Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekanona Show.
I have the two gentlemen here from Method the twentieth Century.
Speaker 2: How are you doing, Adam, I'm doing great, and Lance
is a recurring guest, but he has his own show,
so I just want to make sure that Lance gets
an opportunity to mention that. But I'm thankful that you
had us both on.
Speaker 1: Hey, no problem, how you doing, Lance.
Speaker 3: I'm doing great. Thank you for having me. I'm a
big fan, by the way, so thank you for having
me on.
Speaker 1: Thank you. What show do you do on your own?
Speaker 3: So I do Lance's Legion, and I do a bunch
of military kind of esque related things, also political kind
of analyzes and stuff like that. But it's more theory
and just interesting military stuff. But I've been on a
anti communist BNCH from the Cold War era, and so
this becomes salient to me. I'm very excited to be
talking about the Revolution of sixty eight with you guys.
Speaker 1: Oh man, if your anti communist stuff, I would love
to hear what you what you think of Thomas's take
on the Cold War?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know like ten
parts on that, but I can't keep up yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: It's funny.
Speaker 1: We spoke.
Speaker 3: We spoke when Henry Kissinger passed away. It was actually
very interesting. He had to be a lot of interesting
things to say.
Speaker 1: Oh you spoke to him, Yeah, yeah, a.
Speaker 3: While ago on a on the X spaces that there is.
But yeah, absolutely. I don't want to take away from
from what's going on right here, but let's get into it.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 2: So, the.
Speaker 1: I guess the reason we're getting together is that Kerrie
Bolton released a book called, through Anelope Hill Press, Generation
sixty eight, The Elite Revolution and its Legacy. I start
with Adam and you guys can go back and forth.
I don't you know, do what do what? You do? What?
What's the interest in Generation sixty eight? You know, the
sixties was the big deal.
Speaker 2: Well, aside from the media always portraying it as like
the best era ever, I'm not even sure if it
pales and compareson to World War Two. I mean that
the amount of media that Woodstock and the head Ashbury
and the Hell's Angels, all that stuff, it's so glamorized.
And my parents actually grew up in that sort of
time and know some of it from a personal level,
not from partaking it, but just having been caught up
in it, and they can tell me at least that
they was played up a lot. Now, a lot of
it was obviously true, but it was definitely glamorized, and
I think as a cultural point, just taken on its face,
it's you can't get away from it. Now it has
deeper implications as well, and those are more complicated, and
I think the book does a good job tying it
to some of the elite powers that were actually either
co opting it, funding it directly, trying to steer it,
or trying to deflect it away from them, because it
was very much sort of a cultural revolution in the
West in a time when communism seemed to be in
the East on the rise, and I think it was
a very close to home experience for a lot of
people in The implications are still the waves are still
being felt today in our generations, and a lot of
the people in political power also grew up in that generation.
I think a lot of that that mindset is still
stuck in their heads. And you can call it the
boomers or whatever, but you know, these people, we just
cannot get away from them.
Speaker 3: The boom set, no, absolutely, and I think The follow
on interesting part is, of course, as time progresses and
we live in this kind of meta organism of culture,
we tend to misunderstand history that is extremely proximate to us,
and the Cold War is really not something that's really over.
We're feeling the secondary and tertiary effects of the social
subversion policies and general subversion, Soviet subversion of the United States,
and a lot of it comes to its fruition during
this time. Obviously, this is something that most Americans are
unaware about because most of the mythos and interest it
predates the Revolution of sixty five and sixty eight, right.
It focuses specifically on the paradigm of the Second World War. However,
so much has changed since then that really the most
salient aspects to be recognizing and analyzing is precisely this
moment in history, this crux, this time paradigm shift, which
is why I was so interested on it and am
so I butted myself in on this conversation because it's
apps necessary to be kind of reviewing and passing as
time goes forward.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the things he he starts talking out
about is the the idea of the inclusive economy, which
was heavily promoted by UH by the Rockefeller Foundation. And
when I look at that, I see obviously a planned economy,
but I also see the civil rights error, the Civil
Rights Act, and a plan to basically shape an economy
around everyone everyone's needs and not to you know, not
to embrace my my Austrian economics background. You know that
I question strongly. I loved your episode with Mike uh
actually on on List. That was that was wonderful. That
was that was very edifying, because I really need to
read that book. I've studied it. I've read everything about
List except reading List at this point. And when when
I look at this in economy, like they were trying
to create and it just it seems like it's a
it's just a straight reflection of the kind of society
that they wanted to create, and the kind of society
they wanted to create was bound to and we saw
it just became one of tension.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I read Race Warren High School by Saltzman on my show,
the whole book, and we saw what integrating the schools
did and basically, now you're looking to integrate the economy
in just about the same way and to me, that
just seems like an ultimate disaster.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a there's a movie out there by one
of these documentary guys on the dissident right, and it
was by the title of Communism by the back Door,
and I haven't watched it in a while, but it's
quite good, and I really think that it sort of
encapsulates what's going on here, and it's easy to sort
of label things. Maybe communism isn't the best descriptor, but
I think it's good enough. And if I actually to
compliment you, Pete, I listened to one of your shows
that you did with Yuri Maltsaf and if anybody hasn't
heard him.
Speaker 1: Off, you really were You really were digging deep, aren't it.
Speaker 2: Well? It was fantastic because he grew up in the
Soviet Union and he clarified what Marx defined communism as correctly,
but colloquially, when we call communism communism, we're actually talking
about socialism. But communism was a government free society that
everybody was an angel, and they did everything they're supposed
to do, and you would go and get what you
need and produce for other people without them asking. It's
a fantasy, but it grabs hold of people who are
probably missing out in their own society and they want
something and they want the government or they want the
ideology to provide for them. And I think that's really
encapsulating what was going on in the sixties was there
were these opposition forces outside of the West that had
alternative systems, and the powers that be in the West
were like, Okay, we don't want to lose power, and
we don't want to necessarily hand it over to the
polp Bureau, but we need like the Rockefellers in particular,
and the Fords get mentioned and other people, but the
Rockefellers are recurring throughout this book. They, I think, and
you could say the Rothschilds or anybody like that. They
want to sort of keep their power, but do it
in a hidden way, through the back door, so that
it's not obvious that they're pulling a lot of the strings.
And David Rockefeller actually ran for he had I think
at a presidential campaign. He was the governor of New York.
That's as bad as political as they got. But a
lot of their power was through the foundations. They set
up the Museum of Modern Art, which had relationships with
the CIA and stuff like that, and I think it's
a very sophisticated model. Actually it's a diffuse way that
actually works only in a sort of quasi democratic system
where people have a sense that they can elect those
that represent them. And I've said this over and over
on my show, but there was a very good academic
research paper by two professors by the name of Gillen's
and Paige, and they observed that the correlation between the
opinions of the masses, the voters basically, and what Congress
does is almost zero. So in effect, you're voting doesn't
change anything in Congress. But what does change Congress is
the donor class. And these are the Rockefeller types. And
so I think this book documents how they go through
the civil rights movement, setting up modern art, doing all
these other things. And it's really kind of a secretive,
backdoor thing. And is it really communism, I don't know.
It's maybe a form of corporatism, but it's basically an
elite power system. And you can look at where Davos
is and it's kind of a global version of that.
But you know, the the Rockefellers, you know, funded the
UN and they built that whole thing, and they've donated
the land, and you can start to see once you
have that much power and wealth, you start thinking on
a grander scale than just your your community obviously, and
you even your nation. And so I think it's an
interesting evolution of thought that probably can be traced back
to the end of the Second World War, and it
really got going on the streets in the sixties. But yeah,
the book. The book does a fantastic job. And I
really commend you for having mister Maltsov on because I
thought he spoke from genuine authority, giving that he lived
in the Soviet Union and he saw the horrors of it,
and he saw how many people that system killed, not
just in Russia, but in China and everywhere else it
was tried. And he's banging the drum on, you know,
as a professor to his students who don't want to
hear it because they live in a nice society and
they're kind of spoiled, and they're kind of like the
kids after World War Two where their parents fought in
the war and they had had them and they didn't
really have to struggle. And I don't know what causes this,
but it's it's interesting and I think the end of
the Cold War maybe reproduce that here in that like
it was another war that was over and there's another
generation that's going through this nonsense and so, but we'll
maybe get to that later as to like how it's
affecting today.
