives. I can't argue with them
Speaker 1: on any of this. No, this is is, in fact
Speaker 1: what they do.
Speaker 2: He's not telling us what we don't already know. But
Speaker 2: I guess at the time it was cool to notice
Speaker 2: he was doing a little noticing himself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wonder if you ever searched out his early
Speaker 1: nevermind impartiality to the utmost equal treatment of competing and
Speaker 1: conflicting issues is indeed a basic requirement for decision making
Speaker 1: in the democratic process.
Speaker 2: Here's why that's wrong.
Speaker 1: It is an equally basic requirement for defining the limits
Speaker 1: of tolerance. But in a democracy with totalitarian organization, objectivity
Speaker 1: may fulfill a very different function, namely to foster a
Speaker 1: mental attitude which tends to obliterate the difference between true
Speaker 1: and false information and indoctrination right and wrong. In fact,
Speaker 1: the decision between opposed opinions has been made, has been
Speaker 1: made before the presentation and discussion get under way, made
Speaker 1: not by a conspiracy or a sponsor or a publisher,
Speaker 1: not by any dictatorship, but rather by the normal course
Speaker 1: of events, which is the course of administered events, and
Speaker 1: by the mentality shaped in this course. Here too, it
Speaker 1: is the whole which determines the truth. I'm people who
Speaker 1: have never read stuff like this, like when we were
Speaker 1: reading when we read A State and Revolution. You know
Speaker 1: all the people in the comments who are like, holy crap,
Speaker 1: I agree with so much of this. Here too, it
Speaker 1: is the whole which determines the truth. Then the decision
Speaker 1: asserts itself without any open violation of objectivity in such
Speaker 1: things as the makeup of a newspaper, with the breaking
Speaker 1: up of vital information into bits interspersed between extraneous material,
Speaker 1: irrelevant items, relegating of some radically negative news to an
Speaker 1: obscure place, in the juxtaposition of gorgeous ads with unmitigated horrors,
Speaker 1: and the introduction and interruption of the broadcasting of facts
Speaker 1: by overwhelming commercials.
Speaker 2: That's my timeline. Just describe My timeline is man made
Speaker 2: horrors beyond your comprehension. You can then an add for
Speaker 2: some like cool gifts for your for your wedding.
Speaker 1: Party, green anarchists, or have been all over this for
Speaker 1: so long. I mean, this is a conversation. Bellamy could
Speaker 1: be preaching this right now. The result is a neutralization
Speaker 1: of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the
Speaker 1: firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance and within
Speaker 1: a pre formed mentality. When a magazine prints side by
Speaker 1: side a negative and positive report on the FBI, it
Speaker 1: fulfills honestly the requirements of objectivity. However, the chances are
Speaker 1: that a positive that the positive wins, because the image
Speaker 1: of the institution is deeply engraved in the mind of
Speaker 1: the people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I mean if you think about it practically
Speaker 2: on an individual level, Let's say something hurt. Let's say
Speaker 2: I don't know, nine to eleven to two happens, and
Speaker 2: then at the same time there the article is in
Speaker 2: one column for that, and then the article right next
Speaker 2: to it is, you know, pictures of tits. You know, like,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to feel anything about nine to eleven
Speaker 2: two because I'm going to read that and say, wow,
Speaker 2: that's awful, and then I'm going to look at tits
Speaker 2: and then I'm going to walk away feeling kind of
Speaker 2: bad about nine to eleven two, but probably not as
Speaker 2: bad as I could conceivably be, not bad enough to
Speaker 2: do anything about it.
Speaker 1: Or if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of
Speaker 1: civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses
Speaker 1: to describe the stock market or the weather, or with
Speaker 1: the same great emotion with which he says as commercials,
Speaker 1: then such objectivity is spurious. More, it offends against humanity
Speaker 1: and truth by being calm where no one where one
Speaker 1: should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is
Speaker 1: the fact is in the fact themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I get what he's saying. It's psychological.
Speaker 1: The toleration expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or
Speaker 1: even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has to
Speaker 1: do with truth, and if truth is more than a
Speaker 1: matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity
Speaker 1: is false, and this kind of tolerance inhuman. And if
Speaker 1: it is necessary to break the established universe of meaning
Speaker 1: and the practiced and closed in this universe in order
Speaker 1: to enable man to find out what is true and false,
Speaker 1: this deceptive impartiality would have to be abandoned. The people
Speaker 1: exposed to this impartiality are no tabula rasa. They are
Speaker 1: indoctrinated by the conditions under which they live and think,
Speaker 1: and which they do not transcend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, did you get what he's saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, I mean it's interesting that he brings up
Speaker 1: tabula rossa because progressivism, it assumes, is it presupposes, Yeah, just.
Speaker 2: Not, I guess, just not in this case, in the
Speaker 2: context of you know, propaganda.
Speaker 1: Well, no, in this case, the tabula rasa, which which
Speaker 1: should have been from the very start, you know, probably
Speaker 1: taken away from their parents, who maybe Christians or Muslims
Speaker 1: or or whatever, they're already poisoned. Yeah, yeah, so.
Speaker 2: And then your average news watcher is yeah, definitely not
Speaker 2: a blank slate to be filled.
Speaker 1: All right, let's finish this. I think if we finished
Speaker 1: these up to the right up to I think we
Speaker 1: finished this paragraph, it would be a good ending point,
Speaker 1: all right, to enable them to become autonomous, to find
Speaker 1: by themselves what is true and what is false. For
Speaker 1: men in the existing society, they would have to be
Speaker 1: freed from the prevailing indoctrination, which is no longer recognized
Speaker 1: as indoctrination. But this means that the trend would have
Speaker 1: to be reversed. They would have to get information slanted
Speaker 1: in the opposite direction. For the facts are never given
Speaker 1: immediately and never accessible immediately. They are established, mediated by
Speaker 1: those who made them. The truth, the whole truth, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: surpasses these facts and requires the rupture with their appearance.
Speaker 1: This rupture, prerequisite and token of all freedom of thought
Speaker 1: and of speech, cannot be accomplished within the established framework
Speaker 1: of abstract tolerance and spurious objectivity, because they are precisely
Speaker 1: the factors which precondition the mind against the rupture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I guess if if we suddenly started seeing
Speaker 2: journalists speak to people speak to us like they would
Speaker 2: in real life, it would probably blow our minds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it would be.
Speaker 2: Like or just anybody on the Internet, because we're all
Speaker 2: purveyors of information.
Speaker 1: It's like if you're used to seeing and if you're
Speaker 1: used to going to the zoo and seeing an animal
Speaker 1: performed tricks, they'd be like seeing them in their natural
Speaker 1: habitat where you're like, oh, they're actually really boring, and
Speaker 1: then you realize, oh, wait a minit they're putting on a performance.
Speaker 1: It's a performance for me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's it's always been an idea I've
Speaker 2: had that you know that not I've had, but just
Speaker 2: a popular idea that absolute tolerance can't work and can't
Speaker 2: exist any ways, just because we we live in we
Speaker 2: we we live in the system that we do, and
Speaker 2: all the venues that can show that that are that
Speaker 2: are bound by whatever whatever metrics of tolerance there is,
Speaker 2: like social media, TV, news, pop culture whatever like there
Speaker 2: there's it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work. Absolute tolerance wouldn't work,
Speaker 2: just not not on a practical level. And once you
Speaker 2: kind of break through that, that idea that tolerance is
Speaker 2: not good. You can start to kind of fight back
Speaker 2: against you know, while we we can't let Nazis at
Speaker 2: our protest because okay, well I can't let liberals at
Speaker 2: my house. You know, they've they kind of just don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Five of these in well, give me your thoughts and
Speaker 2: all bounc.
Speaker 1: I mean, he makes the point that if his goals
Speaker 1: are going to be achieved, any thought, any action that
Speaker 1: is against that would derail those goals needs to be repressed.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And the goals are the destruction of oppressive structures.
Speaker 1: Which some which could very simply be called hierarchies, aristocracies,
Speaker 1: things like that. Yeah, which hierarchy, Yeah, which I think
Speaker 1: are inherent in nature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely there, but to the bottom left, they exist
Speaker 2: to be destroyed.
Speaker 1: Well yep, all right, well we'll pick this up again.
