Speaker 2: How's your work gone?
Speaker 1: Good? Good, busy. I'm backed up on episodes now. I
normally drop like my interview episodes three times a week,
and I think I'm gonna have to drop a few
extra because I like hammered a bunch in like a
short space of time. And I got people going, so
what are you gonna drop that? And I'm like, all right,
I got I get right. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I just sit I sit on them. Then I
can take a break. What amount of questions to ask?
Just kick it down the road.
Speaker 1: Well, when I'm out of questions to ask, what I
do is I find somebody, find someone new? Oh really?
Well yeah yeah, when I find some find find someone
new to interview. So then it's a whole set of questions.
Like I love Judge Napolitano's show. I like getting updates
on you know what the intelligence community what quote unquote
former intelligence community says about uh is saying about World
of Fan. But he has this habit of having like
five people on in one day and asking him the
same question over and over again and playing the same
clip over and over again for them to comment on.
And I'm like, yeah, I think I think it's all
going to be pretty similar. So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: How do I pronounce your last name? I've only ever
read it.
Speaker 1: It's Kenyons, so it's like a really it starts with
a K, like a k sound kean yohness. My brother
won't pronounce it the the proper way. He just pronounces
it phonetically because he's he's boring.
Speaker 2: Oh he's the boring brother. You got all the spice, yeah,
genetically speaking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's the one who you like, like, has always
had like the regular job where you know where I'm
always I was always trying to find stuff that would
keep me interested more than pay the bills.
Speaker 2: I kind of want to do. I don't know where
you want to go with this interview, and I'm always
open to just following where the conversation goes. I believe
in the conversation for its own sake, but I wanted
to get a little bit contextual. I was just thinking
about that this morning. It's like, where did I come from?
Like I remember being nineteen and being really interested in ideas,
and I'm in a totally different spot now, you know,
twenty five years later or whatever. Some people don't like
getting into biography, but at the same time. Biography kind
of helps contextualize belief.
Speaker 1: I can do biography. I'll just censor out stuff that
I don't want public. Okay. I have the greatest, greatest upbringing.
Even though I was at a classical education, it just
wasn't the greatest upbringing.
Speaker 2: Okay, did you well? First question? Did you move around
a lot growing up?
Speaker 1: No? No, all in one place? Okay?
Speaker 2: Religious later?
Speaker 1: Or grew up in grew up in the Catholic Church,
ultra boy Catholic school. I went to a Catholic high school,
graduated Catholic high school, and then did did as most
post Vatican two Catholics do, fell away from fell away
from the church, and I had to find my way
all the way back through a Protestant phase.
Speaker 2: And yeah, what what attracted you to Protestantism? Were you
just kind of bereft in life and one more religion or.
Speaker 1: No, I am. I just got to a place where
there was something missing. I knew there was something missing. Yeah, yeah,
do you tried Protestantism. I went to Protestant seminary for
a while, and oh, I just yeah, I pretty much
talked myself seminary life, my dad, my dad to seminary
later in life too, and became a Southern Baptist minister
and his one of the things he said when I
started taking classes in seminary was that the hardest thing
for most people to do when they go to seminary
is to come out with their faith.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: Because you learn things that you're supposed to hide from
the congregation, like we really don't know where a lot
of the scriptures came from, and things like that, Like
textual criticism. Class was hilarious because I'm sitting there and
I'm trying to be as open minded as possible, and
there are these people behind me who I can hear
this is scary. He was shaking their faith and everything,
and I'm just like, I'm well, I'm just I'm here
to learn, you know, so, and I can deal with
attacks on the faith. But you know, I just didn't
like I didn't like the fact that I went to
a church that I really like the people, but had
like two church splits in like two years. In spend
two years like this doesn't sound this doesn't sound that great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it sounds like the so called culture war. People
are always like coming together and then splitting apart after
two or three months, or a new world event splits
the lines on correct belief.
Speaker 1: Or well, when you're when your initial premise was protesting
against something and splitting off from a group, then unless
you can find some some you know, solid ground, that's
just going to keep happening. My friend Josh says, yeah,
he became a Catholic because he just couldn't. He said,
the protest just continued until it was splintering and splintering
and splintering, and well, what are we a church body
or are or do we hate each other? Are we
the body at Christ? Or do we hate each other? Yeah,
because because one person believes in like a visual return
of Christ, any other person believes that you won't be
able to see it because you know, there's this is
a globe and he's going to appear on one side
and you won't be able to see it on this
side and everything. And I've heard I've heard pastors be like, well,
you know, now that we have the Internet, technically we
can all see it. And I'm like, it's just Anusia,
You're killing me.
Speaker 2: I think it's the problem of some people call it
propositional understanding. It's like when we have when we formulate
the world in such a way where it's discussable, it
can also turn into something that we argue about, and
then it becomes something we agree or disagree, and then
our identity gets wrapped up in this one fraction of
human experience called belief or knowledge or gnosis or however
you frame them.
Speaker 1: The way I looked at it was going back to
Catholicism felt right. It felt like I was home. It's
what my dad's side of the family way back, not
way back, I mean just a couple of generations ago.
My mom's side of the family. My mom Catholic when
she grew up in the Catholic Church, and all the
way back in her family, so I mean. And another
thing is it's nice to be a part of a group.
I have this obsession where whenever I embrace something, I
need to read everything about it and learn everything about it.
And one thing I promised myself when I returned to
the Catholic Church was I was not going to become
a Catholic expert. I was just going to be one
of those people who goes to Mass, goes to reconciliation,
takes to Eucharist, and lives a very simple, faith filled
life instead of what I did when I got into BROADUS,
where it was like, well, I'm gonna there's a local
there's a nice conservative local seminary. I'm gonna go find
out everything that I can and yeah, it's just like
I can only concentrate on so many things. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So then what is the role of faith if it's
not something that you're learning about or engaging with it
as a subject of study, What then does faith? How
does faith operate in your life?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the way it works is I don't
I don't mind learning new things about it, and you
do just of osmosis people or people just talk about.
You'll see conversations and I'll find out something new. I'll
pick up the Catechism everyone. So I'll turn to some
place I don't know that I haven't read before and
learn something new. But it's not something where I'm going
to like every I'm going to say, okay, this is
in these next three hundred and sixty five days, I
am going to read through the Catechism and I'm going
to and the next three sixty five No, it's just
going to be something that is I'll pick it up.
I'll learn more as I go along, but I don't
need to be an expert on everything. And I think
that that's that's a problem I've had in the past,
is I just have to be an expert on everything
that I explore. And you know, that's one of the
one of the problems I have with Protestantism is that,
you know, I say this, and even close friends of
mine where Protestants get mad. But you know, it's like, basically,
if you're a Protestant, you can pretty much interpret the
Bible any way you want. And when you say that,
people are like, no, there's only one way to interpret it.
It just says one thing. Well no, no, I mean
obviously people can people are interpreting it different ways. And
if you can just go and there's a space open
next to the circle k in town, then anyone can
call themselves a pastor and anyone can open up a church.
And it's like, okay, so what so basically you're if
you decide you want to go to that church. Now
you've positioned yourself with this self taught self, you know,
female lesbian pastor. Well, okay, what's your argument. What's the
argument against that? If you're a Protestant. What's the argument
against that she read the Bible in a certain way?
She read the Bible and she sees that she can
be a pastor and she can be gay and be Christian. Okay,
So who says not the Bible? Well, no, she's reading
that Bible. Mm well I'm going I'm I'm going off
two thousand years a tradition now, so yeah, uh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Who one problem or source of tension and discussions of politics,
especially once you get to a certain scale, which is
what we're facing, you can't get away from the problem
of scale. How do you deal with eight billion people?
How do you deal with millions of people? If you
go down to just a state, you're still talking about
an American state, You're still talking about millions of people.
Speaker 1: How do you?
Speaker 2: How do you govern people? In one aspect of this
tug of war that we see explicitly on the left
and then conservatives try to shy away from it, and
there's a growing will and awareness on the right that
that decisions need to be made to tell people how
to live. You're governing people is to tell them how
to live, and who makes that decision and who sculpts
that and it eventually comes back to the same question
with religion and the question of having a society that
doesn't have a uniform religion, like who tells other people
what to believe? Who tells other people what to do
or not do? Like who's the decider, who's the executive
of behavior. I'm wondering how you wrestle with that. And
I'm curious about your political transformation from a libertarian to
a post libertarian or wherever you're at right now.
Speaker 1: Well, your question basically centers around one word, and that's hierarchy.
Do people believe in hierarchy and liberalism, classical liberalism, whatever
you want to call it, there tends to be a
rejection of that and a rejection of it politically or
a rejection of it. Let's face it, classical liberalism wasn't
conceived by Catholics or Orthodox people. It was conceived by Protestants,
for better or for worse. I mean, I'm not blaming them.
