Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe yourself Stack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star And
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan yonasshow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together onkindinal philosophy, it's all because of you. And yeah,
I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough.
So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com. Everything's there.
I want to welcome everyone back to the Peaking Yona
Show by popular demand, people ask for this, Ron Dodson
and Ferrous modad Or Back, gentlemen, I hope you're doing well,
and we're just going to jump in because we're already
deep into a conversation before this. So, Ron, you were
talking about Asia. Talk about Asia.
Speaker 2: Well, the President went over there and there were some
there were you know, some headline things about agreements with
tariffs and and and that all is is very important.
I think Trump is very good one on one meeting
with leaders. I think he is a relationship guy rather
than and I you know, an idealistic type, and I
think that's that's always good. And he's absolutely America first,
so he's going to build these relationships and communicate, uh,
the importance of America's self interest.
Speaker 3: So that's good. But one of the things that I
think went.
Speaker 2: Uh, went you know, kind of under the radar that
is important is that East Temor joined the ac Ean Group,
the ACEN Group, which really functions as a US aligned.
Speaker 3: Soft aligned block.
Speaker 2: And there's a sense I'm getting that as we move
more towards a Monroe doctrine, where look, the Western hemisphere
or the America's hemisphere is the United states sphere of
influence and our considered near abroad, and we can talk
about Venezuela later on that we're moving towards a realist
formulation with the Chinese and understanding, look, you have a
near abroad as well, but we need to we need
to make sure you know where that near.
Speaker 3: Abroad ends for our purposes, and.
Speaker 2: Giving Australia and the Christian nations in the archipelago just
north of Australia, giving them a little bit of tactical space,
if not strategic depth. And so I thought that was
one of the more interesting things. It hasn't been. It's
it's foreign policy, uh weeds, you know, it's it's deep nerdery.
But I think for me that was one of the most,
if not the most interesting thing to come out of
the trip.
Speaker 4: Okay, and in terms of the whole tariffs thing and
and the trade relationship with China. What are your thoughts there?
What are you how do you see it? I?
Speaker 2: Uh, well, it seems like Trump and and we can
we can debate the we've talked about this before, the
wisdom of going shock and awe with the first round,
you know, the uh the UH Liberation Day.
Speaker 3: I guess as it was called.
Speaker 2: But I think he's moved more towards Bessant having being
the strongest voice in his ear. Bessont's been pretty right
on everything he said. Again, Bessn't you know, has different
personal proclivities than do I or any of the three
of us. But he's been he's been very very good
as not just a Treasury secretary, but a but a
glow kind of global macro voice of wisdom in Trump's ear.
So I think I think that the the agreements, the
South Korean Agreement and the Chinese agreement are are just
further steps and saying in resetting the world order, that
we're moving away from a neoliberal post war setup where
everyone could kind of live at our expense to hey,
we have to have rational self interest, and some might
question the rationality at times. I mean, Trump sometimes is
just going to say what he's going to say to
try to move the needle, but that we as a
country and as a power block have self interest and
those self interests are or are going to be upheld,
and we're going to move primarily for what is good
or for what Trump at least thinks is good for
the American people. The American citizen to be more specific.
So I don't see I don't see any real tactical
secrets being revealed by these agreements. I just see the
strategic the strategic thrust being re emphasized.
Speaker 4: Okay. I mean my take on some of the on
some of China's behavior when it comes to restrictions on
rare earth magnets and things like that, is that they're
getting ready for a day where they are more effective
in their sanctions, where their ability to sort of force
decoupling on their terms is more robust. And for me,
that seemed like them getting ready for the actual invasion
of Taiwan and for the actual war that I think
kind of everybody sees coming, although it's debated, well, they
won't they but it seems to me that the Chinese
are putting in place the bits and processes, or the
bits and pieces for the administrative processes that allow them
to restrict trade in a way that slows down Western industry.
And that means that if it becomes a shooting war
over Taiwan, they have a big head start because they
have access to all of these resources and the doesn't.
And you're sort of seeing that in Europe with the
Volkswagen is more or less on its knees really, and
between Volkswagen and Siemens, that's the German economy, and that's
the German economy, meaning that's the European economy. So it
seemed to me that some of the stuff that Chinese
were doing was preparation for being able to sanction the
West much more effectively and cut access to critical components
relating to lenses, relating to engines, relating to magnets and
rare earth minerals that put them in the pole position
when the shooting starts and everybody has to to sort
of rev up their manufacturing capabilities. So the West would
then have to figure out how do they get rare
earth minerals, how do they do the refining and all
of that. They get the industrial environment that allows them
to manufacture weapons independently, which the West currently doesn't have,
and everybody who's doing drone contracts and things like that
is panicked about making sure that none of their components
are linked to China because they know that when the
day comes, they won't have access to these components. But
that's making everything much more expensive for the West and
slowing it down essentially.
Speaker 2: Well for Oz, I think I agree, although I think
this is redefining. I think what we're seeing is a
redefinition of what is mutually assured destruction. In other words,
no longer is it just nuclear weapons. I don't think
China wants war with the United States. I think the
smart people in the United States uh want absolutely nothing
to do with a war over Taiwan.
Speaker 3: Uh. Some do.
Speaker 2: There's the the neocon spirit is alive and well, and
it doesn't just move eastward, it also moves westward.
Speaker 3: So uh. But look, as a.
Speaker 2: A expert smally expert on aviation military aviation tech, the
latest round of what China's doing is Yeah, I would
say impressive is an understatement. And and you go on
and and uh if if, if anybody wants to follow,
I'll tell you who's a good follow He's not really
super aligned with us, but he's a night he's a
good guy, and he's he's runs one of the best
ocent sites is Tyler Roguay, who.
Speaker 3: Does uh uh the uh oh good night.
Speaker 2: I'll I'll look up the you can follow him on Twitter,
but he has a he has a great site, uh
that used to be part of the Jelopnik Network believe
it or not, but started doing UH military tech open intelligence.
He's really good. But they the latest round of picks
that we've seen of both the fighter and the Fighter bomber,
these are not crude prototypes. These are very well executed
UH manufacture pieces that are we're already seeing round two
in the case of the three engine fighter bomber, the
tail ess Fighter bomber that that that they've been flying
in prototype form.
Speaker 3: Very very impressive.
Speaker 2: They've they've got their emails now working the the the
steamless launch system for their latest UH well, the latest
in the water UH carrier is now doing their stealth
fighters are now launching and capping on the H on
their on their carrier, so they have that up and running.
So things are moving quickly a a any kind of
shooting war for Taiwan. I think if it were up
for me and we're just you know, if it were
up to me and I'm Secretary of State and I'm not.
Speaker 3: And Rubio is. Although Rubio has been better than I.
Speaker 2: Expected, He's absolutely not one of us from a from
from you know, he still leans pretty neo con But
but I would, I would, I would have a negotiated
settlement on Taiwan, you know, already in front of China,
and if you can just push it out fifteen twenty years,
but already get that in the books, so that everyone
can be planning, because we're not gonna go. The last
thing you want is to you know, kill twenty percent
of the Taiwanese and fifth in you know, thirty thousand
US sailors, soldiers and airmen in a fight that far
away from home. When China, China doesn't want to threaten,
I mean, they will step on our neck if they
think it's in our best interest, I mean in their
best interests. But but I do do I think the
Chinese want a shooting war. No, what I do think
is they want every lever to make us come to
the table and capitulate. And and that's why this Bisson
truce UH is important because it showed that they were
they were willing to UH release you know, the immediate
pressure on tariff's rarer, earth SAG purchases, fintal enforcement, And
does it solve everything? It does not. We're gonna have
to probably gonna have to mind some in Tennessee, in Missouri, UH,
in these difficult places to get our own rare earths.
We're probably gonna have to come to terms with the Russians,
who are the other big rare earth supplier, but that's
going to take time because the current mood in Washington
is very anti Russian. It's still you know, uh that
That's kind of how I see this uh moving right now.