Speaker 1: Bolton pretty much concludes the chapter the first chapter by
stating that he, in his opinion, the election of Biden
is a resumption of the globalist's agenda along with the
new Left, which represents group like Antifa and that continues
to agitate in the streets to make the country ungovernable.
I know when we hear the term global ast, we
immediately think of Alex Jones. But what was what's your
opinion on either one of you on Baltan's take there?
Speaker 3: Do you mind if I take this?
Speaker 2: Go for it?
Speaker 3: So my understanding, especially when you delve into the kind
of Marxian stratum of the United States especially, is that
the origins and the roots of our leftists generally come
from Gramshey communism, which is a different brand than Marxistleninism
or Maloism and primarily focuses on cultural questions as the
vehicle for social, societal economic change. Downstream. And for those
of you don't know, Antonio Gramscy is this guy who
was an Italian communist who is imprisoned under Mussolini, who
stayed in prison for twenty years, wrote this thing called
the Prison Notebooks, and in them he basically elucidated that
the Marxian paradigm of seizing the material means of production
by the worker for a proletariat state ultimately do not harbor.
First of all, it's not as an effective vehicle for revolution,
nor is it efficacious in the long term. Why is
this because most people, as opposed to what we generally
believe in the liberal Western society anglosphere, we are irrational
and to form irrational opinions and condition them into humans
is a quite different vehicle than the economic considerations that
we have, or especially marx and so the new Left,
or what is actually just rather the Gramschite Trotskyite Left,
focuses on locuses of cultural power first and then through that,
while maintaining of course ties with capitalist powers such as
the Rockefellers and so on, exude their cultural power out
into wider society and condition a difference a revolution cultural revolution.
This has been a long thing coming especially since the
terminus of the Second World War. But it really took
an entire generation from World War Two all the way
down to the Baby Boomers and found such fertile ground
precisely because the highest levels of governance as well as
education were these you know, ex communist individuals who had
exfiltrated from the ex Soviet sphere or had close ties
and so on and so forth, figures that come to
mind that we probably know as Francis Fukuyama, for instance,
or a number of other different individuals. Now, this is
important because I think, especially when we talk to libertarians specifically,
we consider the economics to be the nexus of politic power.
Where I think they have us hooked is the fact
that they're able to change culture and then they can
they basically tap into the monetary power. But I think
it's important to state that, especially in the second chapter
of the book, where it talks about, for instance, women's liberation.
This is why this is so important, because social questions
figure pre eminently over material questions, and material questions come later.
Did you notice that, I mean, maybe push back on me,
but that's just my personal view of how things kind
of shook out.
Speaker 1: Well, I think what Graham she was able to figure out,
which is something that actually libertarians don't have an answer for,
is that Graham she could figure out how to radicalize
the private The whole idea of the whole idea of
Marxism was you were going to take over for take
over the state, and you know, eventually it went away, YadA, YadA.
I mean there's a lot more in between. I can
go through London two.
Speaker 2: But the.
Speaker 1: Gram she was like, well, let's radicalize private industry. You know,
let's when you see when when you see something like
the inclusive economy, you and once you grasp that concept,
then you understand why DEI is here, You understand why
ESG is here, You understand why there are trans people,
you know, trans people in every every third or fourth commercial.
Precisely all of this needs to be brought in. And
this is this is a direct result of Gramscy understanding
that Sombart wrote a book Verner Sombart wrote them why
is there no socialism in America? And basically because I
mean simply people like to own ship And that's what
he came down to. So once once somebody like gram
Chi figures that out, then he's like, Okay, well we
got to figure out a way around this and radicalizing,
figuring out how to radicalize the private you know, which
is something that then libertarians and civic nationalists have to
basically defend that, well, it's a private company, bro, they
can do what they want, and they don't realize that
the social engineers are at work. And you know, one
of the reasons I stopped being a libertarian was I said,
they libertarianism has no answer for social engineers, and neither
does Neither does republicanism, conservatism pretty much anybody accept this
progressive worldview precisely, precisely.
Speaker 2: Well, when I'm hearing you both speak, I just hear
this term cultural Marxism pop up, and it's funny. I
don't even know if the left uses that term. I've
only heard it at night, that's right.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't use it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I don't know what it means, but it
just my rough understanding, and maybe you correct me here,
is that it's just an attempt at Marxism obviously, I think,
at least by other means, and it's not necessarily through
getting people to voluntarily join this giant global corp that
owns everything and you own nothing. Although Klaus Schwab would
like that, but he's dying apparently. But they'll find somebody
else though. But I think I've heard in America in particular,
that a lot of these left type people observe that,
as you just said, people like to own stuff. And
so we need another way to get to Marxism, and
maybe it's through culture. Maybe it's through race, and I
think the race relations are I think a key vector
for that. I mean, the book talks about black panthers.
Nowadays it's blacks are such a minority frankly that it's
more Hispanics and stuff like that. But there's just a
lot of different groups and using the different groups against
each other to fracture the sort of remaining wasp elite.
I guess that supposedly still there. It doesn't seem to
be there anymore, but I think that's been a huge vector.
Now call it what you want, I don't know, but
I think that there's some truth to that.
Speaker 3: The interesting thing is it's the same dialectic, however. I mean,
it's I probably saying something that you boys already know,
but originally under Marx it was, you know, the bourgeoisie
or the proletary against the BOURGEOISI. The same dialectic maintains,
except it's the oppressed versus the oppressor, and that paradigm
can be grafted onto any kind of social conflict where
anyone perceived to be the oppressed has the upper hand.
The first principle the societal inertia, if that makes sense,
and so and secondly, I don't mind us actually generating
terminology and culture ourselves. That's precisely what we need to
start doing, is actually being self confident in our own
academic terms, our own type of language, because when you
start using the frame of your adversary, you lose. So, yes,
it is good that we use terms such as cultural
Marxism and other kinds of terminology that they don't use
because it's advantageous to us because it advances our paradigm.
So I'll just leave it there. But Pete, do you
have anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna I was going to say that
the when you look at what Gram she was teaching, Well, Gram,
she's writing from jail. And even though he well, you
need a way to get this out there, you need
a way to communicate this to the masses. You need
a way for the masses to buy in. And even
though he predates gram Sheet in his activity, I would
say that probably, I don't know, you can push back
on this, that probably no one did more to help
to push forward at least of what she was talking about,
more than Edward Berne's in the second chapter.
Speaker 3: No, And you're precisely right. The reason why I bring
crumb She's because it provides US Westerners who are unfamiliar,
especially if you're not an autistics fergus such as myself
researching all this kind of stuff. It gives people the
starting block, right, And I'm really grateful. I'm grateful for
this book because it really goes into fleshing out and
the later acolytes of gram Shee downstream, because they are
really effectual. I mean, look at society the world now.
I mean it's not just the United States. It's infected
every aspect of the West. It's infected even Russia for instance,
or and the PRC as well, or the People's Republic
of China by the way. So it's it's incredibly effective
and the answer must be found, And I guess that's
what we're doing here, is trying to find it through
this book.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: And one of the things he talks about in there
in the book is that uh Brene's seeking to advise
the c i A on its ideological offensive against the
US s R. And you know that he was involved
in in that. And one of the things that he
writes in there is that the New Left, rather than
being a Soviet a Soviet plot more had its origins
in the in the Cold War, which I think anybody
who's looked at the uh the foundation of where of
the Trotskyites in the United States and crossing over into
neo conservatism and then just carrying on through the Cold War,
that doesn't come as a surprise too many.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I mean to add on to that, I
think there is a lot of I mean, if you
read Stalin's work, for instance, by Sean mcnehe, it's he
makes a compelling case to talk about the deep socialist
integration with the American government in the twenties and thirties,
and obviously that bear fruit during World War Two and
our close association with Uncle Joe. But I don't think
the so you noticed that a lot of these individuals
that were moles or you know, actors for the Soviet
Union during the war and a little bit after. Their
disassociation with the Soviet Union is probably genuine. I believe
what happened was primarily America became a pinko state with
its own unique brand of communism, and it's basically two
communist states, two communist ideologies with their own paradigms battling
each other out. Very interesting kind of paradigm to see.