This is what the idea that they came up with.
So you know, when I look back in history, so
look back to my family. I have two sides of
my family. One side is from the Poland Hungarian area
that that section down there that came to be known
as Galicia. That's where both sides of my mom's family
came from. They came to the United States. My great
grandparents literally came to the United States and met each other,
and they were both from one town over from each other. Well,
that's that's what happens when people come to a country
and their immigrants know to go to one section, like
western Pennsylvania, so they can they can meet, and they
can continue and be around people that they actually know.
And you know, my dad's side of the family is
through Puerto Rico to the Canary Islands to Spain, and
what I look at is so one of the things
I like to talk about a lot is the Muslim
the Muslim conquest of Spain seven to eleven AD and
the reconquista that took basically seven hundred and almost seven
hundred and seventy five years to take this take the
country back. Now, most people would have given up. Most
people would have been like, Okay, we're part of a
caliphate now and we should probably convert to Islam and
become like these people. They would offer people who converted
to Islam didn't have to pay taxes, but most of
the time, which is interesting, but no, they decided that
they were going to take it, take the country back.
Some years they'd get a mile back, some years they'd
get two inches back. I mean, they just basically decided, well,
why did they do this? Because they were Catholics, because
they were they had something in common, They had something
that they had an identity that they were willing to
unite around and fight for. And one of the problems
with America is is that America doesn't had a unifying principle.
At one point, had a unifying identity at one point,
and that was pretty much white Europe. And it's changed
and now you don't really know when you ask somebody
what an American is even say, you know someone maga,
someone who's conservative, someone who calls himself America first their
their idea. Yeah. I had someone contact me and say,
you know, I'm a I'm a conservative, I said, you know,
said I. I said, okay, so what does conservative mean?
And they said, well, we want to return I want
to return to the values of the founding fathers. And
I said, okay, so you want only white men to
vote and only landowners. Women can't vote. You're pretty much
all Protestant and Catholics are Catholics are on the are
on the outside. They're not being too you know, yeah
you persecuted. Yeah, and is that what you want? And
the person said, well, no, no, that's not what you know,
that's not what I want. I want it all. I said, okay,
so you want you want nineteen sixty four in nineteen
sixty five, you want the civil rights ack, you want
to be you want what the country became after that.
And I mean, that's for better or for worse, that's
what being an American. That's what the America was founded upon.
It was founded upon a supremacist kind of idea, and
people just don't want to deal with that because of
the post war consensus after World War Two, and which
led into things like Shelley B. Kramer Brown versus Board
of Education, civil Rights sack to sixty four, voting right,
I think it's voting right, sack to sixty five, things
like that, And basically what happened was and I think
there's a lot of people out there who've done a
lot better work on this than I have, that basically
the Constitution became supplanted by the civil Rights Act, because
now you don't have a freedom of association. And Shelley
by Kramer did that more so than where they basically said,
you can't preclude someone from living in a community based
upon their identity. And you know, it's not something that
it's not something that people had a problem with up
until that time. People self segregated pretty well. You know,
I grew up in New York City, I grew up
in the Bronx, and I'm pretty well versed on New
York City's history. And New York City used to not
only have like Chinatown and Little Italy, but they had
like they had a block where like Southern Germans were,
and then a block over there were people live who
are from West Germany, you know, who are from a
western end of Germany, not the bundest Republic, but the
western area of Germany. And it almost seemed like all
of a sudden, laws were being passed to force integrate,
to force integrate people and to make them not segregate.
And what's funny is if you go to New York
there's still a lot of like self segregation, there's still
a lot of default the segregation. But yeah, I think
that that's probably. I think that's probably one of the
things that the country was founded upon which we lost
was freedom of association. If you say you don't want
to associate with a certain person or a certain group, now,
well that's anathema because we've moved beyond that. We're you know,
we live in a we're we're enlightened. And you know,
if you don't want to live you know I live.
I live in the rural South Blacks everywhere. I mean,
it just is what it is. But even here we
self segregate, you know, the they live in one specific
part of town and usually there's and but if you
say that, that's if I were to say, well, you know,
and I think that's great about my town, well that's
that's seen is problematic. That seems well, no, you can't
have liberty if you are not free to not only
associate with people, but disassociate from some people. And going
back to the heredit where you started this with, how well,
it's about community, it's about people, you trust. You want people.
I want people to be in charge. If I'm not
going to be in charge, which I don't really want
to sounds like work. I want someone to be in charge.
That is shares my values, that speaks the same kind
of language, that speaks same language that I do, sounds
like I do when I say it speaks the same
language I'm talking about. We agree, We agree on things
as soon as you start bringing in people, as soon
as you force integrate people who have you know what
what my friend Cryptos calls first and second order differences, Like,
for you know, first order would be these are like
concrete things that we believe in. This is like where
our basis, This is where our foundation is. Second order
second order is like well, you know, it's like, how
are we going to build this road? How are we
going to fund this road? Who's going to do that? Yeah?
First order is people who you is like the you know,
a Bible Belt Southerner Protestant Baptist and a you know
someone who works at someone who works at MSNBC living
next to each other, Well, how do they or their
foundation doesn't there's nothing in common with their foundation. Of
course they're going to clash, and you know we're forced
you know, some who lives three thousand miles away from
where I do, who doesn't share any of my values,
or as I used to say it, you know you
know Levi, who lives in Utah and is a Mormon,
and then you have Jesse, who is a you know,
a hardcore progressive who lives in New York City. One
of one of either of their votes can affect each
other's lives. How what happens politically, policy things like that.
That's unfair to both of them. That's unfair. They shouldn't
have to one shouldn't have to have an effect on
the way the other one lives because they are two
completely different cultures. And when cultures clash, you get what
we've had here for I mean, I wouldn't say eighty years,
I wouldn't say World War two, but not far after,
you know, I would say after the sixties, where you
had a massive people in the culture.
Speaker 2: Well, at some point America was ruled by people who
could keep the peace between all these different groups. And
if you look like a city, look at a city
like New York, you had a governing class, You had
a gentry or an elite that was able to articulate,
you know, the piece between these different groups to a
certain extent. Right, So, and then if you look at
someplace like Singapore that has a lot of different ethnicities,
but still is uniformly articulated peacefully in order to be productive.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that human
beings can get along. Many societies have been vectors of
many different ethnicities throughout history, and somehow there's a ruling
elite that keeps the peace without imposing their values too
much on any given or yeah, without infringing too much
on the values of the people for whom they are
the patrons. And if the American gentry or the American
elite was able to maintain its own culture without pushing
that culture on other people, it seems like we could
get along a lot better. When you have something like wokeness,
where the explicit patronage network of dividing people by the
oppressed oppressed classes and then elevating one and denigrating the
other in order to maintain power. That is a weak
form of power. It's not you're no longer articulating piece
as the elite group. I bring that up just to
say that I don't know how we go forward with
racial awareness, let's say, without imposing more chaos on the
town uprooting people. Let's just say your town is half
black or quarter black, quarter Latino, half white, or something
like that. There's got to be a way for those
groups to get along and to be ruled without them
having to be segregated by forced by the state. Right,
as long as the ruling class is able to articulate
the peace between those groups, it should be fun. Isn't
that ideal unless we just kind of rejigger our society
and then you're uprooting people and then you're trashing their
own histories.
Speaker 1: Sure, and I think that forced forced the multiculturalism is
just as just as much of a detriment upon the
host culture as it is on the visiting culture. Because
a visiting cultural some would say the invading culture. I'll
be nice and say the visiting culture. The visiting culture
is eventually there's a stript away too. Their identity is
stripped away too. So you mentioned Singapore, and I've yeah,
that's another one of my I've mentioned Singapore all the
time too. One of the reasons I mentioned Singapore all
the time is because they have a multi cultural Asian population.
And you know, most people, I think most people watching
this probably know that Asians are much more racist against
each other than we any racist racism. We've had in
this country like ever, But also what do they have there?
They have corporal punishment and they have a very harsh
rule of law. Spinning gum on the street, you will
get you will get thrown in jail or caned. You.
You're talking about a culture where it seems like the
peace may be kept between a multi race, a multicultural
society where people really don't like each other, and it's
kept part of it may be kept by force. Now
we also know that, like in Japan, people are very
very polite, will you know. I have a friend who
lives in Japan for a very long time, and he
like would he left an iPad in the subway station
once and like went back four hours later and it
was still there. You know. So that's a different culture
than what we're used to. But you're what you're describing
is something that I've talked about here and talk about
for here. Is to me, the only way that multiculturalism
in this country could work in the areas where it
is multicultural is you basically have to have a standing army.