How it ultimately shakes out, I don't know. I hope,
hope it's peaceful, but we'll see.
Speaker 4: Okay, Okay, for the audience, I think you're referring to
the ability of the Chinese to launch aircraft using electromagnetic catapults.
Speaker 3: Yes, as opposed to.
Speaker 4: Doing it with this sort of old fashioned way that's right,
which they never properly mastered, but now they've still did
not judge and EMACS technology, which which they seem to
have just seemed to be doing well.
Speaker 2: Now the emails allow you to instead of you just
get the raw thrust of the steam catapult system provides
a lot of power. It's reliable in the sense that
you can, you know, fire up the boilers, get the
steam going. The emails, on the other hand, can is
an accelerative process. Therefore, you can carry much more weight
and put less stress on the airframe, specifically on the
on the landing gear and so forth. And so it's
it's long run, much better on the aircraft, and it
provides for more capability. It's just a better system. We've
struggled with getting ours to work. They've kind of leap
frog past that. Matter of fact, I saw some reference
to where Trump was saying they need to retrofit the
Forward class with steam. You know, I can't imagine that,
but we'll see, okay, okay.
Speaker 1: So when it one of the things that one of
the reasons people voted for Trump and supported Trump was
we understand that if we don't have our own manufacturing,
we were not sovereign. If we especially if we don't
have our own military manufacturing, we're not sovereign. What is
there any movement away from that? Now? You can say, well,
you know, we just need to build China keeps doing
what they're doing, and we need to build alternative, just
build additional. But it seems to me if we're going
to actually be sovereign, we're going to have to cut
China off, start cutting them off of certain services. Is
that in the works? Is that I've where is that
to be seen? Anywhere in the States. What's being built here?
Speaker 4: What is.
Speaker 1: What are we divorcing from China over? So yeah, I mean,
what are you seeing when it comes to manufacturing?
Speaker 3: Bharah's why don't you start on that one?
Speaker 4: I am briefly, it's a fifteen to twenty year process,
and the fact that there's this question on will this
be necessary? Will this be necessary? Create some hesitancy on
the part of investors. The flip side is that the
uncertainty on tariffs is also probably going to encourage manufacture
to go to the United States because they understand that
this genie won't be put back in the bottle, meaning
that the issue of tariffs is going to be repetitive,
meaning that you're better off being based in the richest markets,
which is always going to be the United States, especially
under a socialist Europe. So it's not happening at the
speed that people imagine it might happen because it is
a fifteen twenty year process. And there is a point
to be made about military manufacturing here. You can't have
military manufacturing without a supportive environment of every other kind
of manufacturing. Military manufacturing is not a unique thing. It's
a byproduct of strong manufacturing ability in a range of
other areas that have military applications. Now, the United States
had a bit of a unique course in that a
lot of the technologies initially intended for the military ended
up having massive civilian applications. But in a shooting war, normally,
unless you're like the United States and isolated by an
ocean from everyone else, you're not really prioritizing huge amounts
of R and D for the sake of R and D.
Your R and D is iterative and focused on what
is working in the field and what isn't working. And
even then your best bet is to have a bunch
of existing manufacturing infrastructure that you can do this experimenting in.
And so you had Hitler sort of testing different kind
of German big manufacturers that already existed to see which
one is going to produce the best tank. You had
all of the auto industry in the United States being
repurposed to produce parts for planes and armored vehicles and
tanks and so on and so forth. So it's not
that you can focus only on military manufacturing. That's a
bit of a I think that's a bit of a myth.
I think you need a huge manufacturing base where you
pick and choose bits and pieces that go into your military.
And so there's a bit less incentive to do that
if you think that you're still going to be manufacturing
in Cambodia or in Vietnam or wherever. And so the softly,
softly approached that Trump is trying to take is understandable
in the American political context because he has to worry
about a midterm election within a year of being elected,
and then after the midterms he has to worry about
another presidential election and on and on go, meaning that
there's a lot of short term thinking. That short term
thinking favor is making temporary agreements. But if you're China,
you never trust any of these agreements because you are
using them as stepping stones to achieve your actual objective,
which is to become the new hedgemon. And so on
the industry side, you hear a lot of noise. Trump
throws out a lot of numbers. Most of these numbers
are so far commitments and sort of in the air
commitments as opposed to you know, the first bricks have
been laid, and we're laying the foundation stone that we're
starting to build with some of the new tech guys Palmer,
Lucky elon others. They're building in the United States, but
I'm not clear on how much of their supply chain
is fully indigenous. And then there's the fact that there's
an insane amount of environmental regulation and nobody can really
dismantle that in full. And so for a lot of
these minerals, you're probably better off going to Venezuela, or
going to Argentina, or going to other parts of Latin
America that have less restrictions or where you can negotiate
around these restrictions. That's my read on it. And at
the same time, like we are not yet in the
first full year of the Trump administration. We are still
you know, in November. He took power in January. It
hasn't been a full eleven months yet.
Speaker 1: Sure, well, let me let me follow up on Yeah,
let me follow up on that. Okay, So you said
to fifteen to twenty you know, we're all going to
a fifteen to twenty year plan. If we were a monarchy,
a proper monarchy, I'd be a little more you know,
confident about that. But we have a you know, a
democratic republic, and the democratic republic means that there are
going to be new people in power in twenty twenty eight,
and those people in power in twenty twenty eight don't
have this vision. This gets stopped and it gets pushed
out another you know, until somebody comes in or somebody
takes over and ends this anachronistic system and become CEO
for life.
Speaker 4: That's an excellent point because to restate what you just said,
democracy favors managed decline as opposed to revolutionary change. Putin
can execute revolutionary change and can take Russia from the
case of the nineteen nineties to a power that is
sort of challenging all of NATO at the same time,
admittedly in its own backyard, admittedly right across the border
from it. Yes, true, but this is a far cry
from Russia of the nineteen nineties, where pretty much all
industry had to collapse. We're pretty much the oligarchs who
were running the show, and you had shootouts at Moscow
between rival gangs.
Speaker 3: You had a recapitulation of what Germany went through after
World War One.
Speaker 1: Almost I was going to say, it just sounds like Wymar.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well in early even pre whymar so.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So basically democracy is favoring this matter's decline because
by definition, the leadership's horizons are short term, and a
massive crash on the stock market, which objectively speaking, is
absolutely necessary, it will be the best thing. Like the
best thing to happen to the United States and to
the West in general, would be the financial industry losing
fifty sixty seventy percent.
Speaker 3: It's called real deflation. Would is in this system.
Speaker 2: Real deflation is necessary ever so often to clear out
the system, and we have built in these safeguards that
keep the system from being cleared out deiglation.
Speaker 3: Is the FED is there.
Speaker 2: Everyone thinks the FED is there to promote what is
what's the dual mandate, stable prices and full employment. The
FED is there to make sure we never have deflation.
That is why the FED is there.
Speaker 4: Exactly, exactly, exactly, And so under this kind of system,
what is favored is matters decline, and that's the fundamental
part of the problem. Like democracy itself is an obstacle
to the reforms that are needed to save the West.
Speaker 3: M mass democracy, virtuous democracy.
Speaker 4: Look it, this is a long conversation, but I'm of
the view that it it naturally erodes virtue.
Speaker 3: Well, sure, oh, I totally agree. I totally agree.
Speaker 2: I I I talk to my and I'm I love
these guys because I used to be more one of them.
But my libertarian buddies, I tell them, libertarianism is great
for the five minutes that it's able to work, and
then but it eats itself.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's this ora boris that that that until there's nothing
left to eat there, it can't reproduce the ordered liberty
that we all want. Nobody wants to, at least I
don't think we just want and and and Pete. You
used to swim in those waters, as did I.
Speaker 3: They don't. They don't really want in their heart of
hearts mogadishu. Right, that's that. But but that's that tends
to be where it goes.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, yes, yeah, I mean free quote unquote free trade.