Speaker 1: Do you want to plug anything I was listening to
Speaker 1: this episode today that I was actually supposed to be
Speaker 1: on on on Exorcism.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. We just dropped an over the line episode
Speaker 2: on Timeline Earth for our Patreon subscribers, if you want
Speaker 2: to check that out. It's about exorcism and spiritual warfare,
Speaker 2: getting into the history, the practice, the nuts and bolts.
Speaker 2: I haven't I do need to come up with a
Speaker 2: Boystown episode eventually. That's that's my personal spin off of
Speaker 2: Timeline Earth, and I haven't done one in over a
Speaker 2: year because I'm a piece of ship with a very
Speaker 2: demanding job.
Speaker 1: Well, I think everyone appreciates you taking the time to
Speaker 1: do this, and we'll we'll we'll talk about when we
Speaker 1: can do part two and everything. Because I'm someone with
Speaker 1: a with all of time on my hands and you're
Speaker 1: someone with like no time on your hands. So and
Speaker 1: you know, someone with a lot of time on their hands,
Speaker 1: like canceled at the last minute to be on that episode,
Speaker 1: which I really wanted to be on. But you know
Speaker 1: the reason why you forgive me because you've been there recently.
Speaker 2: All right, man, until part two? Thank you.
Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to you the Pekana Show. Aaron.
Speaker 1: Let's finish this out how you don't know?
Speaker 2: So far, so good.
Speaker 1: Let's do it all right, Let's get this up there
Speaker 1: and just jump right in. I had to look up
Speaker 1: exactly where we left off because you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna remember that ship So the last the last paragraph
Speaker 1: before we ended, I was talking about the people exposed
Speaker 1: to talking about tabula rossa, people exposed to this and partiality.
Speaker 1: There are no tabula ras so they are indoctrinaty, so indoctrination.
Speaker 1: So all right, the factual barriers which totalitarian democracy erects
Speaker 1: against the efficacy of qualitative dissent are weak and pleasant
Speaker 1: enough compared with the practices of a dictatorship which claims
Speaker 1: to educate the people in the truth.
Speaker 2: Huh. That's uh, yeah, I don't know if I agree
Speaker 2: with full on dictatorship, but you know, whatever, we have,
Speaker 2: whatever you would call it right now, that's that's the
Speaker 2: main characteristic of the people of power. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's that's the disease of intellectualism.
Speaker 1: Well, and what we have now is so they're they're
Speaker 1: claiming to educate the people and the truth. They have
Speaker 1: the truth, and they are definitely at that drawing broadline
Speaker 1: friend enemy distinction.
Speaker 2: It's they've conspicuously taken on that task as heroically as
Speaker 2: they can possibly make it. That, yes, this is their
Speaker 2: rise on Detroit is to educate, educate the people and
Speaker 2: the truth. And you see it every single day, whether
Speaker 2: it's all meeting. I mean that's what we're doing too.
Speaker 2: So I mean like, but when everybody is doing that,
Speaker 2: then you have that's yeah, you have a diseased society.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, if we if you have a society where
Speaker 1: people are warring over what the truth is, your society
Speaker 1: is completely as far to the left because you're existing
Speaker 1: in chaos. There's no order at all.
Speaker 2: Even if the fight is between objective truth and this
Speaker 2: you know, idea of subjective truth, whatever subjective truth, whatever
Speaker 2: branch that gets off into for for both sides. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we are. That's I would say that would characterize this
Speaker 2: spiritual warfare that we're in. Then I talked about the
Speaker 2: Patreon episode that you should buy a tile on Earth.
Speaker 1: It's a good episode, all right, with all its limitations
Speaker 1: and distortions. Democratic tolerance is, under all circumstances, more humane
Speaker 1: than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights and liberties
Speaker 1: of the living generations for the sake of the future generations.
Speaker 2: All right, It is that a knock or is he
Speaker 2: just stating a fact?
Speaker 1: With all its limitations and distortions, Democratic tolerances, under all circumstances,
Speaker 1: more humane than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights
Speaker 1: and liberties of the living generations. Now, when he says that,
Speaker 1: I immediately think of like what a like monarchy where yeah,
Speaker 1: where it also.
Speaker 2: A humane, humane institute. You know.
Speaker 1: Thomas said something on an episode recently. He was talking
Speaker 1: about the difference between the Soviet Union and the United
Speaker 1: States after nineteen fifty, and he was saying that, you know, well,
Speaker 1: what did the Soviet Union do after nineteen fifty? They
Speaker 1: just basically and after Stalin was out of power. I mean,
Speaker 1: they could abuse your body, they could you know, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of the Gulags were you know, we're they
Speaker 1: weren't as severe as before, you know, before when Stalin
Speaker 1: was alive. But really, the when you look at what
Speaker 1: the United States has done to people, I mean, at
Speaker 1: least Russians still believe that they're Russians. They still look
Speaker 1: they have some kind of identity. Everything that we that
Speaker 1: we have, we possess, any kind of tradition, any kind
Speaker 1: of family, they've they're this regime seeks to derascinate us
Speaker 1: from and just basically strip us down into nothing.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't have anything comparable to Goole Aggs or
Speaker 2: or even the destolinization process within living memory. And the
Speaker 2: further we get from these references that you know our grandparents,
Speaker 2: you know your grandparents, you're you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, I'm older than you. Fuck you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was gonna say, uh, certain certain members of
Speaker 2: your tribe. What you're Ukrainian background, Oh yeah, Ukrainian dash something.
Speaker 1: No, I'm like my DNA thing says two percent on
Speaker 1: that part one drop, yeah, right, one drop role.
Speaker 2: But no, we don't have anything like that in living memory.
Speaker 2: So the further we get from both the atrocities and
Speaker 2: the wine down from the atrocities being tolerable, the more
Speaker 2: apt we are to go back to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Good point, all right. The question is whether this
Speaker 1: is the only alternative. I shall presently try to suggest
Speaker 1: the direction in which an answer may be sought. In
Speaker 1: any case, the contrast is not between democracy and the
Speaker 1: abstract and dictatorship in the abstract. Democracy is a form
Speaker 1: of government which fits very different types of societies. This
Speaker 1: holds true even for a democracy with universal suffrage and
Speaker 1: equality before the law, and the human costs of a
Speaker 1: democracy are always and everywhere those exacted by the society
Speaker 1: whose government it is. Their range extends all the way
Speaker 1: from normal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to and insecurity to
Speaker 1: the victims of wars, police actions, military aid, etc. In
Speaker 1: which the society is engaged, and not only to the
Speaker 1: victims within its own frontiers. Yeah. These considerations can never
Speaker 1: justify the exacting of different sacrifices and different victims on
Speaker 1: behalf of a future better society, but they do allow
Speaker 1: weighing the cost involved in the perpetuation of an existing
Speaker 1: society against the risk of promoting alternatives which offer a
Speaker 1: reasonable chance of pacification and liberation. Surely, no government can
Speaker 1: be expected to foster its own subversion. But in a democracy,
Speaker 1: such a right as vested in the people i e.
Speaker 1: The majority of the people.
Speaker 2: Ah yeah, in theory, yeah, yeah, it sounds good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this means that the ways should be This means
Speaker 1: that the ways should not be blocked on which a
Speaker 1: subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by
Speaker 1: organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. Obviously, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and
Speaker 1: assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination,
Speaker 1: on the grounds of race and religion, of which opposed
Speaker 1: the extension of public services, social security, medicare, etc.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean maybe when he wrote this, I mean
Speaker 2: the last the social security, medical uh, public services, medical,
Speaker 2: medical care, all that grap I don't think there's a
Speaker 2: that's that's not really a thing with the left right debate.
Speaker 2: I think the right is okay with having a welfare state. Yep.
Speaker 1: They they're actively anti racist. Just call them a racist
Speaker 1: and you'll find out.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may
Speaker 1: necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in
Speaker 1: the education, in the educational institutions, which, by their very
Speaker 1: methods and concept the concepts, serve to enclose the mind
Speaker 1: within the established universe of discourse and behavior, thereby precluding
Speaker 1: a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.