So I grew up in New York City. When I
was growing up in New York City, we had two
thousand murders a day, murders a year in New York
City in the Yeah, two thousand murders a day. It's
not It's not Rwanda, right, not quite, not quite. But no,
we had we had two thousand murders a year. I mean,
that's it's insanity. I think the top year when I
was growing up was like twenty six hundred and one.
Speaker 2: What decade were you growing up in?
Speaker 1: This is late seventies, early late seventies into through the
eighties into the early nineties. How did they clean up
New York? Okay, well, one of the ways they did
it was they made it too expensive. They made it
so expensive that a lot of people couldn't live there,
so they had to leave.
Speaker 2: Was that you think that Are you implying that that
was intentional or was that just kind of a market force?
Speaker 1: I think it just it was a market force at
the time. But when Giuliani came into power in New York,
he did stop in frisk which as a libertarian I
would always make fun of and now I'm like, eh,
but he also put I remember going to New York
in two thousand, No, it was nineteen ninety nine, so
it's before nine to eleven, and this was during Christmas,
and there was every other corner on like Fifth Avenue,
there was two police police officers. So basically what they
did was they hired an army. I think I don't
know what it is now since twenty twenty, when a
lot of police are retired. Now, like twenty nineteen, there
was like forty four thousand police in New York City.
You know, that's that's what twenty two times more than
the population of the town I live in. Yeah, so
that's like you're talking about, you're talking about an army,
and that seemed to you know, if you show you
have a show of force, it doesn't even have to
be if you have forty four thousand police not most
of them are probably not going to be elite tactical
operators who can start taking down people if they pull
out a rifle, you know, and start shooting. Famously, there
was a shooting at the Empire State Building in I
think it was twenty eleven, and somebody jumped out of
a car shot somebody. The police chased, chased after him,
stopped them, caught up to them a couple of blocks
later and unloaded. I think it was twenty six rounds
on him and hit them with two hit nine bystanders.
So and I don't believe he was shooting back. And
so it just basically tells you the like down here,
if one off and then we have like eight cops
in this town. If one of them has to shoot,
they're probably going to be center mass on every shot.
I mean, that's all these guys do you know, they're
former military, they're you know, they're this is what this
is their job, and they take it seriously. And so
when I look at when we talk about Singapore and
we talk about order, and we talk about multicultural societies,
I think they're what you're talking about is you're going
to have to have some kind of what most people
would describe as authoritarianism, which is would be a threat
if you step out of line. And I think, you know,
I think we used to have that in this country,
and I think it was basically people were unleashed. People
were allowed to quote unquote vigilantis do vigilanti activities things
like that when when people stepped out of line. We
had fights between former vets of World War Two and
the government. In a section of Tennessee in the late
nineteen forties, So these are things that were in the past,
before we became this gigantic managerial state where everything was
about the managers that could be handled on their own,
but that it was all taken the post war consensus.
Speaker 2: Really, just what do you mean by post war consensus?
Speaker 1: So after World War Two, it seems like it was
decided that, as my friend Thomas says, being too right
wing is criminal, and right wing would be associated with
having an opinion on other races except white. You're pretty
free to have opinions on the white race. That's that's
not a problem. Let's see. Well, I think about the
book The Authoritarian Personality by A. Doorno and the and
the Frankfurt School. What do they talk about is that
people who go to people are too religious, people who
are too concentrated to have too many kids, people who
just basically what classically how the values that this country
was founded upon, and those have been criminalized, not and
I'm not talking about if you go to church, you're
going to go you're going to go to jail. Now
people look upon you differently. They look upon you, like suspiciously,
like you know, you like Well, the whole point of
the authoritarian personality was to come up with the f scale,
which was you take this test and it'll tell you
how apt you are to be a fascist towards fascism.
And what was you know, the question of what was fascism?
That didn't even matter to the people who were writing this.
They just basically said, what looks like traditional families need
to be destroyed, and they set out on doing that
and basically tearing down every custom and cultural the cultural
heritage that built the country. And the post war consensus
is basically that, you know, liberalism is the way forward.
The people who are in charge, they know better we
you know, listen the whole manager James Burnham is manager
or revolution. And yeah, and you you see that. You
anyone who talks about you know, hey, you know, maybe
maybe black people would be better off living around black people,
maybe they maybe we should or here's it, here's an
easier one. Maybe we need to cut off funding, Maybe
we we need to people need to be able to
sink or swim on their own. Well no, no, because
of white because of white history. These people are downtrodden.
It's your fault that they can't get get by where
you know, we have over fifty years now of money
flowing into certain communities, and it doesn't seem to it
seems to have made things worse. And I think in
the late fifties Thomas Soul said that the divorce rate
in white families was higher than in black families. So
what happened? I mean, this post this post war consensus
that just basically said, basically is liberalism. It was Francis
Fukiyama in the nineteen nineties saying that you know, history,
you know, end of history is here. It's all liberalism
from here on. Now. Well, liberalism seems to be coming
crashing to the ground. And we're recording this on January
twenty eighth. Trump has been in office for eight days,
and Trump is eight days of being the most anti
liberal president since Nixon.
Speaker 2: Anti liberal or anti FDR anti.
Speaker 1: The same thing. Okay, oh yeah, well, well well let
me status Well yeah, let's call anti. Let's call it
anti post war consensus. Okay, it's an anti anti he
you know, you can also call like the New Deal
regime or what did he he called it the other day?
He referred to it as the new Deal?
Speaker 2: Did he literally something?
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 2: So he's calling it out.
Speaker 1: He referred to the New Deal something I can't. I
retweeted it. So yeah, so it looks like he's seeking
to dismantle all of this and it's probably the biggest
attack on the post war consensus. This this this post
war regime that we've had, and it's working. And I
think the reason it's working is people want it. People
people are that's what they elected him to do. And
I think that there are even people in power. You
can see it with the tech elites, the way they've
changed and they want to see there. A lot of
them are behind him now and we're really not seeing
a lot of pushback. I mean, look, Pete hag Seth
got was confirmed fifty to fifty in advance, had to
come in. But you know, somebody like somebody like Bessent
he he was almost over. He's talking about like ending
the ending the i r S. Yeah, he's taught. He's
talking about bitcoin. You know. So it's like, Okay, something
is happening here, and it looks like he has the
mandate to start dismantling what has been built since since
the New Deal, since the New Deal regime. Well, that
brings me FDRs fifteen years.
Speaker 2: That brings into question. It's It's one thing to dismantle
that which is persisted for fifty eighty years. But what
are people left with?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: What is the identity? What is the American identity? Post FDR?
What happens to all those disaffected government employees. Maybe they'll
get like Jarvin either prophesied or suggested, you just give
them enough money to go buy a house on a
lake and write their novels. You don't kill them, you
don't persecute them. You just send them out to pasture
so they won't be a problem. But there's still a
conception of what we are as a country after dismantling.
What came to a head, you know, started with FDR
and came to a head with Biden. Biden was the
perfect representative of that entire system, headless, sclerotic, mumbling, nobody's
in control of anything. We're just going to promote identity.
Promote identity. Sniff little children, because we're devouring your children.
We're literally devouring the next generation in order to afford
all this stuff. So it came to a head. Trump
Just a side note, it might be some sort of
mandate from heaven that he was shot at and not
got shot because I think that stealed like it hardened
the entire had twenty twenty not happen, I don't think
he would have had the will and the force and
the just complete an utter mandate to do what he's doing.
I don't know how far he's going to do it,
But so if he goes after he takes part the irs,
he kicks all the illegals out, starts with the worst
of the worst, and then kind of increases it from there.
I heard that he cut off federal funding to schools today,
So that's going to do a chain reaction with this
bloated bureaucratic mechanism called colleges higher education. But what is
going to be left in the rubble? So there's going
to be the rubble of the deep state. Like do
you have any opinions or thoughts or intuitions about like
how that really does unfold? Like what are we going
to be left with? What is the American identity post Trump?
Or And don't we need some sort of story there
to keep us together?
Speaker 1: Sure? Yeah, you need you always need a narrative. You
always you always need a narrative. A what is uh
what do they call it? A load bearing myth? Yeah,
I think that's what they call it. Yeah, you need
a myth. So what happens after Make America Read Again? Well,
let's start with I disagree with Yarvid in that I
think that there has to be like one or two
people that you make an example of, and I'm talking
about you put them on trial and you put them
in jail. I don't know who that is. I mean
I would immediately say someone like Fauci, someone like Mark Milly,
somebody who had you know, who was way up in
the food chain, someone whose name people knows. Because you
don't want people to want to You want people to
think twice about doing it in the future. But you do,
you know, get rid of some of these people. I mean,
you can fire them all, pay them for give them
a year, sever and something like that. It's perfectly fun.