The free trade we have now. I mean, admittedly it's
not free trade. There's books and books of regulations that
are managing it, but free it's still it's still globalism.
And take away all of those regulations, every single jot
and tittle of them, and you have maximum globalism. So
here's what I wanted. Another thing I wanted to bring
up as far as this goes. Elon was on Joe
Rogan yesterday and at the very end they were talking
about they were talking about basically what he learned in
Doge and everything.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 1: Joe's asking him, how do you how do we solve this?
And you know, he said, basically, he said AI and robotics.
And what are you saying is he's saying, you know,
we need AI is already taking it. Basically, if you're
not doing a physical job, and even some of those
are going away, your job is being taken away. You
coding is is done. I mean AI is doing coding now.
And what he said was he said, we need AI
and we need robotics, and we need them fast. He said,
you know, we're going to have mass unemployment because of
AI and robotics. But the thing is is, he said,
we're not even He goes, if we treat AI and
robotics properly, we're not going to have to worry about
universal basic income. He says something like you like universal
maximalized income. Basically that if we unleash AI and robotics,
And he didn't use this term, but what exactly what
it sounded to me like he was saying was we
are going to get rid of scarcity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his so. So I'm friends with some of the guys.
I don't know Elon, but I know some of that crowd.
And the idea is, you know, it's the EA, you know,
the ethical acceleration folks, and they believe that there is
a logarythmic uh uh productivity, amount of productivity to be
to be unlocked, and that that very that very well
may be the issue is And it gets right back
to what we were talking about, how do you how
do you build AI and robotics if let's say that's
the road you want to go down, and that's a
kind of a different topic for maybe another day, but
but you need all these things that the Chinese. You
are just increasing the Chinese leverage over you know, the West.
And at the same time, and I know that this
is a everybody, if you're playing the Ron Dotson drinking game,
get ready to take a big swig. United Eurasia under
where we've pushed all of of Eurasia under the Chinese
wing is death to the West because all these things
that we need to unlock any type of productivity expansion
are controlled by China. At the same time that we
are doing everything possible to drive Russia into their arms.
And Russia is the other supplier of these things. And
so I'm I think we're gonna, you know, Trump being
kind of a real estate a little bit of private
equity guy. Right now, I see a whole lot of
kind of lend and extend, just like it's going on
in private equity right now to where can we just
push the date out far enough, you know, to where
I don't you know, I'm dead or I don't have
to worry about it kind of thing, And eventually that
bill comes due. Eventually that bill comes due. I mean,
we could start today picking up on what Pharaohs was
talking about. We could start today with a united We're
gonna mine every bit in this hemisphere. In the Zezuela
has some minerals. Columbia down further towards the western coast
of South America, there's a lot of minerals down there.
We could go full board. That's a that's a ten
if we started today, that's a ten year time horizon manufacturing,
a real ramp up. You know, this isn't nineteen forty
one anymore. Forty two. That's a five year that's under
current the current regulatory environment. That's a five year you know,
project minimum. So you know, either either we have some
pretty and revolution is like civil war. It gets really
messy in it, and I don't like using those terms.
But without some type of vanguardian movement that that that
greases some of these skids so that things can happen
easier quicker, we're in there.
Speaker 3: We don't hold a lot of.
Speaker 2: Cards there, and it's it's a bit scary, you know,
having eleven or ten right now, ten carriers to put
in the water in any you know, eight in the water,
maybe six at any one time. And in the world
of drones and phased array at three three stage phase
array radars, they just don't that. That's not how you
project power anymore, not not to peer competitors anyway.
Speaker 4: You're absolutely right, You're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Well, I think nuggu aide fairs.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to sort of make a quick comment
on the point of end of scarcity. This has been
promised time and time and again. Yeah, like scarcity doesn't end.
It's impossible to end scarcity. And everybody who thinks that
it's a d x X messin it doesn't actually work.
It never happens that way, There's always going to be
need for something, and there's always going to be a
competition for resources. And so if this competition can be
done in a way whereby UFS, Venezuela, Argentina and therefore
maybe the rest of Latin America to become a proper
resource supplier that replaces China, that allows the United States
to build up its industries independently of China. First, you're
competing with the Chinese there. Second, Latin America is becoming
increasingly socialist. Always had this problem with socialism, always had
this issue with it. It's a very old story there
and it never seems to go away. And one thing
that should be mentioned is that though the Israel issue
has helped radicalize more of Latin America against the United States,
even more than it already was the case, and so
the whole foreign policy at this stage seems to be unbalanced.
My view initially was that what Trump would be trying
to do, based on his statements, was to just get
that reconciliation with Russia done, and through that reconciliation be
able to build a containment policy targeting China, whereby Russia
can work with South Korea, with Asian with Japan, who
all have an interest in containing China. The Russians don't
want to be a Chinese client state. They have their
own egos, they have their own pride, they have their
own history. And the Chinese attitude is so focused on
making money today with so little regard for relationships tomorrow,
that they are impossible to have as an ally. So
there was this window of opportunity there, and you saw
that with the sort of with the beat down the
Zelensky got in the White House, and you saw that
with the constant humiliations that Trump inflicted on pretty much
every European partner who visited him, not least Britain Skier
Starmer where you know, there were comments about his suit
referencing to the fact that this homosexual Muslim donor was
giving him money to buy suits, et cetera, et cetera,
But it didn't come to anything, like he couldn't pull
the right levers somehow to make the Ukraine war end.
And the reason he couldn't make the Ukraine War end
was because of the attachment to NATO. And if you
remember NATO's expansion, first they took Central Europe, Poland Czechos
like the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Then they tried
to flank Russia on both the Black Sea and the Baltics,
to make sure that Sevastopol in Crimea was contained in
the Black Sea and that Saint Petersburg was pretty much
surrounded with the with the Baltic states. Putin's demand when
the war started was roll back NATO and the Eastern
expansion and roll back NATO pull back. None of this happened,
and Trump wasn't able to make this happen. So instead
the policy shifted to let's milk Europe as much as possible.
Let's get the Europeans to pay for the weapons at
a time when Italy, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom
all have one hundred percent that to GDP and pretty
big deficits. And that's now the policy. The policy is
sug just extract as much as possible from Europe. Tried
to consolidate Latin America, use European talent, European capital, and
Latin American resources to build up American industry. And on
the sidelines, there are these things with China that are
intended mainly to manage their relationship and prevent an all
out breakdown of their relationship because of what this would
do to the prospects of the Republicans in the midterms
and in the next presidential election. So it's sort of
back to matters decline.
Speaker 2: Really well, I want to really pick up and expand
on something you said there, because to me, uh, to me,
it really does seem like the key to unlocking a
lot of these doors is some type.
Speaker 3: Of approachment with Russia.
Speaker 2: Yes, because what's keeping Let's be honest, if we've got
to if if if if Russia is the bad guy,
then you have to have NATO because you have to
have Turkey.
Speaker 3: I mean, why are we allied with Turkey? You know
Turkey is this is not a good actor? Uh these
or this is but they control the Bosporus Dardennell complex
for ingress and egress out of the Black Sea. They
came into NATO for the purposes of being the staging
place for shorter range nuclear missiles.
Speaker 2: And we've just never gotten past that supposed need. But
if we had approachment with Russia, that all goes away,
and that also takes away some of the pressure for
we're one of the reasons we're such big pals with
with Israel. Is to balance that tiger that we've got
locked in our bedroom in Turkey. And if so, if
all that need goes away, then all these things become
less quote unquote mission critical. And yet, so what's driving
I mean, we all know the answer, or maybe it's
more nuanced than I think, But what is driving that
intense desire in the American foreign policy apparatus, regardless of administration,
to be so vehemently anti Russian?
Speaker 3: Is it religious? Cultural?
Speaker 4: Is it just?
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 2: Is it ethnic tensions that you know we may or
may not want to get into. Is it political system?
What is it that continues to drive this this what
I consider something to be really hurting us acting in
our rational self interest?