And I think the you know, you hear Yuri besmin Off,
everyone talks about him. I'm not really so sanguine on him,
but he does make the point that a lot of
KGBA officers felt that if the Cold War had permanence
in another thirty years, that they would have won, and
I really doubt that. I think that what would have
happened is just that America would have just gone a
lot more crazy, you know, it just continued to be
what it is today.
Speaker 2: Well, just going going back to the premise that the
Soviets and the Americans are not that different, I think
is kind of interesting and I'll completely agree. But I
think the book does put forward the notion that after
the end of the war, both sides wanted to be
the rulers of the next step, and they kind of
wanted the other side to join them. And because they
didn't want to join each other or join the other
as the leader, they wanted to be the leader. There
was a huge rift that happened. And that's not really
a controversial statement, but the notion that America self was
actually kind of a globalist operation, the UN being in
New York, et cetera, and wanting the Russians to basically
come into that. Maybe you can call it neoliberalism. I'm
not really sure what to call it. That's more of
a post Cold War term that kind of took shape
during globalization perhaps, but I think that's an interesting way
to explore it. Whether the Soviets would have defeated the
United States or the United States would have morphed into
what it is now, I don't know. I think my
current premise is that what we're going through right now
with like the trans write stuff, I think it's because
we quote unquote won the Cold War. We don't have
a real enemy to cause us to doubt what we're saying,
and maybe, you know, focus on bigger priorities. I think
we just kind of are screwing around too much. But
that's just my rough understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 1: Well, finally, coming coming forward to the sixties, he starts
talking about critical theory and the critical theorists and brings
up Marcuse and his description of Marcuse synthesizing Forredian psychoanalysis
with Marxism to challenge Western culture and morality is probably
a good starting point and a probably good overall description
of what was being promoted in the sixties in the
counter culture.
Speaker 2: Definitely.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and I mean, I've read Marcus's Repressive Tolerance
on my on my show before, gone over it, and yeah,
he's I mean, when you realize that he was Paul
Gottfried's thesis advisor, you you realize, Wow, this guy was
This guy was in the United States, he was working,
and he was working in you know, my parents' lifetime,
your parents' lifetime. So it's uh, just watching that when
you take into consideration, if you've if you've studied Freud
at all, if you've read Freud at all, and once
you see exactly what was being promoted in the sixties,
it's almost impossible not to see how Freudian psychoanalysis was influencing.
It had an influence over so much of the propaganda
and engineering that was putting that was being put out there.
Speaker 2: Of course, you mentioned Berne's I mean he was Freud's cousin.
I think you know, I have cousins too. We don't
all agree. Doesn't necessarily mean that you know that that's
like the family strategy. But it is interesting, it's very interesting,
and I don't I don't know as much about this
as you do, Pete. I think, but how related is
that to the Frankfurt School and the studies of authoritarian personality,
because that's something I have looked at a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Well it is, I mean, the the Rockefeller Foundation, it
was the American Jewish Committee that was responsible for the
authoritarian personality, but I think the the American Jewish Committee
got money from the Rockefeller Foundation. I mean, the Rockefeller
Foundation did fund Kinsey's Kinsey's sexology studies. I mean, he's
basically like the American version of Magnus Herscheld. But yeah,
it definitely is this all ties together because at the
end of the authoritarian personality, it says, well, how are
we going to deal with these fascists? And these people
are just becoming fascists there they're on the roads of fascism,
and it was aeros. Yeah, and then you look in
it's like, well, what books did the Rockefeller Foundation put
out and fund? Aeros and civilization one one dimensional man?
So yeah, sex drugs.
Speaker 3: In rock and roll. It's interesting how the impulse had
leaked into the wider I mean he even talks about it,
you know, the wider cultural zeitgeist and the primacy of
sex in a way that wasn't really present present beforehand
in history. And the emphasis of course, especially now that
there are a lot of like neurocognition studies that coming
out about you know, obviously dopamine and all that kind
of stuff and conditioning, and of course the most important
part is the like what's it called. It's the inability
for when you fry your dopamine receptors, there's like this
cognitive situation that your rise were. Yeah, it's not even dissonance,
it's it's about lack of self discipline that that basically
cause causes erosion in the brain, lack of will self
how do you say self policing, And it's precisely what
this entire ideology is predicated on, basically keeping people from
actually having sovereignty agency by eroding them slowly over time,
you know. And there's a reason why. For instance, pornography
is you weaponize in the military operations, and I mean,
aside from lowering testosterone in populations, et cetera, but it
also kind of breeds that apathetic type personality.
Speaker 2: You're You're not the first to notice this, but I
think the way you just put it made made me. No. No,
I'm giving a compliment here. I the fact that dopamine
is actually a drug in a sense, if it's actually
artificially stimulated, is something I hadn't considered. But that is
one of the easiest ways to grab hold of people
through entertainment basically and keep them hooked in whatever you're
pushing selling marketing. I mean it goes back to propaganda.
I mean it's like you glamorize it, you make it sexy.
I mean Brenees was famous for the craziest pr campaign
I'd ever read about. And you guys probably know about this,
but you women were considered too delicate and important frankly
to be smokers back in the early nineteen hundreds, and
it was during I think one of the World War
One parades or something that Burne's suggested to a cigarette
marketing agency to give beautiful women cigarettes to smoke at
the parade, and this was done or described as torches
of freedom. And just there's that stupid word again, where
everybody is just given these or welling in concepts that
don't necessarily mean what they actually are, are told you as.
But you know, I mean think about smoking. I mean,
you know, I know people have had lunk answer from
this ship, and it's like you're telling the women that
they're free and liberated now because they're they're polluting their lungs.
And so the beautiful women, of course is the sex appeal.
It's it encourages men obviously to want to partake, but
it also encourages other women to emulate because they admire
those women. And so it's in pornography is obvious, you know,
but you know even movies watching, you know, the Academy Awards,
you know, how how much effort these actors and actresses
put into their their outfits and trying to stimulate your senses.
You know, it's almost satanic. I mean, if you're if
you're religious, it's it's it's it's creepy, but it works,
it's very powerful.
Speaker 3: But keeping it from it to a secular paradigm. The
most interesting thing about subversion is that it's always in
the oblome, right. It's conflating terms that we understand with
sustenance or the substance of that term, instantiating it with
ideas which are foreign. And that is precisely what happens
throughout this book that he writes. Is basically there are
old terms such as freedom, liberty, et cetera, and they're
conflated and injected with foreign abscess, which become of course
organic over time. Now, how do you push back on that?
It's almost impossible because either you're a square, which is
where the original term came from, right, you're like a
Christian ultra prude or whatever. Or if you try to
do the opposite, which is the Yuka Mishima type, you
go into like the saline doing drugs, and you become
no different from them, and in effect they win simply
because they tear down, you know, the nature of society
together because there's no way to out maneuver drug addiction.
I mean, unless you're like the Taliban, where you have
a totalitarian state and you're able to make discipline happen.
But you can't do that in a democracy where people
have personal freedom, because all you gotta do is induce
them with this kind of drug addiction, whether it's pornography
or other kinds of dopaminergic tricks, if that makes sense.
And you see this precisely with even TV shows in
the fifties, sixties, and seventies, which start to condition the
populace to accept, for instance, the breakdown of the family
having single parent homes, which was unheard of before, and
start glamorizing, making heroines out of these individuals. It's very
interesting because a lot of the things that we take
for granted, especially myself. I'm a younger generation who has
no experience of what it was like before. For them,
it was something that was like a slow moving collapse.
I mean, isn't gen X the Latchkey Kids precisely from
this that we're talking about that originates it. It's scary,
it's scary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the book doesn't touch upon feminism too too much,
but obviously the latch Key phenomenon is effectively a result
of that. And I kind of grew up as one.
You know, my mother. I don't like to speak about
my family publicly on this type of format. But you know,
just roughly like she she did have a few jobs
and so, and I don't resent it, but it just
it was more and more common, and I think that
was unheard of not too far back. And that's some
of that is economic, but I think some of it
is definitely by design. I think it was Aaron Russo
he talked about how like the Rockefellers were pushing this
stuff basically to weaken the individual family, basically to keep
that power away from the people and and keep it
held by the elites.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, the the sixties, really one of the big
messages was liberation from repression. And that goes to the free,
free sex, that goes to feminism, that goes to everything.