I don't think you have to give them like you know,
like the d D like the former d DR people
got like you got pensions and everything. I don't know
at this point, I don't know that we can pay
for that. So you can give them a year, that's
that's fine. That they'll have time. And a lot of
them have been working from home and have two jobs anyway,
that's that's come out, so you know, as long as
they didn't quit their other job, they'll still have an
income fitting And but yeah, I I I guess the
question is is if you are dismantling all of this,
if you were saying, Okay, we're going to go after
this managerial regime, We're going to go after the unelected
officials who were always there, who are the ones who
you know, can manufacture the manufacture of the war in
u current manufacture, the coup manufacture, but make it to
the point where a leader of a country has no
choice but to invade another country. And people want to say, well,
you always have a choice is not to do that.
You don't know your history and you don't know people.
But yeah, I think that's that's an issue. Is right
now we're eight days in and we see a lot
being torn down. I mean, he's doing you have to admit,
he's doing way more than you thought he was going
to do, right, I mean, to me, if he just
pardoned the J six prisoners, that would be like enough,
if he shut the ball, if he just pardoned the
J sex prisoners and shut yeah, that'd be enough that
I mean. But he's really it seems like the people
around him were ready for this. I mean he had
he was flying osprey there. I saw the video of
osprey's being flown over the southern border. Okay. I talked
to a friend of mine who's was in the military,
and he said, you don't get those things out of it.
You don't get those things off the ground without like
two weeks planning. At least usually it's a month. So
there were things, there were things that were happening, things
in motion before he even took office. And we know
that because I mean he sent he sent what's his name,
I can't remember the guy's name, Whitkough to Israel to
you know, tell him hey stop, you know, make the
deal for the hostages. We did that before he even
took office. So he's doing all this stuff. Is he
going to completely tear down the managerial regime that has
been a leviathan since the nineteen thirties, I don't know.
It's gonna be really difficult. So you have to have
some way to push it forward. You have to have
some way that after the four years is over. Well,
you also have to have the will to do it.
You have to have the will to keep it going
for four years, you'll and then you get have to
find a way to sell what this new thing is
to do. Yeah, yeah, And I think Trump is the
perfect guy to do that because he's the ultimate salesman. Yeah.
I mean there are people, there are people who are
always going to hate him, no matter what. Friend of
mine contacted me the other day. He works through some
federal contracts and everything. And his neighbor is you know,
typical progressive liberal but works for the government, has been
working for home and says, I'm not returning to work.
I don't want to go to I don't want to
work anywhere but from at home, and I don't want
to go into an office where I'm gonna have to
look at his face on the wall. So you have
people who are.
Speaker 2: Just especially that photo of that face steering down.
Speaker 1: It's so it's so good, it's so perfect. Because if
you put that in every government office, Oh, who's going
to be able to look at that every day? You know,
if you hate him, if you think he's literally hitler,
how are you going to be able to look at
him every day? But yeah, it's just if you're going
to continue this dismantling, which I mean, I think if
you have the will to do it, you can do
it in a couple of months. But I don't know
that anyone has the will to do that. But you know,
if it takes a while, well you're going to have
to pass this on to somebody else, and you're going
to have to find that narrative. I think he can
find the narrative. I think he can sell it to
the people. If if Washington is a ghost town and
you know, Cash Patel is turning the FBI building into
a museum to the deep State, I think there are
enough people who are going to celebrate that. Really, all
he has to do is come up with a name,
whatever it is.
Speaker 2: Well, but you know, yeah, but no, well it's it's
just it's a really big problem. Well, you have the
boomer generation going out now, so they have what another
twenty five years in power. They're just going to hold
onto the less And I was being a little facetious there,
but you know, but their narrative is based on America
the righteous, the victors of World War Two, the protectorate
of the global order. We make sure that all the
shipping lanes are clean. But if America completely withdraws from that.
That's the whole story. But you saw a few months
ago when Darryl Cooper went on to Tucker Crossman's podcast
and Tucker spoke a big game about Darryl, and Darryl
just did a little potshot, facetious potshot against Churchill, against
this myth, this founding myth that we are going to
protect the world from any further holocaust and we are
the righteous ones and we are the leaders of the world.
That narrative. I don't know if you can replace that narrative,
but that narrative is definitely long in the tooth, and
you need a narrative of similar proportions, maybe not good
versus e proportions, but similar weight, similar unifying power in
the wake of dismantling that previous narrative, Like, how do
you follow that narrative with another narrative so that that
narrative is still People are really defensive about that narrative,
So you're gonna have a hard time selling anything else
or even attacking it. But it's kind of it's devolving
on its own. A lot of the a lot of
the things that were sticking points that led to twenty
twenty and the apiosis or the zenith or the meridian
of wokeness about the civil rights about you know, these
these values of diversity, equity and inclusion and equity could
have been just equality. But it's still the same kind
of post war consensus, that whole narrative, like what do
we have that has the same sort of will? I mean,
what is it? Entrepreneurialism, individualism, do your own thing? Like,
what is what is it that electrifying narrative going to
be that is going to take the takeover from that
post war consensus, which is a really big, strong narrative.
Speaker 1: Right well, And I think one of the things that
Darryl did was he exposed how much people love their myths,
how much they need them, I mean so much, so
much so that I mean, look, how many people have
just discredited themselves using the term woke right, they had
to create the only that that term. Lindsay came up
with that term. I don't know if Lindsay actually came
up with him a couple years ago. It didn't catch on,
and then it's like, oh, well, here's our shot. Because
progressives and liberals seek to tear down myths, you know,
tear down the myth of the founding, all these myths.
That means anyone who's trying to tear down a myth
is just a liberal. It is just a le there
just woke. Well, there are some myths that need to
be torn down. I'll give you an easy one. Over
the past like ten years, the myth of Reagan has
really suffered, has really suffered a lot of people look
back on Reagan now and they'll talk about amnesty, the
what's the one, the eighty six gun ban which BA
which basically made it so that machine guns now, if
you want to own a machine gun, you have to
put is like twenty five thirty thousand dollars. You can't
manufacture new ones, things like that. So, but also just
that Reagan, Reagan really didn't do anything to tear down
the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union fell, fell it from
its own weight. And once you realize that, once people
started realizing that, it's like, so, what did Reagan do? Really?
I mean, he was give amnesty to a lot of
a lot of people who are here illegally or people
who were or here who you know, hadn't done hadn't
gone through the process properly and just a host of
other things. And he, you know, also paved the way
for you know, for Clinton, for Clinton to come in there.
And I don't know if he paved the way so
much Clinton. I think Clinton was inevitable. Clinton was because
when you have when you have a managerial regime, it's
going when you have a regime where it's just managers,
where you don't have that where there are no experts.
You know, Thomas likes to talk about if Elon Musk
was fifty years ago, Elon Musk sixty years ago, Elon
must be working in the government. Government used to go
out and find the smartest people, drag them in and
say we need you. You know, but all of these
look at the smartest people in the world, what do
they They're all like tech entrepreneurs. They're all entrepreneurs. They
they I think they saw in nineteen ninety nineteen ninety one,
the writing on the wall was this thing is going
to hell? Were we just we just defeated the Soviet
Union and now they want to go into war in
the Middle East, you know, the first Iraqi invasion. And
you know, you have someone like Bill Clinton who is
just I mean, is a pig. You're you're basically bringing
in somebody who's just no, I've just he's he's not
a statesman. George H. W. Bush was ten times the
statesman that he was. At least you looked at him
and you thought, Okay, this person knows something. Then you're
going to bring in some guy who was running drugs
through Mina, Arkansas, was running the drug trade through Mina, Arkansas.
It's like, come on, come on. And then you bring
George W. Bush in there, and you're like, Okay, now
we have somebody who we have a Bush, we have
a legacy. And then what a couple of years in
they stopped giving him his drugs and he just like
a bumbling full go look at the debates from two
thousand and look at the debates in two thousand and
four and the debates in two thousand and four. He
can't even talk. He's like stumbling over himself all the time.
He's laughing, he's doing laugh tells and all sorts of
weird things.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so all the experts are the competent people
flood government, leaving government to continue on with just managers.
Speaker 1: It's just people and the only thing, the only job
of the managers is to perpetuate government. It's not to
make government better, it's not to make government more efficient.
It is to just make sure the government keeps existing,
so they have jobs and they have some level of power.
I mean, you know what happened. You've seen in your
personal life working wherever you've worked, where somebody gets a
little bit of power and they immediately start it gets
to their head and they start abusing it, and it's like, well,
you know, I can do this now. So tearing down
I honestly believe in order to go forward, in order
for you talked about, you know, what does the future
look like? We tear all this down, and now we
need a new myth. I don't think we can have
a new myth until we destroy that old myth. I
think the myth of World War two needs to be destroyed,
not that Hitler was a good guy, but that there
were no good guys, That sixty million people died, where
when all people had to do was sit down at
a table and talk and yeah, you that has to
be destroyed. It the myth that World War Two had
to happen, and that when it did happen, it was
a good thing and that you know, anybody really but
Russia want so the Union won? I mean, what did
we win? Responsibility for Europe? I guess and responsibility for Europe?