Speaker 4: My answer is that Americans are thinking like BRIT's in
a real way. The It's really interesting for me that
the first country with which Britain signed a free trade
agreement after Brexit was Turkey.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm, because talk talk talk about that, because this
is very interesting. People don't know about it, but but
talk through that because I think, I think this is
to me, this is the this is the key that
helps everyone unlock understanding into what's going on in foreign policy, right,
it makes everything makes sense, at least to me.
Speaker 4: Why Turkey, because Turkey is the natural counterbalance against both
fronts in the Mediterranean and Russia. And that's always been
the British way of thinking. We need a Muslim ally
to keep the Muslims on side and keep the Russians
out of Central Asia, which is stupid at this stage, right,
and to keep the Russian goes.
Speaker 2: Back to Kaibar Pass cyber Pass, great game stuff, right exactly.
Speaker 4: To keep the Brits out of India, which is stupid
at this stage, given the relationship between Russia and India
and the enmity with France. I mean, okay, that's interesting,
but neither of you is really a power at this stage.
And what you ought to be thinking of is some
kind of united Christendom. But given Anglican versus revolutionary, Catholic, Republican, whatever,
France is right now, it's a very confused country. It
doesn't know what it's there for other than to be
proud of being French, or the pride in French language
as a sort of replacement for something much deeper. Instead
of thinking of united Christendom, you still see the sort
of very parochial thinking on the part of the British establishment,
and in a way, that is where policy ends up going.
Because for all of the debates that had in the
United States are way more sophisticated than the debates that
are had in Europe, the dumbest argument in Europe, which
is that we need to we need Turkey to contain
Russia and to contain France, is still the one that
informs policymaking in the United States. Somehow, I don't understand
how that happens. I don't get it, but it does
and it keeps on happening. Powell had a fear of
the United States being so dominant against Europe and destroying Europe,
to the extent that he advocated allying with Russia even
under the Soviet Union, to contain the influence of the
United States.
Speaker 1: Now sounds like he was reading Francis Parker Yaki, there
you go.
Speaker 4: Now we're in this weird situation where rather than the
Americans and the Russians thinking, well, we can carve Europe
between us and that'll be it, you have the Europeans
somehow imposing a veto on the United States freedom of
action to insist on maintaining the war in Ukraine because
in part that's all they have going and because in
part Putin is the antithesis of what they are. He's
a bit of a liberal, quite a liberal by Russian standards,
but he's also natural resources, pro domestic industry, pro Russian strength,
and a Russian nationalist with a small.
Speaker 3: N yeah, Ortho nationalist really yeah.
Speaker 4: And most of the criticism against him is from his right,
like criticism against him from his left is not really
in any way a threat to him right. And so
the Europeans and the British don't want somebody like that
succeeding because that could influence Europe. But Europe is a
client of the United States in terms of security, and
its ability to impose this veto is really really strange.
I don't understand how that happens. But again, it goes
back to the rules of the game. It goes back
to the fact that the Trump administration still accepts the
old rules and the old institutions, when in reality, these
rules and these institutions have brought nothing but disaster on
everyone that's been following them. The West has never been
weaker since nineteen fourteen, since nineteen forty five, like the
two World Wars and the settlement that ended them proved
to be disastrous for the West because Europeans for the
first time fully embraced liberalism, and it was imposed on
them by the Americans as a way of managing Europe
and keeping it on site to prevent the rise of communism.
And good communism is evil, fair enough.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but we just did our version, you know. It's
it's it's.
Speaker 4: Like everything you hear about taxation policy from the EU,
the fact that you work, you know, two out of
every five days for the government in any average European
country on an average income, Like in a seventh day,
in a seven day week, you're off for two days.
You're working for the government for two days, and three
days are actually yours you get to keep that money.
And in some countries even worse, you work three days
a week for the government two days for yourself. Like
that's a form of subjugation that hasn't happened in the
past Europe. And this system needs to be broken, and
the rules that underpin it need to be broken completely.
But everybody's stuck in those rules, and no man is
strong enough to fully break the system, so some kind
of external cataclysm has to break it. And what you
end up having is these high hopes in the new
guy who's going to come in, But the system proves
to be stronger than the man time and time and again.
And that's why people say, well, whatever you vote for
in America, you get John McCain, and whatever you vote
for in Britain you get Tony Blair.
Speaker 1: Well work, and we're we're stuck, We're occupied. Well, well,
Europe is occupied. They're under an occupation regime from the
United States. But the United States has been occupied since
World War Two as well, so you have this gigantic
occupation regime. And what it seems like to do is
the way the reason to if your goal is to
destroy Europe, then you have to cut them off from Russia.
I mean, Europe does not have its own natural resources.
They have to get it from somewhere. The best place
for them to get it is right there, right next
door from Russia. And the problem the problem is is
that and Europe also has a race war in their future.
There is going to be a race war in Europe.
And yeah, so when that happens, the only thing that
you can hope is is that the people who initiate
that to basically kick the invader, or not really even
the invader, the people who've been put there, these you know,
these savages who have been put there to destroy, to
help to destroy Europe and weaken Europe. The best thing
that you can hope is the people who decide to
initiate that war also side with Russia at the same
time so that they can start rebuilding industry, because the
only way Europe is going to be free again is
if they rebuild industry, and that's probably going to be
led by Germany. And Germany seems to be the most cucked,
one of the most cognations out of all of them.
Speaker 4: Pretty much pretty much. The extent to which the Germans
are morally and psychologically broken is unimaginable. And Europe, like
the rest of the West, is in desperate need of
re evangelization. And it's a it's it's at a fundamental
part of the problem that you have these atheist materialists
in charge and you have this ethnic grievance industry. That's
that's that's an operation. And if you look at how
the Muslim bloc are trying to replicate the definition of
Islamophobia by copy pasting essentially the definitions of anti semitism.
Mm hmmm. And the net results seems to be to
prevent any kind of conversation around the uniqueness of European identity,
the uniqueness of European culture, the uniqueness of sub ethnic
identities within Europe, and that they're all connected by Christianity,
and that what brings them together is Christianity. And you
see this flooding of the zone with endless allegations of racism, Islamophobia,
anti Semitism, this, that, and the other. And these are
all copy pasted definitions that are intended to hide a
simple fact, which is that being Italian is different from
being German, is different from being Algerian, is different from
being Jewish. And you see this mental paralysis that comes
as a result. And the paralysis is extensive because it
means that you must accept multi party democracy, one of
the most destructive political systems in the world, with proportional representation,
which is a surefire away of getting full government paralysis
because nobody's ever replaced, nothing ever changes, only the bureaucracy grows,
and the outcome is you stay in permanent managed decline
and that's what's happening. And so the system is strong
enough to keep on creating these bubbles of hope around
AfD led by a lesbian partner with the Sri Lankan
around Reform led by a sort of weird agnostic guy
who's being managed by a Muslim led by Lapan, who's
a bit past her expiry date and incapable of generating
new ideas. She's capable of identifying the problem, But where
are the new ideas led by Maloney who's a complete fake,
complete fraud, And nothing ever changes, nothing ever happens, really
on a really fundamental level. But then what is happening
is that this system, which is you can say it's
built on a house of cards, you can say that
it's built on concrete, whatever you're the analogy that you
want to use is but it's being constantly overloaded, and
whether it's concrete or cards, at some point it will break.
And the question is when does it break? And the
political incentive of everybody elected into office is to make
sure that it doesn't bring during my term in office
so that I don't get blamed for it.
Speaker 2: Right lynd and extent, like we talked to Jim, can
I just push Can I push that time horizon as
far as possible? So question, what what is the ontological
difference between Germany that has gone down this incredible, this
road of failure, even though it has in theory this
incredible industrial base which should propel it. But for all
these reasons we're talking about, you know, politically it's a disaster.
What's the difference between that and Japan, which had a
similar Maybe they didn't participate, you know, they didn't participate
in World War One, So maybe it's two generations versus
lose losing two generations versus losing one. But Japan, who
that seems to be ready and on the cusp of
a reemergence or at least attempting to party state.