Speaker 2: So that's not happening, right, I mean, the the the
Speaker 2: enclosed us of the mind is happening again. Like, this
Speaker 2: is all stuff that we can agree for, but for
Speaker 2: way different reasons than he wants us to.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, and to the degree to which freedom of
Speaker 1: thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom
Speaker 1: would also imply intolerance towards scientific research in the interest
Speaker 1: of deadly deterrence of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I shall presently discuss the question as to
Speaker 1: who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and
Speaker 1: liberating and repressive human and inhuman teachings and practices. I
Speaker 1: have already suggested that this at that this distinction is
Speaker 1: not a matter of value preference, but of rational criteria.
Speaker 2: Yes, the fattest, most blue haired, most transgender Muslim activists
Speaker 2: they are are the ones qualified.
Speaker 1: While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise
Speaker 1: at least could conceivably be enforced by the students and
Speaker 1: teachers themselves and thus be self imposed, the systematic withdrawal
Speaker 1: of tolerance towards regressive and repressive opinions and movements could
Speaker 1: only be envisaged, had envisaged envisaged enough to look that
Speaker 1: up as results of well, try to figure it out
Speaker 1: contexts as results of large scale pressure, which would amount
Speaker 1: to an upheaval book could only be you know. In
Speaker 1: other words, it would presuppose that which is still to
Speaker 1: be accomplished. The reversal of the trend. However, resistance at
Speaker 1: particular occasions, boycott, non participation at the local and small
Speaker 1: group level may perhaps prepare the ground. The subversive character
Speaker 1: of the restoration of freedom appears most clearly in that
Speaker 1: dimension of society where false tolerance and free enterprise do
Speaker 1: perhaps the most serious and lasting damage, namely in business
Speaker 1: and publicity.
Speaker 2: So corporations and media. Let's try to parse, parse all
Speaker 2: that together. I guess, to dumb it down. In a
Speaker 2: democratic system, there will never be any type of social
Speaker 2: upheaval that they haven't already approved of way ahead of time.
Speaker 2: What else is he trying to say? It's going to
Speaker 2: be the fortune five hundred corporations in the media, which
Speaker 2: are the most liberal and all so the most free enterprise.
Speaker 2: I don't mean free enterprise and like a libertarian context,
Speaker 2: I mean like they eat amongst each other. They are
Speaker 2: going to be the uh, the Petri dish, and the
Speaker 2: accelerant for any type of any type of social upheaval
Speaker 2: that has been pre approved. I think that's what he's
Speaker 2: trying to say. In a nutshell.
Speaker 1: If that's what he's trying to say to you think
Speaker 1: we've seen that, Oh yeah, absolutely, it's default though, Yeah,
Speaker 1: against the emphatic insistence on the part of spokesmen for labor,
Speaker 1: I maintain that practices such as planned obsolescence, collusion between
Speaker 1: union leadership and management, slanted publicity are not simply imposed
Speaker 1: from above on a powerless rank and file, but are
Speaker 1: tolerated by them and by the consumer at large.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we tolerate a lot.
Speaker 1: However, it would be ridiculous to speak of a possible
Speaker 1: withdrawal of tolerance with respect to these practices and to
Speaker 1: the ideologies promoted by them, for they pertain to the
Speaker 1: basis on which the repressive, affluent society rests and reproduces
Speaker 1: itself and its vital defenses. Their removal would be that
Speaker 1: total revolution which this society so effectively repels.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean again, I think what he's trying to
Speaker 2: say is our material condition is so good that they're
Speaker 2: willing to put up We are willing to put up
Speaker 2: with so much. When we will eventually reach that trip
Speaker 2: wire to where we chimp out, I don't know. But
Speaker 2: even now, however bad you might think it is, I
Speaker 2: think we still.
Speaker 1: Have a while. Well. I mean, you were saying in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty that people aren't hungry yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ye, people aren't hungry yet.
Speaker 1: To discuss tolerance in such a society means to re
Speaker 1: examine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between
Speaker 1: violent and nonviolent action. The discussion should not from the
Speaker 1: beginning be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence.
Speaker 1: Even into the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails.
Speaker 1: It is practiced by the police in the prisons and
Speaker 1: mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities, it is carried.
Speaker 1: It is carried by the defenders of metropolitan freedom into
Speaker 1: the backward countries. The violence indeed breeds violence, but to
Speaker 1: refrain from violence in the face of that superior violence
Speaker 1: is one thing. To renounce a priori violence against violence
Speaker 1: or ethical or sociological grounds because it may antagonize sympathizers
Speaker 1: is another.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Nonviolence is normally not only preached to to, but extracted
Speaker 1: from the weak. It is a necessity rather than a virtue,
Speaker 1: and normally it does not seriously harm. The case of
Speaker 1: the strong is the case of India an exception. Their
Speaker 1: passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale which
Speaker 1: disrupted or threatened to disrupt the economic life of the country.
Speaker 1: Quantity turns into quality. On such a scale, passive resistance
Speaker 1: is no longer passive. It ceases to be non violent.
Speaker 1: The same holds true for the general strike.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would just gallons if if the general strike
Speaker 2: even approach entering the entering the modern discourse.
Speaker 1: I mean when you every once in a while you'll
Speaker 1: see someone talk about it, it'll be like Caleb mop
Speaker 1: In and you just the people you would expect it
Speaker 1: to come from.
Speaker 2: But it's it's a I mean from the right. Yeah, yeah, No,
Speaker 2: I mean as as blue collar as the rights become
Speaker 2: in the last you know, thirty years, you'll you'll never
Speaker 2: you'll never see a general strike because then you go.
Speaker 1: Hungry, right, right, And we're not a grarian.
Speaker 2: Nope, not anymore, we're not.
Speaker 1: Nope. Robespierre's distinction between the terror of liberty and the
Speaker 1: terror of despotism, and his moral glorification of the former,
Speaker 1: belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations. Even if the
Speaker 1: white terror was more bloody than the Red terror. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, who want to try and compare and see
Speaker 1: which one was more violent? I don't think we need
Speaker 1: to do that. Yeah, the comparative evaluation in terms of
Speaker 1: the number of victims is the quantifying approach, which reveals
Speaker 1: a man made horror throughout history that made violence and necessity.
Speaker 1: In terms of historical function, there is a difference between
Speaker 1: the revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the
Speaker 1: oppressed and by the oppressors in terms of Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean think about that.
Speaker 2: And it's each ideology's responsibility to capture either one of
Speaker 2: those terms.
Speaker 1: First, I have seen people this week on social media
Speaker 1: and in comments that we actually read yesterday in the
Speaker 1: live stream we did for Old Glory Club where pro
Speaker 1: trands people, people who were actually celebrating what happened at
Speaker 1: that Christian school in Nashville were basically saying that they
Speaker 1: were the oppressed and that the government was the oppressor
Speaker 1: is still the oppressor to.
Speaker 2: Them, They're yeah, I mean this is actually it's it's
Speaker 2: so perfect that we're reading this in the backdrop of
Speaker 2: that Nashville shooting, because you're seeing this in real life. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's insane. It's been such a black
Speaker 2: pill to see just nobody, like even people that we
Speaker 2: would expect to have some type of strong take with it. Nothing,
Speaker 2: nothing except for the usual people like that that we
Speaker 2: see in our timeline that we expect, but man, it's
Speaker 2: been fucking it's just been disappointed.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope I made some sense last night,
Speaker 1: because you know, I'm one of those people who believes
Speaker 1: that trans people are victims. I believe they're victims of
Speaker 1: a campaign that, you know, just like any other campaign,
Speaker 1: the campaign for FIAT money, the campaign for wars and everything.
Speaker 1: But when it comes, once the violence starts, and once
Speaker 1: innocent people start start falling by their hands, then I
Speaker 1: have to step back and I have to go all right, Well,
Speaker 1: I wasn't exactly supporting you at this point up until
Speaker 1: this point, but I'm definitely you know, I'm definitely disengaged,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to make any excuses anymore.
Speaker 2: If tragedies like that are just, by the odds going
Speaker 2: to happen, then I I almost hope that the level
Speaker 2: of vitriol and shaden freud and just the opportunity, the
Speaker 2: opportunism that comes about from basically dancing on victim's grave,
Speaker 2: I almost hope that it drowns out rational voices. That's
Speaker 2: that's what needs especially on the internet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, excelent accelerationism on the Internet is basically the default.
Speaker 1: There should be the default.