And then what we give give half of it away
to communism? Who we give half of it away to
the to the group that's going to be our enemy
for the next forty one forty three years? Okay? Why
that happened? And then you split Europe down the middle
and you have one people living on one side and
people living on another. And you know, I've read books
that were written back at the time over which side
would it be better to live on? Would it be
better to live on the side where there's communism? But
Stalin isn't telling you you don't have to stop you know,
you don't have to stop being a Hungarian or you
live on the other side, you live on the other
side of the wall where you're it's trying to turn
you into this homogeneous soup of you know, post liberal ideology,
which is really weird. And the way you can tell
this is whenever Germany has elections, look at how the
former East Germany votes. They vote conservative, They don't fall
for the woke stuff. They don't. Well, the Wolke stuff
doesn't go there.
Speaker 2: And by conservative you mean for Germany.
Speaker 1: Were right wing? Yeah, yeah, immigrants out this weaponized immigration
that you know, the immigration into Europe is much different
than the immigration that we have here. Immigration into Europe
is icy as a punishment where they just basically went
into Africa and went into the Middle East and took
every every former gi hottist and empty the mental institutions
and said go to Europe and punished to Europeans for
I mean, what World War two? Being white? I don't know, yeah, close,
it seems like it's you know, Barbara and respector who
was the head of the PADEA. I think that was
the NGO she moved to. She was an American Jew
who moved to Sweden and in two thousand and nine
twenty ten, she was on record as saying Europe has
to become multicultural or it won't survive. I'm sorry, is
that a threat? If the Europe doesn't become multicultural, we're
going to kill it? Or what does that mean? How
is multi How is a multicultural Europe good for Europe?
Or is it only good for one group? Or is
it only good for a certain people of a certain ideology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can see Trump's insofar as he goes as
far as he wants to go or further than we
expected him to go, and does it successfully, you know,
there's going to be some broken eggs whatever that means.
I can see Europe growing either testicles or backbone. And
I think that his more isolationist, I don't like that word,
but more American centric rather than globalist, as opposed to
globalist attitude, demeanor, and activity will allow Europe to stand
on its own, to not be basically vassal states or
you know, just the the progenitors of American idealism, you know,
like the cutting edge of what America wishes it was.
Then they would have to kind of their leadership, or
at least the people will force the leadership to take responsibility,
and then they can kind of figure out what they've been,
Like what is the European identity? I don't know. I'm
the American who like we were fighting the Russians and
then we won. Europe was just they were half Russian
and half American and then they were what like what
are they now? Like a theme park?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean we got the European Union which turns
them into one thing. And I think it was interesting interesting.
I think Trump said yesterday that he's not going to
deal with the European Union, going to deal with with
the individual states. Really, yeah, which is what needs to happen.
You know, European Union is the facto open borders. I know,
people who are European, who are citizens of European Union,
they can go anywhere they want, they can try there
is so and then once you let people in and
you give them residency, so you have the flooding across
the flooding across the Mediterranean from Africa, then you they
go in, they get there. The people who run I
mean Germany seems to me it's Germany suicidal. They if
they want to the AfD party, which to me seems
like like maybe like American from forty years ago. I mean,
this isn't like a a not a party that would
even be anything close to national socialism or anything like that,
where they just want to stop immigration. They talk about
getting rid of them, like making them illegal. Then they're
run by like the head of it is like a
lesbian or yeah, like in spokes.
Speaker 2: German government or the elites and the European Union are
wanting to get rid of that party?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And I think the European Union was what
they wanted. They wanted an they wanted a united Europe
under their ideology, where I would say, when I look
at Europe historically, you want Europe to be the separate
countries under their each individual ideologies. But apparently people have
looked back and said, well, over the last century, that
didn't work out too good. I remember when I remember
when the wall fell, when that's it November November ninth,
nineteen ninety, nineteen eighty nine, when when you saw East
Germans coming over coming through the wall and they started
breaking the wall down, and they started talking about German
German reunification. I remember my dad going, well, they better
they better start planting trees on the side of the
CHAMSI lease, so the Germans can march in in the shade.
Like throwing this back in history, because if a united
Germany is a threat to everyone, or or you know,
look at Spain after the Spanish Civil War, which may
may have been one of the most brutal wars in
the history of mankind. When you study it closely, you
it's hard to even talk about the Franco after that
war just said we're on our own here, I mean,
and he did business with NATO and everything, but he
basically said, we are not going to have communism or
we're not going to have leftism here. And after he died,
they did everything, I mean, the people were assassinated to
make that country what it is now. And now you
have Franco and Franco and and Primo Rivera. Their their
body is taken out of the Valley of the Fallen
and disinterred. And because we can't, we can't celebrate Franco
and what he did. Why because he because he he
was one of his country was one of two countries
that really gave the left, gave communism a black eye
in the twentieth century. The first, for instance, so that
no one no one even knows about because they hide
it so well, the Finnish Civil War, but the but
the Spanish Civil War after that, look at so Frank.
So anyone who says Spain is for the Spanish, or
says German Germany's for Germans, or says Americans for America
Americas for Americans, which I'll admit is a much more
difficult definition. We have to you know, we have to
talk considering you know, I would say, you know, Europeans,
then those people are those people are called Nazis, those
people are called fascists. And I think countries are better
off when when they're when their stock gets to decide
what what is happening in the inside of them, rather
than occupying forces. After a World War they killed sixty
to eighty million. Yeah, possibly those are high numbers, but
I mean there's a possibility that it was that high.
Daryl says, sixties.
Speaker 2: Yeah. America for Americans again, we go back to a
place where I mean just practically you can have a
ruling elite that's ethnically homogeneous, and I would even I
wouldn't even go say American for if we go with
America for Americans, we're saying probably wasps in charge, and
then a bunch of ethnic groups that kind of of
fill in niches. And then you can't rid America of
the Native Americans and the blacks. You can't rid the blacks.
They have every claim to anybody who's here any less
than them, But there can be how do I it's
really it's really difficult to even talk about it racially
like some sort of cast system. But it gets back
to the flip side of the post war consensus about
liberal seeing any sort of non globalist solidarity, or any
sort of non propositional solidarity, any sort of genetic or
ethnic solidarity, or even realism or even scientific discussions around
the differences of race as fascism. Like, it's not just
tearing down the post war consensus, but it's also ridding
the world of this boogeyman of fascism, whatever it is,
and really reconstructing whatever it was that is, well the
gravitational force of that black, dark evil thing of fascism,
and really examining, well, what is it, what is it,
what can it be? And is it necessarily genocidal? Is
it necessarily conflict oriented? Because we do have to America
can't go back to it. It never was ethnically pure
or homogeneous. It was never homogenous. Then in the fifties
on a media level, it was kind of homogenized a
little bit. But we are kind of children of the
nineties in a way. We are kind of we have
to make some sort of peace. So I mean, I
guess I'm just trying to figure out how do you
have non fascist fascism or how do you have a
right that isn't isn't whatever fascism means, And then you
have because you're going to have to get the liberals
on board too, because the liberals are the inheritors of
the elite systems, and you can't just destroy them. They're
gonna still be the ones teaching children. You can restrain
them to put like, you know, gag orders around certain
ideologies that they propagate, but they're still the smartest, you know,
block of people on average, So they're still going to
be taking over your managerial sector. And you can't get
away from managerialism managerialism either because of just how many
people there are that need to be managed. There still
has to be some sort of managerial buffer. So I
just don't know, like, what is this fascism that, what's
wrong about it? What's real about it? And where do
we go from here? And what part of that is ethnic?
And how do you deal with the fact that we
are multi ethnic multicultural.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we got into fascism, but I
mean I'll run with it. I mean, all I see
fascistm is is the is nature is how nature is run.
People want to be around people who they want to
be around, and all groups are like that, and forcing
them to integrate is well. I think forcing them integrate
is not fair to any of them, to either group
or or whatever, however many groups it is. And I
think multiculturalism has without an authoritarian bent, has proven to
be a failure. I don't I don't think it's a
coincidence that every time Bernie Sanders talks about a country
that he, you know, thinks is like Norway or Sweden.
Before they were weaponized with immigration from Africa and the
Middle East, these were countries that were homogeneous. A country
like Iceland, a country like I've been to Iceland. They
have a have an app, a dating app there that's
not for dating. It is to put your name and
your potential partner's name in so you can find out
how related you are, because that's that's what that island is.
It's an island at three hundred thousand people who are
basically all related to each other. That's why they there's
no murder rate there when there is a murder, When
there is a murder, it's usually somebody who's visiting there.