Speaker 1: Jews didn't have an ethnic grievance against Japan.
Speaker 4: Well, you'd be surprised. But there's a Jewish lady who's
very heavily promoting immigration into Japan.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, I've done an episode on her. Yeah, I
know that, but I'm talking about organized I'm talking about
organized jewelry. Did not I mean, there was no Morgenthyle
plan for for Japan. Japan was basically destroyed and but ye,
before the before the war was I mean, Oppenheimer was upset,
mostly because he thought that they were going to use
his bomb on Germany and not Japan. I mean this, yeah,
this is that's the reason why Germany is destroyed in
Japan is still you know, Japan, I mean, Japan is
still Japanese look, and Germany is not German.
Speaker 4: I'm not intimate familiar with the JQ and I haven't
done my readings on this, and I don't claim to
fully understand it, but I'm a stupid village boy from Lebanon,
and in Lebanon, everybody knows that an Armenian Christian is
not the same as an Orthodox Christian, is not the
same as a Maronite Christian, is not the same as
a Catholic, like the Catholics and the Maronite, the proper
Latin Rite Catholics versus the Maronites. That's their real grievance
in Lebanon. And so I fully understand that every single
group has its own interests and its own values, and
even when these values are as similar as the values
of Armenian Orthodox and Middle East An Orthodox, there's always
going to be a disagreement over ethnicity. Over church, hierarchy,
over one thing or the other. And so when you
see the West so committed to the idea that the
Jewish people the people of Israel, and they were referred
to as the people of Israel before the emergence of
the State of Israel, like this is not you, you know,
But when you see this commitment to the idea that
the Jewish people are not a separate group with their
own values, on their own interests, and nobody can say
that they have different interests than everybody else, that to
me is simply insane, because everything I know about the
world says to be exactly the opposite, and it says
to me always that a minority that feels threatened will
want other minority allies, and will want to strengthen minority allies,
and will want to weaken the majority out of an
instinct of self reservation.
Speaker 2: And really to define a way a majority through radical egalitarianism.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, the whole meltar it's it's it's radically ganitarianism
is an insane idea, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Of course it is. Yeah, the whole melting.
Speaker 1: Pot crazy, I mean, the whole melting pot, the whole
melting pot. It makes sense when you realize that if
you are a small minority that for two thousand years
or nineteen hundred years, every place you went you stood
out like a sore thumb. You would want every country
that you're in to be a melting pot because now
you blend in amongst the twenty other ethnic groups that
have absolutely you know, overrun it. And I mean, and
I'm not that's not my theory. I mean Jewish Jewish
philosophers have said that Jewish political theorists have said that
we want we want other countries to have as many
ethnicities there as possible, because then we we blend in well, right.
Speaker 2: And even the non Jewish, know, the Bolsheviks, uh and
and everything. This was a you know, which were dominated
you know by Jews.
Speaker 4: I get that.
Speaker 2: But yeah, the whole idea that that I can erase
all differences is that's not just so that everybody gets along.
Speaker 1: There is no So Lenin immediately passed anti Semitism laws.
He said, anyone who anyone who's an anti Semite is
anti revolution is I mean, so, I mean, what is
that I mean?
Speaker 4: And then there was the Soviet promotion of all kinds
of ethnic identities except for the Russian identity right, which
was also a way of making sure that the Russians
wouldn't have a naturalist basis on which to reject commune.
And it worked for two generations, and it worked for
two generations, and it did its job. So this commitment
to the idea of eganitarianism, one of its effects is
that if we're all equal, then we must have a democracy,
because that's the only way in which our equality can
be expressed. And we should ignore the fact that it's
always going to be a bit of an ethnic democracy,
that the blacks get their black candidates, and that they
Hispanic get their Hispanic candidates, and so on, so long
as the whites don't get their white candidates, and it
just becomes more and more destructive. And this system has
become so powerful that no man can actually break it.
The only place where the system where I have some
hope that the system can be broken is Britain, because
the way parliamentary sovereignty works is that Parliament can legislate anything.
There's no constitution here, there's no Bill of Rights, there's
no judicial supremacy, there is no judicial review of government laws.
Like parliament in a series of acts can simply overturn
the entire political system at will. It can do things
like define British identity and it no longer means anybody
with a British piece, with a piece of paper that
says that they're British like the one that I have,
and say the action the actual truth. Anybody whose roots
in Britain trace back to pre nineteen forty five or
pre nineteen forty eight, when the first wave of migrants game.
None of the other countries in the West have that
kind of flexibility in their system. None of them has it.
Will they? That's a pretty big question, which is why
you know Nick fuent As being on Toper Carlson is
become such a big deal mm hmmm, because it forces
an examination of this conversation in a way that isn't bitter.
Kind of it kind of like your conversation Pete with
the with Martin made I forget his actual name, Daryl Cooper,
kind of the same conversation, which is, Yep, this is
a different group, different identity. There's no point in we're Christians,
we don't hate them blindly, but there's no point in
pretending that it's the same identity and the same ethnicity
or that is the same system of values. More importantly,
what what is it that you think? What is it
that you think?
Speaker 2: And I've got I'll just go ahead and tell you
what I think it is because I'm not a I'm
I'm not a grop groper, however you say it.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: But but he really, I think he Nick has a
following because there's an entire generation that is growing up
and has grown up without being able to say, oh
I can I I can do as well or better
than my parents. And and and we're in this together.
We have a we're rowing the boat the same direction.
Speaker 3: That there is.
Speaker 2: It's beyond you know, identity has become such a word
with a lot of baggage. But but just this, this
common belonging to something that's greater than myself and the
and both you know, all three legs of the institutional
stool that God, that God instituted, you know, family, church,
and state. Traditionally, in a functioning civilization, you felt a
part of something bigger than yourself. And each one of
those things. You served your family, which was bigger than
you as an individual. You served your church, your religious institution,
and even if it was just attending, and it was
bigger than yourself and achieving higher purposes than just you
as an individual, and certainly the state as hey, this
is the state serves to bless and protect its citizens.
And then we have our civic duties and our civic
roles that we play a part of. And it seems
like all three of those legs are under attack and
Nick for And I don't, you know, I don't agree
with everything Nick says or how he goes about it.
I think a lot of it's kind of meta ironic,
seems like the clips I've seen, But I think he's
tapping into that.
Speaker 3: Feeling of well, wait a minute, then.
Speaker 2: Where are the institutions where I can achieve something better
than bigger than just me, you know, living in my mind,
you know, playing video games and doing whatever, you know.
Speaker 4: The way I think about the gropers is this, m
Imagine if the child who yelled that the emperor had
no clothes was ignored for ten years, and he became
a teenager and he could see that everybody knew that
the emperor had no clothes, and everybody insisted that he
was the bad guy for saying that the emperor had
no clothes take those teenage hormones, replicate them on thousands
and thousands and millions of followers, and then imagine what happens.
So this guy, he's creally, he's clearly brilliant, he's clearly
extremely well read, does his own work. Exceptional memory, exceptional
oratory skill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the thing that gives me. This is a
guy who can go on for two hours and just command,
just command the presence exactly.
Speaker 3: It's similar to Trump's skill in that way.