Speaker 2: I I I don't like seeing it, and I don't
Speaker 2: I don't know if if there is a way to
Speaker 2: separate your internet self from your real life self and
Speaker 2: say that it's the complete fucking opposite. I'm I'm there.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I'm morally correct. I don't know
Speaker 2: if I'm going to burn an l for that, But.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, right. In terms of ethics, both forms of
Speaker 1: violence are inhuman and evil. But since when is history
Speaker 1: made in accordance with ethical standards? It's a great question.
Speaker 1: It's a question that I ask all the time when
Speaker 1: people try to make moral arguments with me. So what
Speaker 1: does morality have to do with this? To start applying
Speaker 1: them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppress,
Speaker 1: to start applying them at the point where the oppressed
Speaker 1: rebel against the oppressors, the have nots against the haves
Speaker 1: is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the
Speaker 1: protest against it. Here he quotes Jean Paul Sart. Try
Speaker 1: to understand this at any rate. If violence began this
Speaker 1: very evening, and if exploitation and oppression had never existed
Speaker 1: on the earth. Perhaps the slogans of nonviolence might end
Speaker 1: the coral. But if the whole regime, even for non violence,
Speaker 1: even nonviolent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand year old oppression,
Speaker 1: your passivity serves only to place you in the rank
Speaker 1: of the oppressors.
Speaker 2: Silence is violence.
Speaker 1: But I mean, you see see people on our side too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm an ally, You're an ally. That's great, all right.
Speaker 1: The very notion of false tolerance and the distinction between
Speaker 1: right and wrong, limitations on tolerance, between progressive and regressive indoctrination,
Speaker 1: revolutionary and reactionary violence, demand the statement of criteria for
Speaker 1: its validity. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional
Speaker 1: and legal criteria are set up and applied in an
Speaker 1: existing society which has clear Yeah.
Speaker 2: First principles shouldn't be my constitution, yep, orm due process.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, yeah, I remember the first person I
Speaker 1: really talked to who who said this was Arn McIntyre,
Speaker 1: and he said, look, if you got to write, if
Speaker 1: your society has to write stuff down, you've already lost.
Speaker 1: If you have to write your laws down, you've already lost.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Who are you writing them down for?
Speaker 1: Yeah? All right? So okay, read that whole thing again.
Speaker 1: These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal
Speaker 1: criteria are set up and applied in an existing society,
Speaker 1: such as clear and present danger and other established definitions
Speaker 1: of civil rights and liberties. For such definitions themselves presupposed
Speaker 1: standards of freedom and repression as applicable or not applicable
Speaker 1: in the respective society. They are specifications of more general concepts.
Speaker 1: By whom and according to what standards can the political
Speaker 1: distinction between true and false, progressive and regressive. For in
Speaker 1: this sphere these pairs are equivalent be made and its
Speaker 1: validity be just defied. At the outset, I propose that
Speaker 1: the question cannot be answered in terms of the alternative
Speaker 1: between democracy and dictatorship, according to which in the latter
Speaker 1: one individual or group, without any effective control from below,
Speaker 1: arrogate to them to themselves the decision. Historically, even in
Speaker 1: the most democratic democracies, the vital and final decisions affecting
Speaker 1: the society as a whole have been made constitutionally or
Speaker 1: in fact, by one or several groups without effective control
Speaker 1: by the people themselves. The ironical question what true I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's.
Speaker 2: Just democracy is just a bunch of interest groups fighting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's whichever group of elites you win. Basically,
Speaker 1: the ironical question who educates the educators i e. The
Speaker 1: political leaders? All so applies to democracy. The only authentic
Speaker 1: alternative and negation of dictatorship with respect to this question
Speaker 1: would be a society in which the people have become
Speaker 1: autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle
Speaker 1: for existence and the interest of domination, and as such
Speaker 1: human beings choosing their government and determining their life.
Speaker 2: Chazz, he's describing Chaz and Capistan and Japistan. Yeah, autonomy
Speaker 2: and freedom.
Speaker 1: Such a society does not yet exist anywhere in the means,
Speaker 1: and it never will. In the meantime, the question must
Speaker 1: be treated in an abstract though abstraction, not from the
Speaker 1: historical possibilities, but from the realities of the prevailing societies.
Speaker 1: So he's basically going to apply something that doesn't exist
Speaker 1: to reality. And as I think it was, Sam Francis said,
Speaker 1: channeling James Burnham, that never works because, and I will paraphrase,
Speaker 1: everybody thinks they have a plan till they get punched
Speaker 1: in the mouth. Yeah, everybody or everybody has a plan,
Speaker 1: so they get punched in the mouth.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: I think that was Mike Tyson too, just bringing all
Speaker 1: the philosophers in. I suggested that the distinction between true
Speaker 1: and false tolerance, between progress and regression can be made
Speaker 1: rationally on empirical grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom
Speaker 1: are relative to the attained stage of civilization.
Speaker 2: Right now, we're getting into some Marxism.
Speaker 1: They depend on the material and intellectual resources available at
Speaker 1: their respective stage, and they are quantifiable and calculable to
Speaker 1: a high degree. So are at the stage of advanced
Speaker 1: industrial society the most rational ways of using these resources
Speaker 1: and distributing the social product, with priority on the satisfaction
Speaker 1: vital needs, and with a minimum of toil and injustice.
Speaker 2: Oh god, oh.
Speaker 1: H you knew it was coming. You knew it was coming.
Speaker 2: Oh I was waiting for it so excited. I'm back,
Speaker 2: I'm back.
Speaker 1: In other words, it is possible to define the direction
Speaker 1: in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be
Speaker 1: changed in order to improve the chance of a peace
Speaker 1: which is not identical with cold war and a little
Speaker 1: hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not
Speaker 1: feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, it is also
Speaker 1: possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this
Speaker 1: chance and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of
Speaker 1: the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of
Speaker 1: the progressive ones.
Speaker 2: It's power as a fixed pot baby, and the Marxists wanted,
Speaker 2: I want it.
Speaker 1: My My theory is that power is a power, is
Speaker 1: a constant, and it's just it's just being divvied up.
Speaker 1: Who divvs it up? Who gets the biggest piece? The
Speaker 1: question who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions,
Speaker 1: identifications for the society as a whole has now one
Speaker 1: logical answer, namely, namely everyone in the maturity of his
Speaker 1: faculties as a human being, everyone who has learned to
Speaker 1: think rationally and autonomously.
Speaker 2: What about.
Speaker 1: Well, what about the ones who haven't? And that's how
Speaker 1: you get a dictatorship?
Speaker 2: What they if your average country is plummeting?
Speaker 1: What if this is Somalia? John Stewart Mill's conception of
Speaker 1: the of the rest publica is not the opposite of Plato's.
Speaker 1: The liberal, too, demands the authority of reason, not only
Speaker 1: as an intellectual but also as a political power. Huh okay,
Speaker 1: I was just thinking how the objective the objectivists all,
Speaker 1: you know, say they need a society based on reason,
Speaker 1: where the police would there would be the police would
Speaker 1: enforce reason. I'm not even kidding, I'm not even kidding.
Speaker 1: In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of
Speaker 1: philosopher kings. In mill every rational human being participates in
Speaker 1: the discussion and decision, but only as a rational being.
Speaker 1: Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination,
Speaker 1: this would be a small indeed, and not necessarily that
Speaker 1: of elected representatives of the people.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: Imagine that the problem is not that of an educational dictatorship,
Speaker 1: but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and
Speaker 1: its makers in the closed society.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, public opinion can never really be organic,
Speaker 2: can it? Because public opinion is itself a weird, fucking
Speaker 2: nebulous idea.
Speaker 1: Even if you broke it down to like Dunbar's number,
Speaker 1: the whatever natural elites or pastors are in that group,
Speaker 1: or who are going to make public opinion, you know,
Speaker 1: the they're they're going to be the leaders. Pretty much
Speaker 1: what people say about their governing style. Their governance is
Speaker 1: going to be coming. They're just going to be repeating
Speaker 1: what those men are saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, more or less, or basing their opinions off of
Speaker 2: what they were taught from, you know, the progenitors of
Speaker 2: those men.
Speaker 1: Yeah. However, granted the empirical rationality of the distinction between
Speaker 1: progress and regression, and granted that it may be applicable
Speaker 1: to tolerance and may justify strongly discriminatory tolerance on political grounds,
Speaker 1: cancelation of the liberal creed of free and equal discussion.