It's also a different culture, it's a different people it's
a Northern European people, and they they're also a gigantic
call it. It's called a welfare state, kind of a
welfare state. But also people don't have a tendency to
be okay with welfare when it's for their family. And
you know, that's one of the problems you have here
is as soon as you start welfare here, well now
you have what twenty special interest groups vying for it,
saying it they deserve it more than another group. It
should be more. I should get more of it here.
This group over here they're doing too well to have it.
I mean, I just think that homogeneity is, you know,
people who can embrace a culture, then those are the
people that should be together. And if that's called fascism,
I mean, if so be it. Whatever. Most people just
wanted to associate fascism with with Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany,
and I mean they were national socialists and they were
very different from the Italians in their belief and in
their structure. So you know, fascism is just basically a
fjard of it at this point for people, it's a
hurl at people to shut them down, to just shut
anyone who wants to have a conversation that is opposed
to the post war consensus or liberalism or progressivism, than
they're they're a fascist. And that's fine. I don't I'll
take all the names as long as there is like, well,
why are you calling me this? If you're calling me
this because I believe this, well I believe this. Whatever
label you want to put on to it is fine.
But when you do something like when when the wolk
right thing came around, I mean that was just literally
like after October seventh, I noticed this, uh, this new
propaganda that because the first people who were openly protesting
Israel's response in Gaza were like leftists on campus, like
what you would consider campus leftists, anyone on the right
who actually was like yeah, this is wrong too, Well,
you're just a leftist then, or if you say, if
you try to talk about how like where where the
like maybe what the backgrounds of everyone in the Frankfort
school was, you know, A wait a minute, now you're
you're now you're identifying people by their by what they are,
like like like the left does with white people. So
now you're woke. So you're a leftist. Now, okay, whatever.
I mean, I'm whatever, how do you do this with
people in the United States? It's in the United States.
I think it's very easy. We have to allow people
to have freedom of association and people to move wherever
they want, and we have to allow for some kind
of de facto secession. If not, Djeri, I mean, if not,
you know, real secession. And I think that's really the
only way going forward. And I think you're seeing you're
seeing it already. I think you really started to see
it in twenty twenty when I mean, you know how
many people I knew personally move who moved to Florida
in twenty twenty to get away from the COVID regime
of states they were in or soon after in twenty
twenty one. I mean, I lived right outside of Atlanta
in twenty twenty one, and I couldn't get out of Atlanta,
get out of that area quick enough because it was
still it was still bad. It was even the governor.
Even though the governor would would be like, all right,
you know, know all this COVID resime stuff goes away,
you still had them pushing mandates. You still have I mean,
like vaccine mandates for selling companies Oh, it's okay for you.
You know, you're a private company. You can do whatever
you want if you want to mandate that they have
to work, but then they would put pressure on them
to do it. So I think the easiest thing is
that people just need to break up and people need
to go and and I know of I know this happening.
I know it happening in one place specifically where it
seems to be very organic, where it wasn't planned. I
know another place where it's a planned community. And as
soon as as soon as like post war consensus, people,
you know, liberals, people who've butt into the liberal progressive
worldview find out, they immediately say they're fascists. Oh look
at all these fascists moving into the same community so
they can all be together. What are they planning on doing.
Maybe they're just planning on getting away from you. Maybe
it's just that simple. Maybe these people think that, yeah,
you people are you know, the people in the White House,
this deep state are going to cause World War III,
and that missiles are going to fly, and that nukes
are going to fly, and they're getting somewhere where they
think that they can wait it out and they won't
touch them. Why don't you mind your business? Just mind
your business. I don't care what these people do in
New York. I would love to see New York waldoff
and watch them meet each other. Because they can't produce anything.
They can't grow their own food. They can't They rely
on everything from the outside. They rely on basically everything
from all the people they hate. You know, the area
I live in is one of the big If you
buy eggs in this country, a good chance comes from
the area I live in. Beef two. Okay, what if
we just stop that? Okay, you where's your food coming from?
It doesn't have to be like that. All you need
to do is all we need to do is leave
each other alone. We can even trade, we can even
do we can even trade, we can do business. But
when it comes to our culture, leave us alone and
you can have your culture up there. And I still
think there's going to be problems with that. I still
think that, you know, if they'll look over and be like,
you know, these progressives will be like, okay, so we
split up and we don't have to deal with these
people anymore. We can make all the laws we want
and everything about you know, abortion up to nine months
and one day we don't care. Wait a minute, they
banned abortion over there. They can't. But then again, there's
people on this side of the this side who would
be like, look, they have abortions to nine months and
one day we have to go do something. Yeah, you can't.
You can't get away from this. So what is what?
What is the answer? I don't know what the answer
is to that impulse now when I know that there
are there are cultures all over the world that completely
offend me. Yet if I had control of the government,
I would not want to go over there and even
engage them. I just would not do business with them,
not have any relations with them whatsoever. I'm willing to
leave people alone. The problem is is that one thing
these progressives and liberals and post war consensus people has proven,
have proven they're never going to leave us alone.
Speaker 2: So I mean, what is the how do you impose
restraints answers? Yeah, it's like I've been going through mentious
mollbugs work Again, there's these really fun somebody through unqualified
reservations into an Orson Wells AI. So you have Orson
Wells reading IRB and it's hilarious. It's very funny, buddy,
I was listening through why I'm not a libertarian, and
he just he kind of gets into he gets into
the circular logic of like a minimum government or what
restrains government? How do you have a limited government, because
you need to have a government that limits government, So
ultimately you don't really have a limited government. You have
a total government that decides to leave some things alone, apparently,
And I think that from the liberal point of view,
the classical liberal point of view, they I think that
everybody wants power. Everybody wants to be able to tell
her everybody else wants what to do. And the liberals
edge on that is to say, I'm going if you
give me all the power, that was cool. If you
give me all the power, I'll tell everybody else not
to do anything.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: If you give me all the power, then I'll protect
you from people who will tell you what to do.
So I'm going to tell everybody what to do.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's that repressive tolerance thing. And because there's a even
if you talk about just the whites, you have the
whites that want to control everybody and the whites who
want to be left alone because they're smart enough to
get along to go along. And then there's the midwits
who want to have this really cozy managerial state that
gives lip service to some sort of deracinated patriotism. It's
not tied to the land, it's not tied to any
given people. It's tied to these ideas, and anybody who
can plug these ideas into their head can just become
a liberal. And that's who belongs in this country, and
everybody else doesn't belong in the country. But they still
want to control, They want to control the Overton window.
I love it. It's it's hilarious to me that the
people who were kicked out of the left for being
moderates are now trying to police the right for not
being moderate enough.
Speaker 1: Always happens, and I.
Speaker 2: Understand, I understand the impulse, But the right still does
need to make the case for itself clearly to people
who are scared or who are who have bought into
this deep fear that's implanted within liberalism of authority. Like
the right, the authoritarians need to articulate what true authority is.
And I see a lot of it. I try not
to make it identity politics, but I see a lot
of it. And this is this isn't about women or men.
But I see a lot of liberals who have forsaken
authority or have just deep daddy issues. Ultimately they end
up acting out like this more and more feminized sort
of war mongering, which is about reputation destruction, because they
don't really have a sense of obedience and authority or
loyalty either. They have these ideas. And one of the
things that attracts me to the online right, the dissident right,
whatever it's morphing into is that you have a number
of different men, specifically men who've kind of decided to
stand on their own feet and make peace with hierarchy
and then start to experiment with scaling that hierarchy. And
I see the liberals being really really scared of hierarchy
for psychological reasons, but also because they don't think that
I they don't think that hierarchy should exist anymore, or
they should be at the top of the hierarchy. So
I wonder what your explorations of that is, or your
point of view on that is.
Speaker 1: That was a lot yeah crap, no, yeah, well yeah.
Once you start thinking about these things and you realize
just how complicated they are you can just go you
can just talk for minutes and you're just like a
circle and came out. I went all the way out there,
came back here understanding. Oh no, of course. You know.
One thing I would say is you start off talking
about the gatekeepers, how you have these the left left
me types and they come over id the intellectual dork
web types who come over and immediately start to.
Speaker 2: Pure my people. Just to be totally.
Speaker 1: Clear there, they're a bunch of dorks. It's fine, I'm
a dork too. There's a lot of things I'm a
dork on, all right. But you know, one thing that
I noticed about the left and the right just hasn't
figured out. I guess if there's one thing, one message
that I would like to put out there is when
the left has power, they not only get their radicals elected,
they patronize their radicals. I mean, they become patrons to
their radicals. They'll give them six figure no show jobs,
and I mean all sorts of things. The right cancels
their radicals. Anyone to the right of Jonah Goldberg and
like the con inc kind of world is, they're going
to try and cancel you. And that's one of the
things where the left left me kind of people. That's
what they seek to do, is anyone to their right. Well,
this is dangerous because classic I remember a couple of
years ago James Lindsay put out he said, talking about
the woke that classical liberalism is going to be what
destroys it. And classical liberalism hasn't even started yet. And
there's this, there's this, this meme that's gone around forever,
like real communism has never been tried. Real libertarianism, it's
like real So what real classical liberalism has never been tried.