And you know, they're just basically trying to undermine traditional
morality and create a society that that's fractured of traditional bonds.
And you know, when you take into consideration like the
post nineteen forty five what we called it, what a
bungeous called the Nuremberg regime, the liberal the liberal international order,
it requires a fluidity in all things and that helps
them to maximize profit, production and consumption. But it's also
a control mechanism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that great term divide in imperia.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: The individual. When you we make it individuals, you have
granulated everyone. You have completely dominated them to the individual level.
And I agree with you, and I think the greater,
the most malicious thing is this aversion to paint right,
because what they call oppression or whatever really implied between
the lines, is this aversion to paint self sacrifice, probably
taking opportunity costs of yourself, your personal development. For instance, women, right,
you forego a career to have a family. Well, that's
what this technology, this societal technology does, is it dissolves
the cultural structures which reinforce teamwork and induces them to
do what they've done since then, and obviously has deleterious
fertility effects. It has deleterious societal effects. And we're starting
to see that now of course, as like the age
Pyramids or you know, getting older and all these kinds
of issues that are arising. But we are only starting
to see the terminus of this cancer, the ugly head
of this cancer come true, because it's going to start
affecting not just the Western populist but also you know,
even those people from originally third world countries and populations.
So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But returning to the book, I guess I wanted to
ask you your your opinion specifically on McCarthy and the
interplay between what was going on in the sixties with
McCarthy and if you had any thoughts on that.
Speaker 1: Through the sixties you mean anti continued anti communist.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir, McCarthyism.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Joseph McCarthy, Well he was what the fifties I think,
but yeah, that's right. Talking about after.
Speaker 1: Is like me, he pretty much. I think the problem
with McCarthy is that he discredited himself. It would constantly
change numbers. He was he he was drunk a lot,
and I think what he did he pointed out, he
made great points and he people try to connect him
to Huac and it's like, well, me, he's a senator.
The best thing he did was was inspired QAC and
also just basically have a He really gave the right.
It's real last win, like real win. I mean able
to take out some take out some communists, take out
a couple literally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And Nick Nixon was sort of floating around during
that era. I can't remember if he worked with McCarthy directly,
but he definitely put on some of those same people
on the stand, some of the Hollywood types, and he
obviously got taken out when he got into power, but.
Speaker 1: That in the early sixties, I mean, when he ran
against Kennedy. Most of the vitriol he got from the
press it has been attributed now to his associations to McCarthy.
Speaker 2: McCarthy.
Speaker 3: I guess the reason why I bring it up is
because whenever you denounce the enemy as commis or whatever,
they have so completely conditioned society to discourage any kind
of criticism because that's that's the red scare, that's McCarthyism,
that's you know, illiberalism, whatever it is. But he was
onto something. I mean, he was spot on. And I
think the most interesting thing is just a small aside
here just recently twenty seventeen, I think it was twenty nineteen,
excuse me, twenty twenty documents regarding Senator McCarthy when he
was going through, of course, purging communists from the army
and the military in general. Then he started working into
the federal government. He had a lot of personal communicates
with the CIA before then, right and then finally he
was inching closer to the CIA, and he's starting to
open up inquiries into the CIA, and then guess what happened.
His whole career got shut down. So it's very interesting
to see because we start to understand who has the
locus of power, who is the one that has truly
the power in that kind of political paradigm, if that
makes sense. And the reason why I bring it up
is because a lot of people they disregard anyone who
criticized the CIA because they believe that it's just tinfoil
hat type situation. But there is increasing evidence, mounting evidence
to show that the criticism of the nineteen forty seven
Security Act, the National Defense Act or whatever was definitely
a big problem. And the origin of those course the pinkoss.
And it's very interesting because of you know, I read
this book and I just start seeing the connections between
the oss, the oligarchs for instance, you know, the Rockefeller
Foundation and so on, and the people on the ground,
like the hippies and whatever. And it's very weird because
the FBI, ironically enough, was the last vestige of anti
communist action well into the sixties. It was only after,
of course, Martin Luther King that whole situation. Did they
start becoming part of the I guess, how do you say,
you know, state aligned, if that makes.
Speaker 2: Sense, the deep state.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's scary.
Speaker 2: You know, well, they were an effect part of the
deep state, but it just wasn't oriented towards the goals
that it seems to be oriented towards today. I mean,
it was genuinely more anti communist during Hoover's era, obviously
at the FBI, that was one of his big big things.
But afterwards I think they they just got I don't know,
I think maybe closer to that CIA almost. It's like
how the CIA doesn't necessarily view communism as a good thing.
But whatever, this emerging alternative globalist neoliberal, I mean, we
really need to figure out what it should be called,
but it's it's something else. I think neoliberalism, to me
is probably the most accurate way of putting it. But
there are so many groups here. Maybe we should go
back to where the book guides us to keep it
keep it focus. But well, you know that's all right.
Speaker 1: You brought up neoliberalism, which which leads me into my
next point was in bringing up the March to the institutions,
and how the Fabian society in Britain was such an
influence among the intelligentsia through the London School of Economics
and Political science, and how students of nineteen sixty eight
in the London School of Economics became establishment figures who
helped shape new labor in the nineteen nineties which basically
brought in and championed global capitalism and neoliberalism. And yeah,
it seemed it seems like that this was a again
top down This wasn't something that those hippies were pushing
in the streets, but it was something that a Fabian society,
who I mean, we know names that are associated with
them in the past, that were able to were able
to do to bring in this global capitalism neoliberalism, which
I think we can agree when we look at it now,
it's basically a function of helping transform lifestyles and to
my oocritizing society, reform the institutions, and just basically break
with any kind of true right wing legacy.
Speaker 2: Well, let's, for my edification at the very least, let's
review the Fabian school as opposed to maybe the Leninist
or Marxist or Soviet approach to socialism. My rough recollection
is that it was sort of let's use the velvet
glove to persuade as opposed to coerce instead of using
the iron fist. Is that roughly right? Or clarify for
me if you could.
Speaker 1: Sure, Yeah, I mean the Fabian Society. They founded the
London School of Economics in eighteen ninety five. That is,
you know, we're not talking about people who are like, well,
we need to go out into the streets, we need
to arm the proletariat, or talking about people who are like,
we're going to take over people's minds.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this was truly the march for the march
or the institution.
Speaker 2: Well, the London School of Economics. Gosh, there should be
a book out there that covers that place. But I
have noticed, just anecdotally how many key figures there are
that have done a circuit through that place. And I've
been to London only a couple of times, and I've
never been inside that school, but I would only imagine
the types of discussions they're having, And it seems to
be one of those feathers in a lot of world
leaders caps or sort of the Anglo sphere at least
to sort of say, well, I went to Harvard, but
then I got my graduate to Great London School of Economics.
It seems to be a pattern I've noticed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to say the least, I think Edward Luthfag went too, So.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not even sure I wouldn't go. I mean,
like I why not. You know, it doesn't mean you
have to agree with them, but you'll learn something, you know.
Speaker 3: No, it don't get me wrong inside, And don't get
me wrong, I'm not conflating. Just because someone went there
doesn't mean that they are a partisan of that situation.
I mean, we know a lot of guys in our
sphere that have gone to you know, ivy leagues, you know,
and you know they remain unscathed. You know they made
it through.
Speaker 2: You know. You talk about the march of the institutions.
I mean, that's what the left did, so why't why
shouldn't the right do the same thing, you know, to
sort of this notion that we have to stand aside
from all the elite institutions and just let them burn.
I mean, that's that's one approach, But I would also say,
infiltrate and study is another one, And do what you
can add to the best of your ability.
Speaker 3: You know, I would say I would even go one further,
I would say that's incredibly important. However, the thing that
communists have that we don't is that they understand what
they're here for. They get what the end state is.
They have an end state, they understand what the end
goal is. And we can't agree on what the end
goal is. Therefore we're not able to plan downwards, you know,
we can't. We don't even have the strategic self understanding.