Speaker 1: Another impossible consequence would follow. I say that, by virtue
Speaker 1: of its inner logic, withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements
Speaker 1: and discriminatory tolerance in favor of the progressive tendencies would
Speaker 1: be tantamount to the official promotion of subversion. Hume, imagine that.
Speaker 2: All right, now he's on to something.
Speaker 1: Yep. The historical calculus of progress, which is actually the
Speaker 1: calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery, suppression, seems to.
Speaker 2: Such a vagina.
Speaker 1: Read it again, the historical calculus of progress, which is
Speaker 1: actually the calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery,
Speaker 1: and suppression seems to involve the calculated choice between two
Speaker 1: forms of political violence, that on the part of the
Speaker 1: legally constituted powers, by their legitimate action or by their
Speaker 1: tacit consent or by their inability to prevent violence, and
Speaker 1: that on the part of potentially subversive movements. Moreover, with
Speaker 1: respect to the latter, a policy of unequal treatment would
Speaker 1: protect radicalism on the left against that on the right.
Speaker 1: Can the historical Can the historical calculus be reasonably extended
Speaker 1: to the justification of one form of violence or against
Speaker 1: as against another, or better, since justification carries a moral connotation,
Speaker 1: or better, since justification carries a moral connotation, Is there
Speaker 1: historical evidence to the effect that the social origin and
Speaker 1: impetus of violence from among the ruled or the ruling
Speaker 1: classes to the have or the have not, the left
Speaker 1: or the right, is in a demonstrable relation to progress
Speaker 1: as defined above.
Speaker 2: I love it, We're getting taken on another wild ride. Why,
Speaker 2: here's why you should throw your face into the brick
Speaker 2: being thrown at you.
Speaker 1: With all the qualifications of a hypothesis based on an
Speaker 1: open historical record, it seems that the violence emanating from
Speaker 1: the rebellion of the oppressed classes broke the historical continue
Speaker 1: of injustice, cruelty, and silence for a brief moment, brief
Speaker 1: but explosive enough to achieve an increase in the scope
Speaker 1: of freedom and justice and a better and more equitable
Speaker 1: distribution of misery and oppression in a new social system.
Speaker 1: In one word, progress in civilization. Oh, I'm glad he's
Speaker 1: bringing these up here. Okay? Good? The English Civil Wars,
Speaker 1: the French Revolution, the Chinese and the Cuban revolutions may
Speaker 1: illustrate the hypothesis. In contrast, the one historical change from
Speaker 1: one social system to another marking the beginning of a
Speaker 1: new period in civilization, which was not sparked and driven
Speaker 1: by an effective movement from below, namely, the collapse of
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire in the West brought about a long
Speaker 1: period of regression for long centuries, until a new, higher
Speaker 1: period of civilization was painfully born in the violence of
Speaker 1: the heretic revolts of the thirteenth century and in the
Speaker 1: peasant and laborery vaults of the fourteenth century.
Speaker 2: That's a very generous interpretation.
Speaker 1: With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes.
Speaker 1: No such relations to progress seems to obtain the long
Speaker 1: series of dynastic and imperialist wars. The liquidation of Spartacus
Speaker 1: in Germany in nineteen nineteen. Fascism and Nazism did not break,
Speaker 1: but rather tightened than streamline the continuum of suppression.
Speaker 2: Really, I guess where that did not break but rather
Speaker 2: tightened in streamlined. Yeah, I don't get that. I don't
Speaker 2: get why he would describe Nazism as tightening and streamlined. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I guess lining the continuum of suppression. Yeah, but if
Speaker 2: he's if it's meant to be pejorative, then yeah, he's
Speaker 2: giving it more credit.
Speaker 1: I said, emanating from among ruling classes. To be sure,
Speaker 1: there is hardly any organized violence from above that does
Speaker 1: not mobilize and activate mass support from below.
Speaker 2: Oh all right, I see what he's saying.
Speaker 1: The decisive question is on behalf of and in the
Speaker 1: interest of, which groups and institutions is such violence released?
Speaker 2: I mean the National Socialist Party, I mean that's that's
Speaker 2: started as grassroots kind of street brawling, right, yeah, like
Speaker 2: it didn't really get well, I don't know were there's
Speaker 2: some like old old kaiser Reich types in it from
Speaker 2: the beginning.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean they were all guys who fought world
Speaker 1: in World War One?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, But were they like aristocrats?
Speaker 1: I mean there were a couple.
Speaker 2: There were just a couple, not enough to characterize it
Speaker 2: as an aristocratic movement.
Speaker 1: I would probably say there may have been a chance
Speaker 1: that there were more aristocrats in the KPD. Yeah, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: And the answer is not necessarily exposed in the historical
Speaker 1: examples just mentioned. It could be and was anticipated whether
Speaker 1: the movement would serve the revamping of the old order
Speaker 1: or the emergence of the new liberating tolerance then would
Speaker 1: mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements.
Speaker 2: From the left. Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1: Right. There highlight that as to the scope of this
Speaker 1: tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of
Speaker 1: action as well as of discussion and propaganda, as well
Speaker 1: as of word.
Speaker 2: And you're seeing that since twenty.
Speaker 1: Fifteen, since he came down that escalator.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no.
Speaker 1: We talk about that, We talk about how people want
Speaker 1: to discount exactly. I mean, who cares. I mean, Trump
Speaker 1: didn't get anything done and couldn't get anything done, But
Speaker 1: that's not the point of Trump. That The point of
Speaker 1: Trump is just how he started all this. Yeah, there
Speaker 1: were you know, okay, the Trayvon Martin shooting, well, Occupy
Speaker 1: Wall Street and the Trayvon Martin shooting, and then the
Speaker 1: Michael Brown shooting, the formation of BLM, which most people
Speaker 1: don't remember. Barack Obama would basically call a terrorist group,
Speaker 1: the Democrats would call a terrorist group. And then you
Speaker 1: get up to twenty fifteen and Trump goes down that escalator,
Speaker 1: start saying the things that he says, and then it
Speaker 1: was just okay, we have to take sides. Now.
Speaker 2: I think if Trump were the most competent, most machiavellian politician,
Speaker 2: political actor, power player in the world, that he still
Speaker 2: would have wouldn't have been able to do anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: They they started working on him from the second he
Speaker 2: blew away the primary debates.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, when when he acted like a like no
Speaker 1: one's ever seen in you know, in this lifetime and
Speaker 1: in many lifetimes, someone acts like that in a political
Speaker 1: debate in this country. When he started acting like that
Speaker 1: and the people responded to him positively, you know, when
Speaker 1: a certain group on the right responded to him positively,
Speaker 1: the right. But basically then they knew that there was
Speaker 1: something really good, and then Brexit bres it was another thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but which really means nothing. I mean, but it was
Speaker 1: it breaks it means basically nothing, has meant nothing other
Speaker 1: than some other than symbolism. Pretty much just like Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean again, you could have the most the
Speaker 2: most ruthless, ruthless political actors, the highest caliber, and I
Speaker 2: think they still would have ended up like Trump, just
Speaker 2: as effective as Trump and breaks it. Yeah. They were,
Speaker 2: they were, They were ready. They had everything in order
Speaker 2: well before he posed a real threat or while before
Speaker 2: he've got formal power.
Speaker 1: These people have been doing this for one hundred years.
Speaker 1: They're not stupid. Yeah, all right, let me start that
Speaker 1: one again. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance,
Speaker 1: it would extend to the stage of action as well
Speaker 1: as of discussion and propaganda of deed, as well as
Speaker 1: of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger
Speaker 1: seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole
Speaker 1: society is in the situation the theater audience when somebody
Speaker 1: cries fire. It is a situation in which the total
Speaker 1: catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by
Speaker 1: a technical error but also by a rational miscalculation of risks,
Speaker 1: or by a rash speech of one of the leaders.
Speaker 1: In past, in different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist
Speaker 1: and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre.
Speaker 1: The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the
Speaker 1: organization and its release on the people had become too short,
Speaker 1: But the spreading of the word could have stopped before
Speaker 1: it was too late. If the democratic tolerance had been
Speaker 1: withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would
Speaker 1: have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz in the World War.
Speaker 2: He sounds like every jew on my timeline.