Speaker 4: Yep, I would argue much better, okay, because he can
keep a thread together rather than jump off into fifty
different directions, and when he does, he's all back together.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So, these kids who've known for all of their years
of awareness, from the moment that they hit the age
of reason, that the Emperor had no clothes, are now teenagers,
and if they aren't teenagers, they're in their twenties and thirties,
and they know that there's something fundamentally broken, and every
time they try to point it out, they're told they're
the bad guy for pointing it out. So imagine the
kind of resentment, and imagine the kind of cymicism that
they must have. And now, for the first time, they're
being properly acknowledged because Fwentes, through the sheer force of
his personality, has made the establishment listen to him. And
he's been helped along by the madness of Nataniaho and
the belligerents and flagrance of Nataniaho. And he's been helped
alone by the failure of war after war after war
in them at least, all of which fundamentally led to
disasters for Christendom. That was the one common outcome in
all of these wars. And now he has commanded a
seat on the table through persistence, perseverance, and skill. And
you see this insane reaction from everybody who's calling him
a Nazi with some reason when you take some of
his quotes, But really, if you take the time to
listen to the guy speaking for an hour on some
of his recent stuff, like I haven't sort of looked
back into what he was saying years ago. For the
past few weeks, really, I've been listening to him for
an hour or so speaking regularly, and he's extremely articulate,
very thoughtful, genuinely not a hater, right, but pretty clear
in what he's saying. And he's you can see that
this is a guy who thinks before he goes to confession,
you know, And that's a big deal in a man
this young, and that's a wonderful thing to develop and cultivate.
So yeah, I'm sure that he's said some pretty horrible things,
but I'm not going to sort of denounce or distance
myself from that because I genuinely don't care, and because
the much worse things that are said constantly get completely
brushed under the carpet, and because I do believe in
a level of unity on the right, and I don't
think that people on the right would be playing by
the left's game and throw their own side under the
bus just because somebody used the magic incantation of Nazi
anti semi blah blah blah. And as a Catholic, like
one of the first groups that the that the Nazis
came from came for were the Catholics.
Speaker 1: Communist I don't feel any they came for. They came
for Communist priests.
Speaker 4: Okay, but some Catholics, like a big bunch of Catholics
as well, And I don't feel any compulsion to play
that game, maybe because I'm from Lebanon, so I don't care,
but I don't feel any pressure to play that game,
and I and I and I and I refuse to
play that game.
Speaker 3: Well, the problem.
Speaker 1: The problem is is that you if you have somebody
who you politically align with, you know is on your side.
You know. Charles Haywood says no enemies to the right,
And what no enemies to the right means is that
it's not that you can't disagree with people on your side,
and it's not that you don't want to scold them
or maybe have a you know, a strong conversation with them,
but you fucking don't do it in public, okay, because
you're just you're you're strengthening our our enemies by doing that.
Our enemies see that we're that we're not we're not
united because they don't do that. I mean, the right
cancels their radicals and the left guests stairs elected. Yeah that,
I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Can I add a bit of nuance to that?
Speaker 1: Sure? Please go.
Speaker 4: It's that they are. It's that first, we're commanded to
love our enemies, and so if we have disagreements on
the right, the command that we ought to operate under
is firstly to love our enemies. Secondly, considering the fact
that they are our brothers, not our enemies, means that
we disagree with them, even publicly, but as friends m hm,
as people adding nuanced and detail to each other, as
people who want all of us to pass through the
narrowgate together.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 4: Not playing the game of the left of saying I
denounced this and I denounced that, and I disown him,
and I disown her, and I you know, not her,
because I don't listen to any females who talk about
politics as a matter of principle, it's not it's not
it's not for you, ladies, thank you.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 4: We just don't play that game based on the on
those rules. And if I see someone like Daryl Cooper,
Nick fuent Is, you guys much more articulate, much more
well read than I am, much more much better informed
than I am, and I disagree with you over something
like I'm not going to denounce you. That's that's that,
And I'm not going to play that game of saying
I have a better more character than you because I
denounced that sentence that Ron said or that sentence that
Pete said, and that makes him evil and you know,
beyond redemption. No like no from we're not playing that
game this way. End of discussion.
Speaker 2: Well it's just Matthew eighteen and not to not to
go on a well.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go on a little.
Speaker 2: I'll tell it's my it's kind of my bag, a
little theological deal, you know. Matthew eighteen says, if you
see your brother sinning, you go to him privately. You
go to him privately, and then if and if he
doesn't repent, if he doesn't change his mind, then take
take another couple of brothers with you and talk to him.
You handle this, you know, I had, like I'm sure
we all are. I'm in a bunch of group chats
and everything, and one of them is a bunch of
hard charging guys who you know, get some really amazing
things done. And I'd been in an argument, you know,
on Twitter about something and I kind of brought some
of that animosity to a group chat and I kind
of stepped on a guy a little bit, and so
faithful one of the guys says, hey, you know, go
go talk to so. You call so and so because
you're a little I immediately, did that's how.
Speaker 3: You handle that? You don't go, well, screw him, you know, No.
Speaker 2: You go and and and so so. Then after you
take brothers to him in Matthew eighteen, that doesn't work,
then you bring them before the church, not the outside world,
even at that point. And if they don't then if
they don't you know, repent or whatever. If we can't
all hug it out, then there's the final awful step
of excommunication. But you see all those and and it's
based upon this idea. This may seem crass, but look,
if I've been given one magazine for my sixteen, I
can't be spending it on the people in the foxhole
with me.
Speaker 3: That that gun's got to be pointed over there.
Speaker 2: And so it's something that we I've written a lot
about this whole idea of christs ethic of enmity. I
think it's something that the church, regardless of branch, we
need to focus on and be more thoughtful about. For
the exactly what you're talking about, Pharahs.
Speaker 4: It's a I couldn't agree You couldn't be more right.
I couldn't agree with you more. But I'll just note
that when you bring a couple of brothers, or when
you take it to the church in a way, you
are making it public but you're not making it hostile,
and you're not making it into an enmity, and you're
not making it into a irresolvable conflict. You are making
it into a good faith conversation, where as part of
that conversation you might learn that the beam is in
your eye, not in his. We all have learned that
at some point in our lives, you know, we've all
learned that at some point in our lives. So you're
coming at it from a place of friendship rather than
you're sort of nailing him with a prescription or with
an excommunication and saying this guy is forever my enemy
because I disagree with him on one, two, and three.
So so it's not the public part. I mean, public
differences make reconciliation harder. But we've just seen Tucker Carlson
and Nick Fuentis do precisely that, have a very public
feud and then a very public reconciliation to Christians to
Christians exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean when I'm sorry, I have to interrupt here,
and I'm going to be that guy. I'm going to
be that guy. When Denesh de Suza canceled and basically
tried to destroy the life of Samuel sam Francis Denesh
de Susa is not he calls it. He's supposed to
be on our team, but he's not a Christian. He
doesn't understand this. When Jonah Goldberg is out there looking
to destroy people because you know, because he because you
can't be a you can't call yourself a fascist if
you're on the right, because I wrote a book about
liberal fascism and the leftists or the real fascists, So
if you have any kind of fascism, I'm going to
cancel you. Well, he doesn't understand this. You're talking about
something that is very distinctly Christian. And we have people
in our camp who don't understand this. They're immediate, they're
outsiders when it comes down to it, they are outsiders Christendom.
There's a reason why Christendom where it stayed Christian. There's
a reason why Spain had a Golden Age because they
ejected all of the non Christians. They rejected all the
non Catholics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so yeah, the history of the converso that
whole era is is in the in the Protestant Church,
in the Evangelical Church. It's just unknown, you know, liberal.
I think we'd all, we all yearn for ordered liberty,
but ordered liberty cannot exist without a very illiberal protective shell.
Speaker 4: Yes, just can't. Even Even the.
Speaker 2: Radical libertarian Hans Hermann Happa basically said, you kind of
have to have a sovereign on top of this who
helps protect this thing if you want to have this
this utopian liberty in here. But yeah, Locke, let's let's
just and and I just want everybody to know I'm
not a philosophical liberal, but I'll tell you if you
could just get back to Lockey and truly Lockey in liberalism,
that would that would be denounced as far right reactionary
fascism today, lock lock hat Locke basically said, you can't
have uncommon presuppositions and have liberalism. You can't have atheists
in the public square. Doesn't mean you have to go
kill them all, probably, but you can't have Plato in laws.
When you forget Symposium, forget the Republic, don't forget those
but those I think were written esoterically. When he finally
gets around to writing very openly, he says, you can't
have homosexuals in the in the public square. They will
destroy your civilization? Is that because we all hate hate
people who disagree with us.