How can we have operations or even tactical level efficacious moves,
if that makes sense. And so what would we be
marching through four? What would we be espousing? What would
be you know, championing? And that is the thing that
we have to answer, which we can probably deduce by
the oblique from learning from the new Left, from the
gram Shite Left, when they talk about, for instance, societal
values that they want to condition. Maybe we should be
able to self reflect and induce within ourselves or precipitate
within ourselves the core values that we have, and then
we champion those, and then of course we create something
organic ourselves. And then we can counterthrust and do the
same thing as well. I think that's where I'm kind
of I'm still masticating this idea myself. I'm still processing
and trying to figure out myself. And I'm assuming that's
why we're meeting here, you and I and Pete as well.
We're trying to find that answer, like a Knight's on
the holy Grail? Is what is it that we truly live?
What is our one thousand and one goals? As Nietzsche
would say? And ultimately that's a it's a quest that
we're all on, and I feel that we're coming upon it.
Especially I mean, say what you want about Dugan, I
don't really like the guy, but what I can see
is the tendrils of something new over the horizon and
overcoming of the paradigm of sixty eight, right, And I
think that's precisely why we should reflect on what they're doing,
precisely because even they they are defined by mythos of
their enemy.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So, for instance, in sixty eight, the whole you know,
World War two, Germany framing themselves as a never again?
What to do the opposite of that? I mean, why
can't we do the same, Why can't we figure out
an organic response to the revolution of sixty eight sixty
eight America. Why can't we see take what was good
from them and discard the bad and put something new
that we have to offer.
Speaker 2: Well, can we come back to that, and Pete, you
please direct this. This is your show. But I wanted
to capture that idea a little bit and use the
book as sort of a guideline to kind of cover
the book and then also try to take some lessons
from it to apply it to what Lance is talking about.
I think one of the interesting things that the book
does do is it covers some of the responses to
what was going on in that generation. So the right
responding to the left basically the reactionaries effectively, and perhaps
we need to stop being reactionaries and start being the
leaders in effect. But what I found interesting was the
discussion of Goldwater in particular, because that was a little
bit closer to that time, and then I thought, well,
what else happened, you know? I think I think Nixon also,
but also obviously the Reagan thing in the eighties was
a big response to this as well. And also Reagan
was in California during this time, with all the student
protests at Berkeley and their campuses, and he passed legislation
in effect to take guns away. I think Pete you
covered this in one of your shows. From the Black
Panthers who were running around Oakland and stuff like that.
So what can we learn from that? I mean, the
civil rights movement was I think a big section of
the book because it was a big part of that time.
And so it goes into Martin Luther King, it goes
into the Black Panthers and some of the elite backing that.
That's kind of the thesis of the book, that how
a lot of these people were supported, how that that happened.
Martin Luther King, for example, one of the quotes from
the book was he was too slow a thinker to
be trusted to speak without a script in front of him.
That find that fascinating, and actually in recollection, I don't
recalled him many interviews he gave. It was usually just
keep talking at a podium.
Speaker 3: I read his PhD thesis on Mithra and I doubt
that he wrote that.
Speaker 2: I mean exactly, yes, I think it's improved.
Speaker 1: And then he didn't write that. Yeah, I think it's
been proven says that he didn't write that.
Speaker 3: It was actually a decent thesis, but I just don't
think it sounds like the same syntacks he uses.
Speaker 2: You know, and say what you will about Obama. I mean,
I don't think he was stupid. He could get a
given interview, but I never heard King to say anything
in response to her question. I mean, so, yeah, it's
one thing to have a church voice and read from
a book. I'm sorry, that just doesn't equate to too
much in my estimation. But beyond that, that whole Civil
Rights Act, and does the book talk about Lyndon Johnson
at all, because I just think he's one of the
worst presidents this country's ever had, and during that time
he effectively, again it's sort of like an elite response
to what the street is burning stuff down about it's
And you can also say that the riots may have
been an op in effect or stoked to create the conditions,
maybe like what COVID was to create a larger state apparatus.
But I think the welfare state was effectively a huge
response to what was going on and the complaining and
all the sort of burning of things. And then public
housing was built and who ac not who a hud
excuse me her housing and urban development group. All that
stuff was was a big expansion of Washington's power and
sort of like they took the opportunity to grow and
sort of like the war and terror, I mean, just
all these things, it just it just keeps making it
seems like it keeps making things worse with these solutions
that keep coming up with. But ultimately, and if you
guys have details you want to go into in the
civil rights movement, I think some of the seventies and
eighties was a response to that. I mean, the silent majority.
What can we learn from that. Nixon did get into power,
he was taken out, I think, I would argue, but
he was able to capture a certain portion of the
populace's minds, share and heart, hearts and minds to win
those elections. And then ultimately, you could say the CIA
or the deep state of the time had to correct
the people. But it was it was something that did happen.
It seemed to be somewhat of a successful response. And
I think the eighties as well were a response as
well that it did seem to do something in to
combat what was going on from this generation sixty eight.
So I guess my question to you guys is what
lessons can we learn from that, if any, that we
can apply to maybe our generation.
Speaker 1: Well, I think one of the easiest things to see
in what happened was is they took they were able
to take people's eye off of the ball what's important
and what was important culture. So when we talk about
the you know, the nineteen nineties and growing global capitalism,
you know, liberalism, I think San Francis said once that
in the sixties, white Americans were talking about black people.
In the seventies they were talking about bussing, and in
the nineties they were talking about.
Speaker 2: Taxes, contract with America. Very different.
Speaker 1: You're right, you're right, yeah, So the the grow the
Yaki wrote about this in Imperium. He said that what
he saw what was going to happen was that man
was going to become economized. Man was going to be
forced into economics. He was going to be forced into
a field that he should you should only be thinking
about when you're writing a check or paying a bill,
and that now economics was going to become such an
important part of man's life that he actually used the
term man is going to become economized and not like
you know, there he's going to pair everything down. No,
he's going to become an economic machine. He is going
to become somebody who walks around as if they're a like.
Speaker 3: An annuity, like a freaking hug.
Speaker 2: Some people all that economicus, like homo economicus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so yeah. The one thing that I just
see that it's so easy to get us to take
our eye off the ball when it comes to finance,
and you know, one of the and then what's funny
is if you look at two thousand and eight and
the housing crisis and you come forward to Occupy Wall Street,
you come forward to the tea party, well, they just
reversed it. They're like, don't pay attention to economics anymore. No,
we're going to put We're going to shove woke down
your throat. I think the term racism like did a
hockey stick at that point. So they're very easy at
making us take our eye off the ball. And I
think our eyes when it comes to percentages, we should
be looking at culture in the biggest, highest percentage possible
and not allow them to distract us from that, because
that's what happened. We were distracted from culture. Culture was broken.
And then you get into the nineties and everybody's like, well,
it's all about tax policy.
Speaker 2: I think you're right. I think definitely the nineties where
you could say the hangover from the eighties, and then
the seventies were the hangover from the sixties. And during
I think the seventies and eighties, I think there was
somewhat of a revival and perhaps the religious parts of
the country. I forget what it's called eight hundred Club
or something like that. There was a television program where
a lot of these evangelicals and people like that would
would sort of there seemed to be somewhat of a
groundswell against this, and there was the Satanic panic, and
people were scared of of kind of the things that
they were seeing, and and there did seem to be
somewhat of a cultural or religious response in addition to
the economics. But that did seem to die down by
the nineties. I think you're right, and perhaps some of
the stuff today, I mean, I would say, and it's
it's it always takes different form.
Speaker 1: Can I starupt you for a second? Insharp you for
a second. And I think it's very I think it's
very interesting that people like James lindsay and basically these nominal,
these classical quote uncute classical liberals, they all want to
go back to the nineties. And when when you look
and it's like, well, what is what is everybody? I mean,
we're in a culture war. Everything is about everything is
about culture. They someone like him and I just thought
of this now I haven't put this together before. Wants
to go back to when it was all about economics, right,
that nobody was arguing over culture that you know, everybody.
I mean, I remember, I remember the nineties. I was
in a band. It was it was wild, it was fun.
I mean it was I mean, the nineties was a
lot of fun. And people want to go back to that.
But the reason he wants to go back to it
is people are He's he equates his worldview of classical
liberalism all with economics. If we can just have that
good economics again, where every where everything is so good
that nobody cares about this cultural stuff, when really it's
all about the cultural. It's all about the cultural.