Speaker 1: All right, let's keep going. The whole post fascist period
Speaker 1: is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification
Speaker 1: requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the
Speaker 1: stage of communication, in word, print and picture. Such extreme
Speaker 1: suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly
Speaker 1: is indeed justified only in the whole of a society.
Speaker 1: Only in the whole of a society is in extreme danger.
Speaker 1: I maintain that our society is in such an extreme
Speaker 1: emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state
Speaker 1: of affairs.
Speaker 2: Yeah this, once you declare a state of emergency. It
Speaker 2: never goes away.
Speaker 1: Different opinions and philosophies can no longer compete peacefully for
Speaker 1: adherence and persuasion on rational grounds. The marketplace of ideas
Speaker 1: is organized and delimited by those who determine the national
Speaker 1: and the individual interest. Hey, I'm back, I'm here, I'm back, we're.
Speaker 2: The description of the problem is spot on.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. In this society for which the ideologists have
Speaker 1: proclaimed the end of ideology, the false consciousness has become
Speaker 1: the general consciousness, from the government down to its last
Speaker 1: subject objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against
Speaker 1: the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their
Speaker 1: continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused
Speaker 1: rights and liberties, which grant constitutional powers to those who
Speaker 1: oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that
Speaker 1: the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have
Speaker 1: them presupposes to withdrawal of civil rights from those who
Speaker 1: prevent their exercise, and the liberation of the damned of
Speaker 1: the earth presupposed the suppression not only for their old
Speaker 1: but also of their new mass.
Speaker 2: Yes, all right, I'm rock hard again, Look me gaining
Speaker 2: my sense of normalcy requires you losing yours.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what it is.
Speaker 2: And more and more people are having less and less
Speaker 2: problem telling people that, which is great because he's absolutely right.
Speaker 2: There is no rational discourse. There hasn't been for a while,
Speaker 2: and even when there was, it was artificial in every sense.
Speaker 1: How can you have a rational discourse with people who
Speaker 1: are I mean, it used to be Oh it was
Speaker 1: someone on Oh, this is just someone on Twitter. Come on,
Speaker 1: just turn on the cable news.
Speaker 2: All right, it's two channels. Man. There's a plu.
Speaker 1: Right withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can
Speaker 1: become active in tolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word,
Speaker 1: and finally intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, towards
Speaker 1: the self styled conservatives to the political right. These anti
Speaker 1: democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society,
Speaker 1: which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're doing that right now. It's great.
Speaker 1: The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating
Speaker 1: and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance
Speaker 1: mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society,
Speaker 1: when it serves to neutralize opposition, and to render men
Speaker 1: immune against other and better forms of life than tolerance
Speaker 1: has been perverted. I mean you're yeah, I agree, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: Only let's let's fucking let's rotate this. Yeah, one hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty degrees.
Speaker 1: And when this perversion starts in the mind of the
Speaker 1: individual in his consciousness, his needs when hetero, when hetero,
Speaker 1: when heteronom heteron heterononymous, heterononymous. Let's do that again. And
Speaker 1: when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual
Speaker 1: in his consciousness, his needs when heteronomymous interests occupy him
Speaker 1: before he can experience his servitude, than the efforts to
Speaker 1: counteract his dehumanity. Dehumanization. Dehumanization must begin at the place
Speaker 1: of entrance. There where the where the false consciousness takes form,
Speaker 1: or rather it's systematically formed. It must begin with stopping
Speaker 1: the words and images which feed this conscious.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's why we're going to crack down on disinformation.
Speaker 2: I see what you're saying. Oh yeah, you know, planting
Speaker 2: the idea sees in people's head like that's bad and
Speaker 2: wrong and you shouldn't do it, and it goes from there.
Speaker 2: You go from there too. Now you're not allowed to
Speaker 2: do it.
Speaker 1: To be sure, this is censorship, even pre censorship, but
Speaker 1: openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that
Speaker 1: permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become
Speaker 1: prevalent and national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost
Speaker 1: immediately into practice. The safe distance between ideology and reality,
Speaker 1: repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction
Speaker 1: and deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the breakthrough
Speaker 1: the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a
Speaker 1: larger emancipation at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure,
Speaker 1: But it is on the enlargement of such small spots
Speaker 1: that the chance of change depends. The forces of emancipation
Speaker 1: cannot be identified with any social class which, by virtue
Speaker 1: of its material condition is free from false consciousness.
Speaker 2: Going to ameliarize the escaton bro.
Speaker 1: Today, they are hopelessly dispersed throughout the society, and the
Speaker 1: fighting minorities and isolated groups are often in opposition to
Speaker 1: their own leadership. In the society at large, the mental
Speaker 1: space for denial and reflection must first be recreated. Repulsed
Speaker 1: by the concreteness of the administered society, the effort of
Speaker 1: emancipation becomes abstract. It is reduced to facilitating the recognition
Speaker 1: of what is going on, to freeing language from the
Speaker 1: tyranny of the Orwellian syntax and logic, to developing the
Speaker 1: concept that the concepts that comprehend Reality's describing libertarianism more
Speaker 1: than ever, the proposition holds true that progress in freedom
Speaker 1: demands progress in the consciousness of freedom. Where the mind
Speaker 1: has been made into a subject object of politics and policies,
Speaker 1: intellectual autonomy, the realm of pure thought has become a
Speaker 1: matter of political education, or rather counter education. This you
Speaker 1: got anything, not just just yeah. This means that previously
Speaker 1: neutral value free formal aspects of learning and teaching now
Speaker 1: become on their own grounds and in their own right,
Speaker 1: political learning. To know the facts, the whole truth, and
Speaker 1: to comprehend it is radical criticism throughout intellectual subversion. In
Speaker 1: a world in which the human faculties and needs are
Speaker 1: arrested or perverted, autonomous thinking leads into a perverted world
Speaker 1: contradiction and counter image of the established world of repression.
Speaker 1: I think the world that he is trying to lead
Speaker 1: them into is going to be a much more perverted world,
Speaker 1: but I'm using perverted in a much different way.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a much more annoying world.
Speaker 1: And this contradiction is not simply stipulated, is not simply
Speaker 1: the product of confused thinking or fantasy, but is the
Speaker 1: logical development of the given the existing world. To the
Speaker 1: degree to which this development is actually impeded by the
Speaker 1: sheer weight of a repressive society and the necessity of
Speaker 1: making a living in it. Repression invades the academic enterprise itself,
Speaker 1: even prior to all restrictions on academic freedom. The preempting
Speaker 1: of the mind vitiates, vitiates, vitiates impartiality and objectivity. Unless
Speaker 1: the student learns to think in the opposite direction, he
Speaker 1: will be inclined to place the facts into the predominant
Speaker 1: framework of values.
Speaker 2: What would that look like nowadays?
Speaker 1: Mean the academy scholarship, i e. The acquisition and communication
Speaker 1: of knowledge prohibits the purification and isolation of facts from
Speaker 1: the context of the whole truth. An essential part of
Speaker 1: the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which
Speaker 1: history was made and recorded by and for the victors.
Speaker 1: That is, the extent to which history was the development
Speaker 1: of oppression.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that needs to be changed, but uh, he'd be
Speaker 2: I think you would be extremely happy with how that's
Speaker 2: working out today. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, did you know that Marcuse was? I think he
Speaker 1: was Paul Gottfried's doctoral director.
Speaker 2: I I believe that. Actually, Yeah, I haven't listened to
Speaker 2: Godfried and a long time. He must he must be
Speaker 2: like in his nineties now.
Speaker 1: No, he's like eighty. He's eighty. But oh but he's sharp.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was riding a bike like a year and a
Speaker 1: half ago and just got hit by a car and
Speaker 1: he's fine and he's like recovered and everything. And I
Speaker 1: mean that guy's not That guy's not going anywhere man,
Speaker 1: all right. An essential part of the latter is recognition
Speaker 1: of the frightening extent to which history was made and
Speaker 1: recorded by and for the victor. That is, to the
Speaker 1: extent to which history was a development of oppression. And
Speaker 1: this oppression is in the facts, in the facts themselves
Speaker 1: what it establishes. Thus they themselves carry a negative value
Speaker 1: as part and aspect of their facticity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hell yeah, facts don't care about your feelings. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: face the wall, all right.
Speaker 1: To treat the Great Crusades against humanity with the same
Speaker 1: impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their
Speaker 1: opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting
Speaker 1: the record. Such spurious neutrality serves to reproduce acceptance of
Speaker 1: the dominion of the victors in the consciousness of man.