I think we tried it. I think it's been going on.
I mean, I think classical liberalism was a big inspiration
on the founding of this country. And they study even
though a lot of them were Christians, and a lot
of them were Bible believing Christians, seven day creationist Christians,
they bought into a lot of the Enlightenment. They also
bought into a lot of English legal theory going all
the way back to the Magna Carta and individual rights.
And I agree with individual rights within a collective. If
your individuality, if you wanting to be an individual, destroys
the collective, destroyed it starts to if too many people
decide they want to become individuals and they don't care
about the people around them, Well, I mean, this is
what a multicultural society breeds is. You just don't care
about your own You don't care about people who are
from somewhere else, who are from a different culture as
much as you your own people. And you can even
see that in liberalism, and you can see where you
get people kicked out of liberalism all the time. Or
you have the left left me kind of people who
walk out of liberalism all the time, but most of
the time they're pushed out because they started. You know,
oh you know I'm a radical feminist. Well no, now
I'm a turf. Yeah. It's like I mean, I remember
one time I was just like I just can't get
down with this like trend stuff, and the person called
me a turf, and I'm like, you think I'm a
radical feminist? Are you in? Are you insane? This is
what your bubble is teaching you. I mean that you
would call me a radical feminist someone who I would
repeal the Nineteenth Amendment in a second if I had
the power to do it. I mean, sorry, it's.
Speaker 2: Just if you think.
Speaker 1: Ever since the nineteenth Amendment has has been passed, we've
only had one elected vice president or president with facial
hair JD. Events.
Speaker 2: He's the first one.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's maybe, maybe that's a sign that things are changing.
Speaker 2: The bearded the bearded statesman return it.
Speaker 1: You're going to say something apodraz No, it's.
Speaker 2: A if you look at the pattern of the left
left mes and I guess I kind of had the
same pattern in some form or again the I d
W or kind of how I came into this conversation
and the framework that I was using until I kept
on asking questions. But the thing, the pattern of their
cancelation is that the liberal that decides to stand on
a line or to defend a boundary, whether that's the
differences between men or women, or I don't know, any
sort of encroachment on yeah, any sort of We want
to erode hierarchy, but we don't want reality. So I'm
going to make my stand here. Invariably, it's the line
that they draw that gets them kicked out. And it's
really interesting, it's fascinating psychology because then they get really wary,
they go into the homeless camp, and then they at
once start to try to draw lines, you know, and
try to like arrange the deck chairs for everybody else,
arrange the furniture. But they're always really you can kind
of sense this fear or this wariness in the very
least against the boundary drawing that the right is willing
to accept, Like they don't want the boundaries drawn. So
there's still there's still liberals in that they don't want boundaries,
they want some So they're still trying to figure out,
like they're in this gray area of like they want
some boundaries, not other boundaries. They want to negotiate boundaries,
and I'm there too, I'm like, well, who's going to
draw the boundaries? And like, ultimately I would like this
kind of libertarian marketplace that will allow people to collectively,
you know, live their lives and leave other people alone.
But it's just there's so much middle ground. How do
we carve up that? How do how do we keep
people from imposing boundaries on other people? Well, you need
a boundary maker to do that, So you're back in
this circular logic with authoritarianism. I just get lost in
this question.
Speaker 1: But it always comes back to some form of monarchy.
Whether you want to call it CEO, whether you want
to call it a king, whether you want to call
it executive. Yeah, executive. You want someone to make decisions,
to be the final arbiter, so that you have someone
to blame it on. Tell me right now, who were
on January nineteenth before Trump took office. Name me the
person in the government working in the government, elected or
not elected, who is responsible for what the government has become.
You can't do it. That's what managerialism is. It's just
as endless group of men. You know. I remember people saying,
you know, talk about every once in a while, you'll
have some idiots about, you know, overthrow the government. I'm like,
how would you do that. There's no head to the snake.
There's no head to the snake. You could I'm not
advocating this, I'm using this as an example. You can
blow up Congress while it's in session. Does that end
the government? We've had a president assassinated before, we've had multiple,
but I mean, at least in nineteen sixty three, did
that end the government? No? It is this monster that
just keeps going because it's managerial. There's no one at
the top now in a monarchy, sure, if a monarch
is deposed, is deposed, you have someone who steps in
and takes their place. Okay, at least you know who's
in charge. At least you know who's making the decisions.
At least you know who to blame you. I used
to say this in my libertarian days. It was like,
I think local government is preferable to any kind of
government because you're going to know where your mayor lives. Yeah,
so you can reach out and touch your You can
reach out and touch them. And what I mean by
that is you can knock on his door and say, hey,
I don't agree with this, that any other way. But yeah,
I mean until that's the one thing. Yeah, in my opinion,
one of the reasons World War One was fought was
to end monarchies, was to end you know, and any
kind of monarchical power. I mean, you still had monarchies after,
but they were very parliamentary. I mean even you even
if you go back centuries in Spain, the courts has
pretty much their their version of a parliament ran everything,
and even their elites. When you really dig into their history,
elites were pretty much moving, always moving the king and
queen one way or another. But you still have one
person to blame. You still have one person. You you're
you're gathered, you're you're organized around one person. And that's
what the most that's what the most important thing, in
my opinion, that's what the most important thing is is
one person making the decisions. And I think that person
should have should maybe even have a stake, a financial stake.
And how well the society society does take Liechtenstein. For
most people don't even know about Lichtenstein. His little principality
in the middle in Germany, and it's independent. They have
a king. I think his name is alois Now. His
dad was Hans Adams the Second and I read I
read Hans Adams the second book, the third, The State,
and the third Millennia, and is really really good. I mean,
this is a guy who basically said, if you don't
want to pay taxes, you don't have to pay taxes.
He owns his own he's the CEO of a major
of an international corporation which pretty much funds the whole
this whole principality of twenty to thirty thousand people. Okay,
they've sent people off to war before, but they haven't
been pulled into war what why not. You know, Hans
Harman Hoppat when he wrote his book Democracy, The God
They Failed, very popular book. I I think everyone should
read it because he at least makes the argument. In
the beginning. He takes the stance that monarchy is preferable
to democracy, and he explains why. And he I mean,
he doesn't just explain it in a page. He takes
chapters to explain, Okay, this is the way democracy works,
this is the way monarchy works. And you know what
he basically is his whole goal. And then through a
speech of his from nineteen ninety seven called what must
be Done, which sounds a lot like Lenin's what is
to be Done? And I mean democracy of the God
that Failed is taken from communism, the God that Failed.
His he studied under Habermas in Germany, so I mean
he came out of communism, and you know, he embraced
libertarianism in our hoo capitalism eventually, I can't go as
far as in our capitalism makes absolutely no sense to me,
and it's globalism to me. It's globalist in nature. But
what he said was in his speech what must be done,
is that we need to get down to ten in
the United States, it needs to be ten thousand ligtensteins.
You need ten thousand city states. That's the way you
have order. You have a bunch of people who come together.
You can still have you can still have a confederation
like the country, like how the country started. Where if
there's any feign if there far an adversary, any foreign threats.
But as long as you don't have this big, gigantic,
powerful monol, this leviathan that is you know, always swims left,
as Jarvin says, which it does, then you can you
can concentrate on organizing around what you have in common,
not what your differences are. I mean, basically our governance
now is based upon what our differences are. It's how
do you deal with different warring factions within within a pology.
And they just sure, when Europe was individual countries, you
have the European Union, and you had Germans and you
had Frenchmen. You had sure there were wars, they were
very local, small wars. Every once in a while, you know,
some people be like, well, what about thirty years War?
What about yeah? You know until yeah, but you know
about that because that was an anomaly. You don't know
about the little skirmishes. You don't know about the border
skirmishes because that was something that happened all the time.
But you know about you know, most people don't know that,
like China and India right now are trading shots on
their border. They're trading they're fighting on their own border.
People don't know that China and Vietnam shoot at each
other at the on the border they share all the time.
Why because it's not it that's that's the way it is.
That's the way that that part of the world works.