Speaker 3: Isn't it funny that man will choke on silver, but
he'll live off of breadcrumbs with spirit, with a religious spirit.
It's interesting, you know, I hope I don't instrupt. But
if you guys don't mind me, I actually might have
my own thing that I have been working on myself.
It's a little bit of a minute here, so I apologize.
Don't instruct me for a second. But Adam is probably
gonna like lose his goddamn mind again because he's the
Apollonian to my Dionysin. But I think what we're trying
to figure out, or what we're actually hovering over at
the target, is we have to address the irrational. I mean,
the human man, the person with the soul is irrational,
and that fundamentally economics and well being, and no matter
how much food you have in yourbelly and how happy
you are with your material possessions, there needs to be
something higher, right, like there needs to be a certain calling.
And you see this in the midd Least, for instance.
You know, most people don't know this, but the Middle
East wasn't like always such a shithole. I mean, there
were secular governments that were progressive that offer people secular
how do you say, solutions to their problems, as opposed
to the religious ones that figures largely now in the
Middle East, and what we understand them to be and
of course, like for instance, so soun bi Laden was
the son of a billionaire and he forsook all his
fortune to seek you know, his religious you know convictions.
I'm not saying that I'm not Islamic or anything like that,
but it should provide you a metric of understanding of
humans that we have this irrational need for things. And
the left what they do is they leverage the gravity
of their beliefs because man constantly wants to be lazy,
he constantly wants to feel pleasure. He constantly he does
not want to feel disciplined. He doesn't want to feel
to be encumbered, he doesn't want to feel like, you know,
basically the discipline of life, whether it's in family, whether
it's a you know, civic service, X Y or Z.
I think the truth or the origin of where we
can start solving our problems is just like you said,
talking about culture, rather what does that mean the spirit?
And what really kind of is the engine of that
spirit is the family, it's religion, And I'm not religious myself,
I'm a pretty secular guy. But I think the truth
is that really like when you start leveraging that irrational
agency in man, you start overcoming petty pleasures. When you
start giving them a vision for something to suffer and
die for. They start ignoring and making sacrifices of things
that the left leverages. So for instance, you know, drugs,
sex in rock and roll, and personal gratification in your career.
People forsake that if you can give them a vision
of something that's beyond simply material well being. And I
know that sounds kind of like I said, it's not Apollonian.
You can't put numbers on that. It's not very you can't,
but you know, put it on a map. It's very ephemeral,
it's very psychological. But if we can start offering people
that impetus, that meaning in life, we give them a mission,
some spirit in thumos in theirs chest, we can make
them be beautiful again. And I think that's what was
lacking in the West is fundamentally the destruction of Christianity.
I'm not Christian myself, so I say this unbiased. I
think that precisely because Christianity became a waning psychological force
in the West, that the engine of Western civilization came
to a halt. Hence why the Left is ascendant, because
they basically break down this carcass. So I don't think
the solution is to go back into Christianity. I think
whatever spirituality that overcomes liberalism will be the future. However,
I think this is what we're facing, is this question
of overcoming this obstacle through irrational means, through appealing to
the soul. And is a great example. I'm sure that
you guys are aware of Fight Club, but it's a
great encapsulation of man's disgust with the nineteen nineties material
well being in favor of personal achievement in something that's
kind of transcendental, something that appeals to the soul, something
that you can give yourself towards. And I think that's
what we're here to discuss, is provide people with that vision.
And if that makes sense, I don't know if I'm
off left kilter here how you guys are feeling. So
give me some pushback here, Pete, Well, no.
Speaker 1: I mean I think it points towards like this Banglarian
and Yaki high culture, where that's what that's what a society.
A society needs in order to move forward, in order
to in order to progress, in order to be cohesive
as opposed to science, technology, technics, things like that, where
that immediately when you have machinery and machinery introduced it,
you basically start to realize, well, I can create, I
can become like God, and I can create all of
these things. And it has a tendency to drive you
away from that high culture, from that spiritual and you know,
I think we see that now. I think we see
that the you know, if if the regime in charge,
if the spirit of this age, which I you know,
I think is the Nuremberg regime, the New the New
Deal regime is one thing, it's to destroy, that destroy
any kind of any kind of cohesiveness, any kind of
of a culture, any kind of race, any kind of homogeneity,
any kind of order. As long as there's chaos, as
long as people are in chaos spiritually, and the spirit
of the age is in chaos, the high culture is gone.
Then anyone who has seized power and is willing to
use it can wield control over everything, even if, as
we see it, fall apart due to incompetency, over production
of the elites, whatever however you want to explain it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, And I think you're absolutely right. I think
these are material manifestations of something that's happening psychologically, on
a psychological basis, and I completely agree with you, Pete,
and I think that Adam and I are in accordance
with this as well. And I think what we need
to give to people who are lost, who are in
this chaos is a mission, a city on the hill
to go and fight for, and with people that are
brave enough to be irrational in that pursuit. Because if
you notice, especially with like Backwoods preach, is the the
effusiveness and the spiritual self assuredness is what people crave.
You see this in leadership in the military, but you
see this at large in leadership and political people. There's
a reason why they tear down political operatives or statesmen
who kind of have that gravitas. And it's precisely because
they want you to be divided from a mission. They
want you to be not part of something greater than yourself.
They want you to have nothing aside from your self
self interest. And that's precisely what we got to change.
And I think that's something that we have to overcome
in liberalism itself. And Adam, I see you're going to
add something here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I gotta I gotta jump in just because I
don't I don't disagree with what you guys are saying.
I hope you don't think I'm I'm all about neoliberalism
and trading stock options all day and and that's all
that matters. I I was just listening to something today
from one of these channels that covers people that I like,
and I get crap for talking about Elon Musk all
the time, but I think he's an interesting example of
what we're talking about because just like generation sixty eight,
what about generation sixty nine, where well he had a
sixty nine Camaro, which is probably one of the most
beautiful American made cars ever made, but also the country
landed on the moon. And I have gone back and
forth as to whether I even believe that that's a
true thing, but I'm gonna just I'm just going to
make a make a statement here that I think it's
more likely than not, and even if it wasn't true,
the fact that they did all that they did is
still impressive. I mean, they built those rockets. Those rockets
were real, and what was that? That was the Faustian spirit,
I mean, that was the we're going to do. I
mean I love the Kennedy speech where he talks about
this or said, we do things not because they are easy,
it is because they are hard. And I love that.
And I know people that want to do things that
are easy, and I don't like them. I don't hang
out with people like that, and I have people very
close to me that I have to hear that from
sometimes and it just it just kills me. But you know,
Musk was talking about how they're basically going to SpaceX
is it's funny because NASA and Neil Armstrong particular actually
said and it Elon was asked about this because it
hurt his feelings, But what do you think about Neil
armstrong statements that SpaceX has no business doing what NASA
has done? And you know, Elon said, you know, that's
really disappointing to me. I mean, he's been a hero
of mine, and I think it's sad when people like
like crabs in a bucket have to pull down those
that are actually achieving things. I didn't understand what Armstrong
was thinking with that, and it's very disappointing to me
as well. But I think SpaceX is actually literally trying
to build the infrastructure that the US government and all
the other stupid governments have been so incompetent and accomplishing.
He's actually building infrastructure to make this species, as he
puts it. But let's face it, who's working at SpaceX.
It's the types that worked at NASA back in the
late sixties. Make this group a multiplanetary group, and I
think that is such a great, crazy mission. And everything
he's done with the Twitter acquisition with Tesla has just
been the same spirit of just taken on really hard,
important projects and kicking their ass. And I just am
so excited by that. And I've not seen that come
out of any politician's mouth in that care here. I've
not seen any of that come out of the irs
Happy tax Day, by the way, I have not seen
any of that come out of most of our quote
unquote leaders in such a long time. And we need
more of that. And you know, I'm sympathetic to religious
arguments as well, like you know, not putting yourself above God.
But I know a lot of religious people who also
like what Elon's doing, and I think there's no there's
no discord there. I think, you know, we should work
together on that.