Speaker 3: No, it just means you have to be rowing the
both the same direction. Publicly.
Speaker 2: It means that if you want freedom in it to
be ordered, not just libertine chaos, there has to be
some protection around it. You have to fence the public square.
And this is very, very hard for Americans who, because
we had a common culture for so long, believe that
that that that was a stasis, Yes, that it didn't
need to be protected, and it wasn't. It wasn't a stasis.
It wasn't static. It was incredibly dynamic. And now look around, now,
are you kidding me? Only fans we promote and make
legal a service which prostitutes our daughters?
Speaker 3: Are you? Are you kidding me?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: Like that that is im the.
Speaker 4: Fever of the first president who commits to drone strikes
against only fans and porn hub and and these guys.
I don't want to drone strike if you know who
the owners to strike Venezuela. I want a drone strike
OnlyFans and porn hubs.
Speaker 1: Well, if you if you know who the owners of
those two are, you're going to be called an anti semi.
Speaker 4: That's the thing. That's the thing that there is this
objective reality of overrepresentation in some industries, finance and media
being the most prominent ones. Media in all of its forms,
decent and nefarious, that when mentioned is met with this
anti Semitism defensive shield. But it's not actually a shield.
It's closer to an incantation. It's more of a bunch
of magic words that say you're not allowed to notice.
And the answer to that isn't enmity. It's to say,
some things that are so critical for the functioning of
an economy and a society must be in the hands
of truly loyal se objects. And loyalty is in part
a function of identity and beliefs.
Speaker 3: Loyalty is the chief is the chief aspect of pistas,
the word that we translate faith in the New Testament. Right,
it's loyalty and allegiance. Everybody is important as belief right,
Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Don't know, please please continue on that theme.
Speaker 2: Well, so, okay, well I'm just so I've been slowly
going through the Republic and then commenting on it in
Twitter about how it aligns with so many of the
If you read between the lines, so to speak, and
you're doing the reading in Greek about how it aligns
with what Paul and the apostle John were saying. So
just these ideas of pistice, which is translated belief or
faith in the New Testament, has this aspect of loyalty
of allegiance. It's it's the type of belief that you
have for your wife in a in a marriage that's
just where both parties are blessed because you're so committed
that nothing's going to tear it, you know, Uh par as,
I don't know your wife, but I know Petza he
married well, and I sure married well, and I would
I would die and I would kill for my wife.
My wife is and I'm not being some cucked guy.
She's just she's my glory. And so that type I
believe in her. But that belief engenders allegiance, loyalty, a
covenantal bond. And it's highly related to this other Greek
word that both Plato and Paul use uh uh dicyosune,
and it's related to dikayu, which is just or justice.
Dikai dicayosune is is translated righteousness, and it's allegiance which
can only which is relational, can only that's what leads
to this covenantal faithfulness, which is righteousness. Righteousness isn't a substance,
it's not substantive.
Speaker 3: Uh, it's this.
Speaker 2: It's this relational reality where you live in relation. That
is that is good and true for all parties involved.
That is righteousness, and we can't do it perfectly. And
that's why we receive this. We we receive that in
in uh uh, in Christ's perfect righteousness, you know, and
and all that. But but but just let's keep it
in a political theology sense.
Speaker 3: It's this.
Speaker 2: It's me as an individual, I am faithful to my country,
to I pledge allegiance to my leader, and that that
produces a righteousness.
Speaker 3: That that that that fills up the civilization. That's a
civilization that thrives. And that's what the republic uh is
truly about. And that's what Plato later really explained in Laws.
And that's what the New the New Testament writings are about.
When Paul writes about the Body of Christ, that's a
political body. That it's not just oh, this theoretical illustration. No,
it's a political body. We're not just here to have
an experience individually. We are here to live.
Speaker 2: In this unified blessing that is that is loyal, faithful, true,
and works. Okay, sorry, my Protestant brother brothers are going
to get mad at me because that sounded very Catholic,
but I mean it.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 4: No, no, that's I have a personal point and a
cynical point. The personal point is this is genuinely beautiful,
and I want to learn more about this and understand
this even better because I don't speak week. I don't
understand these things. I'm a you know, I got baptized,
what is it, six seven years ago now, so I'm
very you, thank you. The cynical point is, imagine if
you get to switch loyalties every two years, every five years,
imagine what kind of system you end up with.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: This is not equipped for the challenges that the West
faces today. Is the wrong system, right, It's fundamentally the
wrong system. And I know Americans love the Constitution and
the Brits love the Crown in Parliament idea and and
and and and everything that comes with that. But there
is an objective truth here. If you're going to bark
on a fifteen to twenty year program to recover the West,
their reality is that it can't be a hesitant one
step forward, two steps back program, and that is all
you will get in a democratic system, and it will
therefore be always manage decline. And you can't fix this
without addressing the question of loyalty, and that question of loyalty,
to be properly addressed, must include separation between different kinds
of citizens, particularly those who are a Christian, those who
are not, those who belong to this people, those who
do not, whatever this people happens to be, the German,
the Italian, the British, English, whatever it is. So it
can't function in a neganditarian system, and it can't function
in a democratic system. And it also can't function if
every effort to build a family is constantly being subverted
by the culture, and if we're constantly paranoid about what
our children are learning at school, especially in Europe where
you don't have school choice, where private education is unaffordable.
For somebody paying fifty percent of their income to the
government sixty percent, if you consider all of the indirect taxes,
it's even more. You know, not only do you pay
if you're a higher rate taxpayer forty percent in Britain,
you also pay twenty percent of everything that you purchase
on VAT, except for like food and rent and things
like that. Everything else you pay twenty percent VAT on top.
So it isn't possible to function in this way when
you're constantly being subverted, when you don't have a true identity,
and when your values are endlessly under attack. And so
part of the problem going back to the Trump administration
is that what they're trying to solve is an economic problem.
But the problem isn't an economic one. The problem is
fundamentally a philosophical one. Who are the American people? Well,
the the wasps must have a special place in that definition,
Christianity must have a special place in that definition. European
ethnicities must have a special place in that definition. These
things are all interrelated. Plus, if you're trying to solve
the economic problem without solving the family problem, without solving
the inability to think in a long term fashion, because
of the political structure, you're not going to get anywhere
what you want to get to the system where the
presidential election is more or less a referendum. Do you
agree to this guy continuing for another four years? Yes?
Another four yes, another four yes? And the constitutional barriers
do that like they have.
Speaker 3: To go, you know, m h.
Speaker 4: And so there's a but the political system is so
strong that no man is able to change it. That's
also partly because there is no man who sees the
political system who brought him to power as a problem,
unless he was enough of a megalomaniac to say, I
want to break that system with the explicit objective of
remaining in power indefinitely until the day I die under
a monarchic system, and then we'll see who inherits the mantle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that succession. We'll deal with legitimacy later. Or I mean,
that's legitimacy, we'll deal with succession later. But it was
the somebody said all of Shakespeare was about succession and
legitimacy in all its different facets.
Speaker 3: Right now, that's really good, you know.
Speaker 2: The the the issue again, we keep getting back to
this identity issue. And I want to talk about something
and and and I want to be delicate because I
really have I harbor no hatred or or really for
any anybody. I don't I mean Pete, you know me,
I'm I'm I'm a pretty big tent kind of guy.
And I write for Claremont and Claremont you know, is
uh it's it. It was founded by a bunch of
kind of right wing Catholic guys, but it was under
the you know, under the teachings of Strauss and Jaffa,
you know, these these Jewish intellectuals.
Speaker 3: And and I love these guys, I really do.
Speaker 2: And so I want to be I want to be
I want to be delicate when I talk about this.
But there's a reason why Christians have tended towards uh A,
an executive form of government, be it monarchy or or
true executive power. And article as the Constitution intended, you know,
Article two powers. That's a that's that's a light king
in a sense, not a full king, not a son king, but.
Speaker 3: But a king kind of king liked.