Speaker 2: So, getting back to last episode, no, actually, an objective
Speaker 2: an objective overview of history is not good.
Speaker 1: Actually yep. Here too, in the education of those who
Speaker 1: are not yet maturely integrated in the mind of the young,
Speaker 1: the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.
Speaker 2: That's right, children are our future.
Speaker 1: Education offers Still another example of spurious abstract tolerance in
Speaker 1: the guise of concreteness and truth. It is epitomized in
Speaker 1: the concept of self actualization, from the permissiveness of all
Speaker 1: sorts of license to the child to the constant psychological
Speaker 1: concern with the personal problems of the student. A large
Speaker 1: scale movement is underway against the evils and repression and
Speaker 1: the need for being oneself.
Speaker 2: Frequently self heavily medicated in all times.
Speaker 1: Frequently brushed aside is the question as to what has
Speaker 1: to be repressed before one can be a self oneself.
Speaker 1: The individual potential is first a negative one, a portion
Speaker 1: of the potential of his society of aggression, guilt, feeling, ignorance, resentment, cruelty,
Speaker 1: cruelty which vitiate his life instincts. If the identity of
Speaker 1: the self is to be more than the immediate realization
Speaker 1: of this potential, undesirable for the individual as human being,
Speaker 1: then it requires repression and sublimation, conscious transformation.
Speaker 2: This process involves at each stage SSRIs.
Speaker 1: This process involves at each stage, to use the ridiculed
Speaker 1: terms which here reveal their succinct concreteness, the negation of
Speaker 1: the negation, mediation of the intermediate. An identity is no
Speaker 1: more and no less than this process.
Speaker 2: These people so much.
Speaker 1: Alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the
Speaker 1: objective side of the subject, and not as.
Speaker 2: We identify ourselves through alien through what we are alienated from.
Speaker 1: For the most part, alienation is the constant and essential
Speaker 1: element of identity, the objective side of the subject, and
Speaker 1: not as it is made to appear today a disease
Speaker 1: of psychological condition. Freud Well knew the difference between progressive
Speaker 1: and regressive, liberating and destructive repression. The publicity of self
Speaker 1: actualization promotes the removal of the one and the other.
Speaker 1: It promotes existence in that immediacy, which in a repressive
Speaker 1: society is, to use another Hegelian term, bad immediacy. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna do I'm not doing German today.
Speaker 2: Thats mite bark.
Speaker 1: It isolates the individual from the one dimension where he
Speaker 1: could find himself, from his political existence, which is at
Speaker 1: the core of his entire existence.
Speaker 2: This is why I fucking hate Frankfurt School because it
Speaker 2: is basically just Freud and it's all German. So you
Speaker 2: can you can take probably two thirds of the sentences
Speaker 2: that we read so far and just delete them, and
Speaker 2: then the remaining third is what he was actually trying
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 1: Freud Yaqui does some destruction of Freud in part one
Speaker 1: of Imperium that is beautiful and is just a map
Speaker 1: and unbelievable takedown. Instead, it encourages nonconformity and letting go
Speaker 1: in ways which leave the real engines of repression in
Speaker 1: the society entirely intact, which even strengthened these engines by
Speaker 1: substituting the satisfactions of private and personal rebellion for a
Speaker 1: more than private and personal and therefore more authentic opposition.
Speaker 1: Oh God, the desublimation involved in this sort of self
Speaker 1: actualization is itself repressive inasmuch as it weakens the necessity
Speaker 1: and the power of the intellect, the catalytic force of
Speaker 1: that unhappy consciousness, which does not revel in the archetype,
Speaker 1: in the archetypal personal release of frustration, hopeless resurgence of
Speaker 1: the id, which will sooner or later succumb to the
Speaker 1: omnipresent rationality of the administered world, but which recognizes the
Speaker 1: horror of the whole in the most private frustrated and
Speaker 1: actualizes itself in this recognition. Oh fuck yourself so much, man.
Speaker 2: It's you just fucking freuded up.
Speaker 1: God, I can't do it so bad. Oh oh. The
Speaker 1: TV show Mash used to push Freud. They would bring
Speaker 1: on this. It would bring on this psychologist every once
Speaker 1: in a while, Sydney, you know, try member, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and he would he was like writing letters to Freud.
Speaker 1: He was constantly like, you know, talking, quoting Freud. And
Speaker 1: it's just like, oh God, that show was so bad.
Speaker 1: It was. It was great in the first couple of seasons.
Speaker 1: What was just a comedy, but then Alan all that
Speaker 1: took over, and it was like, oh no, no. I've
Speaker 1: tried to show how the changes in advanced democratic societies
Speaker 1: which have undermined the basis of economic and political liberalism,
Speaker 1: have also altered the liberal function of tolerance. The tolerance,
Speaker 1: which was the great achievement of the liberal era, is
Speaker 1: still professed with, professed, and with strong qualifications practiced, while
Speaker 1: the economic and political process is subjected to an ubiquitous
Speaker 1: and effective administration in accordance with the predominant interests.
Speaker 2: All right, he's he's back to being somewhat understandable.
Speaker 1: The results is an objective contradiction between the economic and
Speaker 1: political structure on the one side, and the theory and
Speaker 1: practice of toleration on the other.
Speaker 2: I can get down with that.
Speaker 1: The altered social structure tends to weaken the effectiveness of
Speaker 1: tolerance towards dissenting and oppositional movements and to strengthen conservative
Speaker 1: and reactionary forces.
Speaker 2: Knowing what we know now, not so much.
Speaker 1: Equality of tolerance becomes abstract spurious with the actual decline
Speaker 1: of dissenting forces in the society. The opposition is insulated
Speaker 1: in small and frequently antagonistic groups who even were tolerated
Speaker 1: within the narrow limits set by the hierarchical structure of
Speaker 1: society are powerless while they keep within their limits, I
Speaker 1: mean one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: He's describing the right.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, yeah, but the tolerance shown to them is
Speaker 1: deceptive and promotes coordination and on the firm foundations of
Speaker 1: a coordinated society all but closed against qualitative change. Tolerance
Speaker 1: itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just more chomps what Chompsky eventually
Speaker 1: really starts talking about.
Speaker 2: I forget who the organizer was, but the guy that
Speaker 2: started Lollapalooza back in nineteen ninety one and originally intended
Speaker 2: it to be like this.
Speaker 1: Was it Perry Ferrell? Was it for Perry fell from
Speaker 1: Jamee's addiction or was it someone else?
Speaker 2: I think it was somebody else. I'm pretty sure it
Speaker 2: was a Jewish guy.
Speaker 1: But uh, it was a Jewish guy.
Speaker 2: All right, Maybe maybe it was him. I don't remember
Speaker 2: his name, but within like it started in nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 2: by nineteen ninety two, there were t shirt kios selling
Speaker 2: selling t shirts for like twenty three dollars, which at
Speaker 2: the time was ridiculous, and the bands weren't allowed to undercut.
Speaker 2: There were you know, you weren't allowed to bring blankets
Speaker 2: in because they wanted to charge you for their own plank.
Speaker 2: It within a year, so you still had this this
Speaker 2: idea of you know, this rebellious, this rebellious festival full
Speaker 2: of you know, anti corporate you know, all these anti
Speaker 2: corporate actors, and but it existed within the framework of
Speaker 2: everything that they hated.
Speaker 1: I was at one, two and three. Yeah. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: first year was great. The first year was fantastic. Yeah.
Speaker 1: After that it was just like, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: It still looked great, Like looking at the videos from
Speaker 2: back in the day, it still looked amazing.
Speaker 1: But well the bands were great and everything. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's just like, yeah, but it did. It was like
Speaker 1: it was sort of like it sort of wanted it
Speaker 1: to be like the Agora.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean it just yeah, yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: ten dollars waters and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: Eventually within a year.
Speaker 1: But the tolerance shown to them as acceptive and promotes
Speaker 1: coordination and on the firm foundation of a coordinator society
Speaker 1: all but closed against qualitative change. Tolerance itself serves to
Speaker 1: contain such change, rather than to promote it.
Speaker 2: These yeah, think of lollapalooza.
Speaker 1: Ye, these things. Yeah, and I just looked it up
Speaker 1: real quick.