Speaker 3: You know, the most evil thing that Hannah Ardron Ever
wrote about liberalism is the idea that the abolition of
great missions and to be content with, you know, your
personal life and being happy with I don't know, being
an interior designer or something. And there's something deeply disgusting
about that. I mean, it's one thing if you're in
a corporate society, we're all one team. Everyone has a function,
and no matter how small or big you are, you're
defined by the greater mission. The evil liberalism is it
destroyed all great. It makes everyone temptible and small. And
that is the beautiful thing that Elon Musk is doing
is making men and woman griggan. They're going to places
that man hasn't one before. It's a self overcoming mission.
And the paradigm of today is not between left or right.
It's between up or down. It's between people that want
to slink to slums or people who want to conquer
the stars. And I'm grateful to say and proud to
say I'm part of the latter, not the former. And
I think that everyone here feels the same way as
I do. I think so I don't want to put
words in Pete's mouth, but I definitely have a feeling
he's a self overcoming Faucian man.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. I was interviewed by a friend
of mine today for almost two hours when we were
gone over a bunch of stuff, and one of the
first things he asked me was he's like, okay, yeah,
you're a libertarian. At one point you came out. You know,
I didn't coin the term post libertarian, but I started
using it and people started using it started and immediately
started using it as pejorative against me. But he asked me, so,
what do you now what? And I said, I'm a
problem solver. I said, that's what that's what the world needs.
I said, book Kelly and n El Salvador was when
he ran for Mayorbador, he was in the left. He
ran in the far left party. As for Santo. When
he started running for president, he ran in the far
left party. They kicked him out once to another party.
He had to do. He had to jump through hoops
just to get elected president. And what did he do?
The first thing, He's like, we're the murder capital of
the world. This is going to stop. And he solved
a problem and he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.
About it. Sorry, I cursed sometimes in the show, and
he he he cleaned that place. So he turned I mean,
he turned it into a place where I'm like, I'm
you know, my wife and Iron socking. Maybe we're going
to go for four or five days, you know, in
the next couple of months. Yeah, I became still well
it's still cheap. You know, well it's still cheap. If
you look at you, you're like, holy crap, you can
really the dollar goes pretty far down there. But he
went in there, he solved the problem. The other thing
he did was, and I don't know if I agree
with it, but he's like, well there's a money problem.
I'm gonna adopt bitcoin. Yeah, and okay, so what is
he Okay, all right? The bitcoin bros want to call
him a libertarian, but he obviously doesn't care anything about
civil rights. He was just basically arresting anybody with a
face tattoo? Is he you know? The authoritarians are like, well,
he also is adopted bitcoin. I don't care what his
ideology is. He solves problems. Give me someone who can
solve problems. Ideology is bullshit. Sam Francis pointed this out.
James Burnham pointed this out. You create ideologies created in
a lab. As soon as it's introduced to the public,
holes are shot in it. It doesn't exist, solve problems,
become a become a problem solver. If you cannot solve
every the only politician that you should even take seriously
as somebody who's like this, this is a problem, this
is our biggest problem. This is how I'm gonna solve it.
Let me do it. That's the kind of person you
take seriously. Now in this we know in our system
how difficult that is. Well, I'm going to solve the
immigration problem. You know that you're gonna have arrows and
even bullets might be coming at you from all directions
if you want to do it. But what you if
you're not talking about solving solve the first problem, then
go to the second problem, then go to the third problem.
But figure out what the biggest one is first. That's
what someone's ideology should be, and that is a Faustian spirit,
and then you can and after you solve the problems,
then you could be like, Okay, what do I do? Oh?
I want to let's inhabit Mars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's next?
Speaker 1: Great? No, Yeah, what's the next. But until you solve
that first problem, you have to be able to solve
that first problem. If you don't solve that first problem,
if you don't focus in on one and fix it,
you're just you're you're just playing the game of politics
as it's been played since nineteen thirty three.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, yes, Pete, holy shit, Yes, I'm sorry. I'm
like just getting pumped from hearing you say that, because
it's precisely that there's this weird paradigm. People are stuck
in the mythoss of the Second World War, and it's like, dude,
that is like dead and guard reed, what is now?
What's happening now? Like the considerations of our time are
not an eck lapse, it's and those issues stem from
precisely what you're saying, the problems of the soul of
seeking out great challenges and building a team around it,
building a vision. No one's doing that, aside from tearing
everyone else down so that way they can aggrandize themselves.
Let's build everyone else up, Let's make a team effort.
And I love hearing you say that, Pete, because that's
exactly Especially Bukel is such an a great example because
it shows that yes, you can. You can fix you know,
your shithold whole country and make it like a paradise
with America and make it a paradise. It's only a
matter of willpower and vision. I think we can give that,
especially if we can we stand true to our principles.
And I think one of the great things about Elon
Musk in his interview is that he stands great risk
all the time. I mean, the government is constantly now
litigating him under specious charges, bullshit charges. But that's what
it's going to take. And that's part of life, is
that people want to tear you down, and you have
to conquer them for their own good to build them up.
And one of the greatest things Bukeley does did was
cracked down on the lowest and most detrimental segments of
society and rebuild from what was good upwards. And I
completely agree with you, Pe. I want to go down
there to myself and like help him, however I can,
you know, in my small.
Speaker 2: Way, I think the lessons that we can draw from
these two individuals and other people that have risen to
power is that it's a long game. You know, Eland
just didn't show up. I mean, he's been doing this
for three four decades, bukel As. I don't know as
much about him, but and he's a younger man as well,
and it's a smaller country and so perhaps there's a
quicker path to things like that. But from what Pete
has described, it sounds like he had to go through
some trials to get to where he is. He had
to go through the left, which is an interesting angle,
but it works so good for him. Hats off whatever works,
and that's uh, that's something I think a lot of people,
whether they're entrepreneurs or leaders or builders or whatever, I
think they maybe they take the Hollywood montage two minutes
of the guy who goes from rags to riches, the scarface,
you know, like boat off with Cuba, and now he's
got to push it to the limit. Yeah, that's not real.
It takes a little longer than two minutes. And you
just got to be a grinder. And I think, you know,
there's something to be said for charisma, of course, but
you also gotta you gotta tell yourself you know that
that this is going to happen, and tell others as well,
and keep that positive mindset. And if you if you
fall into that negativity trap. It just destroys you, it
destroys your team. And I think real leaders have to
do better than that.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think something that that Thomas seven seven
seven says is we're not Jevah's witnesses. We're a vanguard.
We don't need We're not looking for numbers. We're looking
for people who, you know, like the pay Pal Mafia.
Take that. I mean, the pay Pal Mafia is a
perfect example. It's just a it's just a small group
that gets stuff done. Basically controls controls Silicon Valley or
controlled Silicon Valley, and the ankle biterers. They you have
to dismiss these people. You don't need these people, the
people who when I say something about bou Kelly go, well,
you know, he kissed the wall one time and his
wife is probably and his wife is half Sephardic. I
don't get I'm judging him by what he's doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well what does the other guy got? I mean, like,
what's if you're saying he's so bad, show me something better.
And I'm not gonna I'm not gonna, like, you know,
look back one hundred years for what your model is. Like,
we need to get going. Now, show me some progress.
Speaker 1: I mean, how are you? How are you waiting for?
You know? And this is what I tell people all
the time too, is I mean, you have to be
insulating yourself. You have to be doing things for yourself,
you know. I mean, we're we moved to where we
did because it's it's very quiet. It's remote. It's not
it's not insanely remote, but it's remote. We can grow
food here, we have we have friends who have chicken
houses and all sorts of stuff. We can take care
of ourselves. It's a small group, a very small town,
very manageable, very manageable. Politically, everybody knows everyone, everyone knows
the police. Until we can get that, you know, have
those people put that vanguard together, even if you're not
part of the vanguard, even if you're just a thought,
you know, somebody who's there to help with ideas, Somebody
who has money, somebody who can I mean, I mean
some of these assholes like Stephen Crowder who was like
crying because Dali Wire was going to pay him, what
fifty fifty million dollars for four years? What could we
do with fifty million dollars?
Speaker 2: That's a great question. Actually, we we should probably figure
that out because those are you know, again, I'll shut
up about Elon Musk someday, but I'm always finding new things.
I like that he's taught me, and he one of
the earliest things, Like there's a hilarious clip of him
when he like didn't get his hair implants, like after
he sold like a x dot com or whatever it
was to PayPal, he got his first millions of McLaren
and they're lowering it to like his suburban house and
he's still married to his first wife. But he's sitting
there and he's like giving this really dorky interview and
he's like, you know, it's really easy, like in Silicon Valley.