And that's the way Europe used to work. And we
didn't get World Wars until we had to. You know,
some powerful people decided that monarchy needed to be broken
down and we needed to enter into this age of
American liberalism of yeah yeah, and you know, you saw
what what was what were the white blood cells against that,
It was fascism. And then and then you had that
monster up north called communism and you know this the
Revolution in nineteen seventeen, which just changed everything. Because not
only is Europe or certain European states being attacked after
World War One to become, you know, to become to
change what they are, but they also have the threat
of an international, an international thinking kind of. I mean,
it's anyone who says that Russia was that Soviet Union
wasn't going to invade Europe is absolutely the same. I mean,
they were on the side of the regime in uh,
on the side of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War,
and the Republicans were the Republicans in name only. Their
biggest allies were commune and anarchists and left liberty tarians.
So yeah, to believe that if Spain would have lost,
if Franco would have lost the Spanish Civil War in
nineteen thirty nine, so Union would have had been on
the north, been organized on the north, and would be
organized and would have basically Gibraltar and the south south
of the peninsula. All they would need to do is
to close in and they could take the whole peninsula
of Europe. So how did I get there?
Speaker 2: The World War One? The end of monarchy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, monarchy kill me this threat.
Speaker 2: And then the internationalists, mercantile class, yeah, wanting to and.
Speaker 1: For better or for worse, for better or for worse.
What you had was in Germany you had one person
in charge after you know, before in the intra war
periods in Italy you had the same thing. Well, had
to have a World war to stop that, right, I mean, yeah,
I guess yes, don't. You don't start two countries. Do
not invade another country because they invade a city that
is historically German. They go into a city that is
historically German, like Danzig, because because ethnic Germans are being
killed there by a Polish hunter regime. Oh does this
sound familiar like something that may have happened in the
last ten years that ethnic an ethnic group was in
a neighboring country and they were being killed and slaughtered
by that home country, and then they're the country that
these people were from invaded to stop it. That sounds
like Ukraine and Russia, doesn't it. Huh. History might not
repeat itself, but it certainly has some cycles.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think one other that that dual aspect that
liberals have a problem with is talk about a people
and one person. It's it's the it's like the any
one person that has authority and then one people that
is clearly defined. And I think that they've inherited, We've inherited.
I think everybody's pretty liberal right now. It's really hard
to break from it. That's why Jarvin's work's so fascinating,
because he's doing a lot of work to try to
pop you out of the bubble and see the world
as it was before this bubble that we're in. It's
just it's interesting that this this ability to have a
home and have a king, have have a people, and
have a person and and fit into that cycle or
that that structure and that structure is I think it
can get along with global trade. I don't think, well,
I don't know why you can't have the costco and
trade with China and people having free association have I
don't know how that works with overlapping ethnicities. I don't
know how they all get along with each other with
one person that is of a people lording over everybody else.
I don't know how you go from America to that,
but I do understand the reality of that through history.
Speaker 1: Liberals seem to almost speak of Obama as like a king.
Remember there was like immediately there were things done in
like programs put together in schools where you had public
school kids like singing songs praising Barack Obama. So it
seems like they have no problem with being ruled over
by one person as long as that person, as long
as they agree with that person and like that person
that I'm saying, I just want the same thing. That's
what everyone should have. Everyone should have what they want.
And I'm just saying that. I think that if you
look through history, when you have the most order, you
have the most order when one person is in charge
and you know who, you know who it is, as
opposed to the chaos that we have now. I mean people,
there are legitimately people in this country who are like,
what is Trump doing? Why is he doing this? Why
is he dismantling all this? Because what he's dismantling is chaos.
It's pure. I mean, people are like saying, oh, Trump
is causing chaos. No, he's like by getting rid of
all these departments, which are a lot of them are
redundant to other ones, and a lot of them just
are what fuels this managerialism where you don't have competent
people in charge. You have people who either are looking
to just keep their jobs, so they're growing whatever kind
of power they can in the government. You have people
in the government who get enough power where they can
have personal animal, they can take out personal they have
personal animosities against groups of people or other people, and
they just use that power. I mean, Merrick Garland. We
just had four years of Merrick Garland doing that to
people he didn't like personally. Then you have someone like
Victoria Neulan, who's never been elected to an office, who
orchestrates to war in Ukraine, orchestraates are coup in Ukraine,
then orchestrates it to the point where Putin has to invade.
And this is a person who's never been never been elected.
And I mean, I've made the argument that she's doing
it because she hates Russians, because of the because her
family's from the Palist Settlement, and she blames, she blames,
She'll always blame Russians on what happened to her family
in the Palist Settlement, which I'm going over on a
book now I'm on my show, which you find out
is really wasn't it was their own little kingdom. But yeah,
I mean, so chaos is something that is it's hard
for people to see chaos when they've been basically indoctrinated
into believing that that chaos is order. And I think
that's what this regime is. This regime is just utter chaos.
But because the regime gets to educate people, gets to control.
I mean, some people call the media the corporate media.
I don't call it that anymore. I call it the
regime media. Just when do they ever go against the regime? Well,
when only when somebody who's in power, and they're going
against the regime. They're going against the person who threatens
the regime. I think that most people, if they really
sat down and thought about it, and there's a lot
that won't. You're just I'm also not a populist. I'm
not a populist in the sense that I don't want
to wake I'm not one of these wake up the
masses kind of people, because I think waking up the
masses leads more towards revolutions of seventeen eighty nine and
seventeen ninety three than it does seventeen seventy six, which
were insane, which were precursives to what happened in the
Spanish Civil War. But the I think that people are
if you're going to have drastic change like Trump is doing,
people need to be ready for it so you don't
have a revolution. The worst thing any leader wants is
a revolution because it's just going to They want power,
they want to be able to that. You people will
be able to if they really look at what he's
doing and what he's trying to do. And I don't
know that he's going to go all the way. Probably not.
That's probably going to be a multi generational thing, and
I'm fine with that. I'm fine with trying to delay
the groundwork for that. They'll see that what's on the
other side is much preferable to what we have now.
You're I mean, what is the left. The left is
about fighting. They're about just constantly constant revolution, constant revolution
against any against what they've been taught is the enemy, fascism, traditionalism, religion, whatever.
You don't have to fight. You just have to separate.
You just have to go find your own people and
allow association to be for and more importantly, allowed disassociation
to be free. You don't have to celebrate it. You
just have to accept that it's what's best for the future.
Speaker 2: Peter, I didn't know I was going to get into
when we spoke. I and thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. Thank
you very much for giving me the ability to kind
of embarrass myself by rambling a little bit trying to
find the questions and stuff. But I really enjoyed your
presence and your openness to letting me your riff. Where
can people find you? And what are they going to
find when they get there?
Speaker 1: The Peekenana Show all Podcatcherspete substack dot com. My substack
is I try to at least three days a week
rant just you know, stuff that's on my mind that
specific day. But my podcast is more towards a lot
of history. I've done, you know, myself and Thomas seven
seven seven have done a We have a twenty four
episode World War Two from the from the German point
of view, which is something that actually that Daryl Cooper
is doing right now, world War two from the German
point of view, German point of view. We've done World
War One, We've done the Cold War. The Cold War's
another series that we've done. But I mean I've done
I've covered everything from the Spanish Inquisition on my show
to just talk you know, some episodes just have a
friend on and we'll talk about current events and see
what's going on. What most people would consider to be
from a far right perspective or dissident right, which I
don't even know what that means anymore. It's one of
those things, like you know how alt right just came
and went. I think dissident right is coming and going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you can't be a dissident when it looks
like things might be going in your direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's really it's really difficult. And I've always said
I'm not one of these people. I think there's a
lot of people out there who they want things to
stay bad because it gives them content. I've always said,
I'll just become a sports podcast. I would love to
have a hockey podcast if if I got the world
and the society that I want to live in. But
the Pekiniana Show Pete subsec dot com. I'm also a
member of the Old Glory Club. We talked about people
getting together who are of like mind and everything, and
we're putting together charter charter chapters all over the country
where people come together fraternity support each other, do whatever
they want. They can be. They can be a group
that wants to run for get someone elected to local office,
or they can want to just go fishing and drink beer.
It doesn't matter. But yeah, my show is what I've
been doing for this will be July, will be eight
years Oh wow, And yeah.
Speaker 2: We started about the same time. I started in June.
Will be my your anniversary.
Speaker 1: What sparked that July July of twenty seventeen, Yeah, probably humors, thinking, thinking,
thinking that I could do fifteen episodes on what my
ideology was at that time, political ideology, which now I
look back on and I laugh because it seemed to
be so outside the realm of reality. And there's some
good stuff there, but it seems to be so far
outside the realm of reality as to how especially twenty twenty,
twenty twenty really showed me that people don't want to
be free, people aren't going to start mass movements to
stop government overreach, and that people are just sitting around
waiting to be told what to do and what to believe. Unfortunately,
which it wasn't like that, but it is. So Yeah,
that's me. That's what I've been doing.
Speaker 2: Peter, Thank you very much. I gotta wrap up the
episode now, so I'm going to end the recording, but
thank you very much for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: Of course, Benjamin, thank you very much.