Speaker 2: They do.
Speaker 1: At least Wikipedia calls Perry Ferrell the founder. These same
Speaker 1: conditions render the critique of such tolerance abstract and academic,
Speaker 1: and the proposition that the balance between tolerance, the tolerance
Speaker 1: towards the right and toward the left, would have to
Speaker 1: be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function
Speaker 1: of tolerance becomes only an unrealistic speculation. Indeed, such a
Speaker 1: redressing seems to be tantamounts to the establishment of a
Speaker 1: right of resistance to the point of subversion.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you have to basically allow one of those
Speaker 1: groups to side with the state and then you can
Speaker 1: control them.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you ask any liberal what their ideal,
Speaker 2: I mean, where their definition of tolerances it would they
Speaker 2: would probably say that it includes you know, movements, subversive movements,
Speaker 2: which is, you know, in and of itself leftist and
Speaker 2: anti rightist. No, it is you know. They would also
Speaker 2: say that they would tolerate, you know, activism towards a
Speaker 2: return to tradition and a return to uh, you know,
Speaker 2: homogeneity and all that, but only up to a point
Speaker 2: where you used to.
Speaker 1: Hitler Well, well, I mean you you're ad an iron kingdom.
Speaker 1: More so in the twenties, the existing government and Hindenburg
Speaker 1: and everything was I mean, they were tolerance of the left,
Speaker 1: but they were more aligned with the right.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: So the the real revolution you would call the real
Speaker 1: revolutionaries would be coming.
Speaker 2: From the left, and that would be the k KPD. Yep.
Speaker 1: There is not there cannot be any such right for
Speaker 1: any group or individual against the constitutional government sustained by
Speaker 1: a majority of the population. But I believe that there
Speaker 1: is a natural right of resistance for oppressed and overpowered
Speaker 1: minorities to use extra legal means if the legal ones
Speaker 1: have proved to be inadequate.
Speaker 2: All right, you heard him, did he?
Speaker 1: I mean, but I wonder what he would when he's
Speaker 1: looking at this, if he were to see, now, what
Speaker 1: would his opinion be of what is happening and the
Speaker 1: fact that it's actually promoted from on high.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you could probably there's probably more than
Speaker 2: a handful of people that are directly influenced by Marcuse
Speaker 2: on the left that you could kind of see that
Speaker 2: they're in lockstep with whatever they're told to be.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: Whether that's whether they're doing it grudgingly or whether they're skeptical,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Law and order are always in everywhere, the law and
Speaker 1: order which protect the established hierarchy. It is nonsensical to
Speaker 1: invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order
Speaker 1: against those who suffer from it and struggle against it,
Speaker 1: not for personal advantages and revenge, but for their share
Speaker 1: of humanity. There is no other judge over them than
Speaker 1: the constituted authorities, the police, and their own conscience. If
Speaker 1: they use violence, they do not start a new chain
Speaker 1: of violence, but try to break an established one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: Hold on, someone send me a Ryan Dawson Bell. Well,
Speaker 1: let me read that again, because that's that's a good one.
Speaker 1: If they use violence, they do not start a new
Speaker 1: chain of violence, but try to break an established one.
Speaker 2: Does that mean violence is permissible in all instances?
Speaker 1: Well, only from one group, I'm sorry, since they will
Speaker 1: be punished, they know the risk and when they are
Speaker 1: willing to take it. No third person, and least of
Speaker 1: all the educator and intellectual, has a right to to
Speaker 1: preach them abstention.
Speaker 2: Hey, I mean to their credit, like actual Marxists, actual
Speaker 2: communists have no problem calling calling the pacifist a liberal.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, oh yeah, I mean yeah, what was that
Speaker 1: that one piece of graffiti that was making it around
Speaker 1: Liberals get the rope too? Yeah yeah, I had with
Speaker 1: a hammer and sickle on it. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: If only there were more of them like that.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a lot of people from our side
Speaker 1: came to understand just how useless and actually dangerous liberalism
Speaker 1: and classical liberalism is from like from neo reactionary, from
Speaker 1: like Italian elitists and everything. And I think we both
Speaker 1: came to it from like reading Lenin. Yeah we can't.
Speaker 1: We finished reading Lenin and we're like, oh, oh, those
Speaker 1: guys kind of go those guys are useless. Those guys
Speaker 1: they're not only useless, they're kind of productive.
Speaker 2: Holy shit. Yeah, oh atross around our neck.
Speaker 1: So what do you what do you think of this one?
Speaker 2: That was good? I I I love getting into uh,
Speaker 2: getting into dialectical materialism. I hate Freud, and I love
Speaker 2: that he finally, he finally said it. We need to
Speaker 2: tolerate violence from the left, and we need to not
Speaker 2: tolerate violence from the right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I would rather they just speak the truth.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the Yeah, it's a great thing about
Speaker 1: people in the Frankfurt school and you know Marxist Leninis.
Speaker 1: They they're going to tell you exactly, You're not going
Speaker 1: to question what they believe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: Where you know people who may have more right wing
Speaker 1: tendencies than say like Glenn Beck, I have to hide
Speaker 1: them because yeah they uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, because they get their their material material condition
Speaker 2: is contingent on pleasing their liberal overlords.
Speaker 1: Yeah, classical liberal overlords and neo liberal overlords.
Speaker 2: Yep, don't get canceled.
Speaker 1: And it's you know, it's I understand why Owen Benjamin
Speaker 1: went out there and he has eighty chickens and ten
Speaker 1: goats and all these cows and everything like that.
Speaker 2: He is.
Speaker 1: Everything. If it all got taken away from him, even
Speaker 1: if he couldn't spend paper, still live, still survive. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I Actually, my my cousin who's in my in
Speaker 2: my wedding party, he texted me today is like, hey, man,
Speaker 2: like should I start thinking about, like you know, forming
Speaker 2: alliances and like getting to know my neighbors and stalking
Speaker 2: up on Ammo? Because thanks right now really fucked. And
Speaker 2: I don't know how high or drunk he was at
Speaker 2: the time, but I was like, man, we'll be fine, Like,
Speaker 2: we will be fine.
Speaker 1: You didn't want to you don't want to break it
Speaker 1: to them.
Speaker 2: Well, that's that's the uh, that's the difference between online
Speaker 2: me and real life met. I know that at least
Speaker 2: where I'm at, I have a good support network I have.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty secure in my Uh. It's like ship would
Speaker 2: really have to go down for me to be in
Speaker 2: any any real danger of starvation or going to jail
Speaker 2: or anything like that, which it may very well, but
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, I'll be fine. H
Speaker 2: I think. I think if you're watching this show, you
Speaker 2: already kind of have that in your in your mind.
Speaker 2: You know, the the the trip wires that need to
Speaker 2: happen before you start really freaking out. And I don't
Speaker 2: think we're there yet.
Speaker 1: No, No, we're not there yet, but I know what
Speaker 1: it looks like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, Yep.
Speaker 1: To study, if anybody wants to go study, don't ask
Speaker 1: me for book recommendations. Steady Yugoslavia sided places like that, Yep.
Speaker 2: I mean we can draw a lot on history and
Speaker 2: we can kind of you know, parse things out a
Speaker 2: priority with everything that's going on right now, you know,
Speaker 2: foreign policy wise, domestically. But I think by and large,
Speaker 2: if you're not in a highly populated urban area that
Speaker 2: with you know, less than favorable demographics, you'll probably be fine.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep, working on Uh even where I am right
Speaker 1: now is a little too much for me. Working on
Speaker 1: getting out Yep. We're going to get a little more. Yeah,
Speaker 1: h the potential place. You're gonna have to know exactly
Speaker 1: where that is to even find it.
Speaker 2: It looks amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, oh man, But all right, why don't you
Speaker 1: talk about t L E or whatever you want to
Speaker 1: talk about.
Speaker 2: I don't want to talk about t Luck. Those guys.
Speaker 1: Those guys are there's something wrong with them sometimes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is one episode they got Donald Trump on there
Speaker 1: and like Tucker Harles, the weirdest thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 2: I'll give your audience a stick peek where we're going
Speaker 2: to get to the manisphere.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, we're.
Speaker 2: Gonna be talking about the linear man doing everything in
Speaker 2: a straight line.
Speaker 1: At least it'll be straight.
Speaker 2: All right, man, Thank you very much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Thank Gar