If I just want to go raise ten million at
the capital's right there, and I'm like, wow, what a mindset. Like,
you know, if you actually have the idea and the
team and the leadership and the capability, you don't have
to get that yourself. You just raise the money, you know,
And that's how actually true movers and shakers think they
use other people's money. There's like books about this, but
I think that's a great question. What would we do
with fifty million? I don't know, because I actually haven't
adopted that mindset in a practical sense. But until we
start thinking big, we're not going to achieve big things.
Speaker 1: Well, I started small. I read Peter til zero to
one on my podcast. I read the whole thing over,
I think, with seven episodes, and it's just a way
to get into the mind of people who think way
differently than we do. I think, he said in one
of the chapters, he said that all the people who
started PayPal, he said, I think the five people who
started PayPal, four of them as teenagers, had independently of
each other, built bombs. Okay, so what does that mean.
It means these are.
Speaker 2: Outside the box.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these are these are way outside the box thinkers,
you know. And you know what he talks about in
that book is He's like, everybody, we've been conditioned to
believe that competition, competition is what what the world is
all about, the world of business is all about. He's like, no,
He's like, no, monopoly is what the world is all about.
The monopoly is the only way that you get innovation,
because we don't want monopoly, you know. He and he
downplays us the whole through the book. We don't want
to have the kind of monopoly that is like cronyism,
where you're lobbying the government to be the only one
in existence. No, you want to create something that is
so groundbreaking, that's so outside the box that you make
billions off of it. But in the process of making
billions off of it, you've changed humanity. You've just you've
improved humanity.
Speaker 2: That's where the breakout occurs. It's it's when you've created
that new It's it's what the title of the book is.
It's zero to one as opposed to one to a
million or something. I mean, anything times zero is zero.
So if you can, if you could like you know,
the primordial Big Bang or God creating the universe, that's
what he's talking about, doing something that groundbreaking. There's another
book called uh, I think it's Blue Ocean Strategy. I
haven't actually read it, but it seems like a really
simple idea, so I didn't bother but the concept was
so there's these big title blooms that happened in the ocean,
and it's basically a bunch of like planktin and stuffed
whales eat that they just they go nuts. They breed
like crazy, and they choke off all the oxygen to
the point where everything is just it just dies. At
a certain point they kind of reach that Multhusiam limit.
Then everything just starts collapsing. But you don't want to
be in the middle of that. If you want to
stand out, you want to go where the water is blue.
That's kind of the thesis of the book. So you
kind of want to think tangentially. You know, they all
want you to kind of go to the London In
School of Economics or Harvard or whatever and played by
the stupid rules that are kind of rigged against you.
You're not going to get really far with You might
you might become a millionaire or something, but you're never
gonna become a billionaire by sort of getting good grades.
You have to. I mean, most of these guys dropped
out of school. So I think that's that's that's a
big lesson. It's like, okay, you can do okay, but
if you really want to change the world. I forget
the quote. It's it's sort of like nothing nothing ever.
I think it was like a feminist quote. It's like
nothing ever changed by like reasonable women or something. So
all the all the change is like unreasonable women. You
could say the same thing about men. It's like you
have to you have to think kind of tangentially, almost irrationally,
that these crazy things are possible. And I would just say,
you know, make sure you know you're honest with yourself
about what you're accomplishing, and if it's not working, try
something else. But you know that there is to me
at least some some value in being realistic. But you
you need to team and you need to inspire people.
And I think that's that's a big lesson here, is
like you need to have something really really impressive and exciting.
Speaker 1: I want to apologize to Lentce. I was on a
different screen than he dropped out and he was out
of there for a while.
Speaker 3: So, yeah, they just attacked me. Dude, they attacked me.
It's okay, I'm back.
Speaker 1: Do you have any Do you have anything so that
even less.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, like I think you guys are
spot on, and it doesn't just extend to the world
of I guess. Of course, innovation extends in many different
directions and everyone has their specific skill set. I think
the most important thing that you guys pointed out is
to seek opptunities wherever they may be, and making the
most of it, exploiting it. And I think you're absolutely right.
I think Adam is absolutely right. I think the PayPal
mafia is incredibly inspiring precisely because they were able to
out maneuver the crony cap you know, establishment, as it
had been before, with just something completely out of the box,
as you'd said, and they have real world effects. I mean,
look at Elon Musk. He owns X major social media network,
he owns Tesla, He's going to Mars, He's doing multiple things,
and that's because he pursued. I mean, do you think
he had fun with PayPal? Do you think that's interesting
to him now? I think he understood that it was
as a stepping stone to something greater, to going to Mars,
and I'm absolutely sure that's how he feels about Tesla
and everything else. So it's absolutely great and it's a
great example for our own selves to set for our
own selves for our own success. And more importantly, probably
like liver circles, uh, I think the thing that people
he missed because they're always so focused on their own song,
personal wealth and so on. More.
Speaker 1: All right, ll that's your roboting like crazy. So now
it's you know, you're roboting like crazy. But all right,
let's wrap this up because I've been sitting on my
butt in front of the screen for now going on
in a little over three hours today. So I'll give
I'll give you guys to Florida to say something and
hopefully Lance can uh not sell Space Odyssey. But Adam
go ahead first, well.
Speaker 2: Just just glibly, I want all the listeners to know
that any support you give to Pete will be going
towards this purchase of a standing desk. I think that's
that's a great thing. As we all reach our middle age,
we need to we need to be getting good posture.
So hope you're not sitting too much today. But in
any case, yeah, I think the team is absolutely critical.
I think that's sort of what Lance was trying to
hit upon another Musk thing, and I hopefully we'll stop.
But he's interesting also because he has the guts and Pete,
we actually talked about this when you came on our
show a couple episodes ago, where Musk is willing to
fire people and and lay off people and that that's
that's hard. I mean, it's really hard. It's not something
I'm comfortable doing. You know, I have I've had to
do it actually, but it really sucks. But it's a
skill because you need to know what your culture. We're
talking about culture, right, and a company culture or a
government culture or a nation's culture. You need to know
what that culture stands for. And if you have people
to come in that actually are problematic, they need to
go and it. You know, you need to be fair
about it, and you need to set performance goals and
measurements that can be objective, but you can quickly murder
a company with bad culture. You don't have to look
any further than Boeing and what's going on with that place.
They have a bad culture. And I think Musk recognizes that.
And what he did at x Twitter when he bought it.
The first thing he did was he laid off eighty
percent of the employees. And guess what the company did.
Find it's actually doing better now. So do the same
thing for the US government. If and I forgot what
that thing was called pete A Project twenty there you go. Yeah,
that is a good idea And it was sort of
what Vivek Ramaswami was pushing and that we need to
get rid of most of these people because frankly, they're useless,
and secondly, they're actually worse than useless. They're problematic, and
they're obstructionist, their counter revolutionary in the communist terminology. So
I think that's a big lesson that I think if
we ever get in positions of power, we need to
take it seriously, and take culture seriously, and take our
team seriously, and reward those that do take it seriously
and do a good job, and get rid of the
people that are not doing that, because in effect, you're
poisoning the well for those that are instrumental and caring
for that mission by keeping the people that are are negative,
are problematic, are not willing to learn, are not willing
to become part of that project. They are extremely detrimental.
And I think that's another lesson.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, I just want to say thank you for
having me on p I don't want to carry on
too long because I don't want to lose connection again.
But I just want to say thank you and thank
you Adam.
Speaker 1: Of course, to your plug. Tell people where they can
find your work. LANs.
Speaker 3: Just go ahead and you can find me on Twitter
at Lance Legion and you can also go to DVX
Publishing Company dot com. You can find all the information there.
I just wrote a book.
Speaker 1: Check it out.
Speaker 3: But again, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: No problem at all, Adam plug.
Speaker 2: Mith twenty c dot com, same thing on Twitter. Also,
our writing companion site is the Americansun dot substack dot com.
We just moved over there, so it's on substack. But
the American Son is Hank my co host project and
Ryan Landry actually used to do a lot there. He's
still involved as well, but it's a growing site. And yeah,
check us out on Mith twenty c or the American Son.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you,