Speaker 2: And there's a reason why why intellectual Jewish groups, be
they on the right or left. But but let's take
the ones the Jews who are on the right, have
tended towards a more deliberative uh A pro that's that
is part and parcel of our founding documents as Christians
and Jews. Jews have a talmud. It bought brought a
codification of the of the Mishnah that was part of
the whole Pharisee Sadducee system that had the Council of
the Sanhedrin, the Council of the seventy.
Speaker 3: It's an extension of that. It is by nature a
deliberative thing. And the New Testament sets up a global emperor,
which is Jesus King of Kings is a euphemism for emperor,
but it is a royal succession. Peter says that you
talking about everyone who's baptized are now a royal priesthood,
a holy people. And so there's a reason why we
have this difference in outlook and position. And so there
there's this schizophrenia in Christian nations that have this radically
deliberative posture because it's against they're founding documents in the
New Testament. And again, I want.
Speaker 2: To be very I don't mean to be radical or
or against anyone, but I do think that we need
to think philosophically as Christians, really rethink some of these ideas.
I just wrote in in American Reformer and it got
picked up by Theopolis Institute that in the New in
the New Covenant, we're we're under the rule of men,
not of law law was to grow us up and
inform us, oh, well thank you. That means a lot
coming from you, faris.
Speaker 4: But if I shared it with everybody on the lou
diseaters and and I've got some good feedback on it.
Speaker 2: So yeah, oh that's fantastic. But we I just and
the point is that I want us as Christians to
think about these things and it and he and it
can help us understand.
Speaker 3: The the the the.
Speaker 2: Jewish folks who are on the right who do want
to in some way shape or form lock arms with us,
or maybe not lock arms, but at least not be against,
you know, on different sides of the of the battlefield.
How we can kind of understand the difference in viewpoint
here and then maybe have a little bit more of
a peaceful encounter. And it definitely gives you understanding why
those on the Jewish left feel the way they do.
And and so it's it's something that I want to
as as Christians, be it Catholic or Protestant, to think
more deeply about. And I don't see much of that
I see as kind of going a lot. Well, well,
we're kind of deliberative people. Well, as Christians were kind
of not we're kind of on this executive We believe
in the rule of man. We really do, or were
supposed to, at least.
Speaker 4: I mean, traditionally in most of Europe there was some
kind of assembly under the king, but it was considered
the king, but it was consultative. It wasn't a decision
making body. It was the king's advisors, and he had
to look at the opinions of the great and good
in his realm and see what they believed and what
they were thinking, and what their opinions were right. But
there was never really any doubt that the final decision
was truly his. And when you when you end up
with a system with no final decision maker, it makes
you fundamentally unequipped to deal with crisis or difficult situations
because everybody in a different direction. And that happens even
in a perfectly homogeneous society, right, it doesn't. It's not
that it only happens at a diverse society, but it
is very much the case that in a diverse society
it becomes much worse, much worse, because everybody is pulling
for ethnic interests but covering it up with principle and
ideology or ideology or like whatever you what you want
to call it. And whenever you say no, these are
the interests that must be supreme, you get hit with
this radical egalitarianism that says no, no, no, no, how dare
you favor one group? And that this becomes particularly ridiculous
when the group that you're correctly saying should be favored
is the actual founding group and is the group that
the system cannot function without because it created it. And
when you have people who never created the system take
it over, you risk ending up like South Africa. Yeah,
and so you're seeing the West being pulled in the
South Africa direction constantly because nobody is strong enough to
break the system. And again with the Kroepers, these are
guys who've been saying, look, this system is broken, it
isn't working, and everybody knows that it isn't working, but
everybody pretends that they're the bad guys. And so what
you're building up there is radicalism. And deffuentis his credit.
As he's become more powerful, he's become less radical.
Speaker 3: I agree with that, I really do. I think that's
dead on.
Speaker 4: So if this chance has missed of communicating with this generation,
that has been constantly stabbed in the back. It's a
bit hopeless. I mean, I think I can't remember his name,
Carol Simon Cowell, Simon Cowell. He just sort of entered
into my awareness again, unfortunately because he said because he
said that he isn't going to give his son any
of the six hundred million dollars that he has.
Speaker 3: Right, what a bastard? Pardon me?
Speaker 4: Bill Gates says the same thing, that he's going to
give his kids some money, but he's not going to
give them a proper like his whole inheritance.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think Buffett's that's somebody. That's somebody who is deracinated
from their past. He's not. The reason he's not giving
it is because he doesn't have anything to pass down.
When you pass down six hundred million dollars, you should
also be passing down the stories of your ancestors. And
you know who we are and where we came from.
And that's not we've been deracinated from that. That does
not exist anymore. So money is just money isn't important
because you know, like Happa talked about in democracy, the
god that failed when you have a when you have
a king, he has an interest in making the country
better than it was when he took it from his father,
because he wants to pass it to his son. Well,
these aren't people who have any who are thinking about
their past or or who are passing down their past
to them. So why would you give six hundred million dollars?
Six hundred million dollars. That's what I made, this lifetime,
and this lifetime is all we have. There is no past.
Why would I do. My son's not going to have
a past. So my son, my son's probably not going
to remember me because I wasn't around most of the time.
I mean, this is this is a symptom of modernity
and a symptom of the derassmization and the the social
engineering regime, especially since World War Two, that has said
you're not allowed to live historically. If you live historically
and you and you're proud of your ancestors and where
you came from, that's white supremacy or that's that's how
we get slavery, that's how that's what led to you know,
the Indians being on reservations in the United States. It's
all just we're we have no history. History is gone.
Speaker 3: I look forward and maybe I could do.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's going to happen between now and
when I die, but when I go to rest with
my fathers, to tell them, look what I left your descendants,
Look what I left them. Because it's that And my
granddad was a deeply faithful man. You know, he was
a fireman. He didn't have a lot materially, but he
left me so much, so much, and I want to
honor him. And there's we've lost that, you know, And.
Speaker 3: And that sense of when you go you die.
Speaker 2: Well, and you not only receive by the Lord and
are told well done, good and faithful servant, but you
are have some conscious experience with those who have gone
before you, and you rejoice in what has been left
as we as as the Lord's Prayer says, as christ
prayer says, that our Father, may your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven. Can you make that?
Can you actualize that and go celebrate that when you
lay your head down to rest for the last time?
And that that's important, that's important for a people to have.
That It just it fights against it fights against the enemy,
It fights against chaos, It fights against the left, which
is just a coalescing of all these things of chaos,
of of of of a war against beauty. But it
also fights against time preference, which destroys all these things.
Speaker 4: Yep, yep. And going back to time preference, democracy is
set up to have a the wrong kind of time preference.
It's sort of set up to be short term. It's
it's not set up to be good and proper and
long term. It's not set up for building great things.
It's not made to build cathedrals. It's not made to
build cathedrals. It's not oriented towards the eternal. It's oriented
towards them now. And that makes it a terrible system
in which to deal with existential crises or questions. And
so it's like, I don't see how it survives. This
is on the philosophical side and the political side as
separating it from the economic side and the insane amount
of debts and the size of the debt bubbles and
the sizes of the pension bills that the Europeans especially
have to pay. This is separating it from from from
from the welfare system which is designed to replace the family.
When you say cradle to grave welfare, what you mean
is that the state is your mother and father and children.
This is why these people want inheritance tax. You're giving
back to your father what you owe him.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 4: And that's Chronos. That is very much Chronos. That is
Kronos eating his children. That is Chronos eating his children.
That is the state devouring your inheritance, devouring what you
leave to your children, therefore devouring your children. It prevents
you from setting up a legacy, a history, a love
of family, a name to be proud of, a named
to last down the generations. So everything in the setup
is just wired the wrong way. It's completely wired the
wrong way, and it can't continue, and it has to break.
The question is does it break? Because there is a
man great enough to say, I am going to break
this and I will make you all follow me. And
he's not going to be a good man, not in
the conventional sense, not in today's sense of a great
man of a good man. But he's going to be
a great man and possessed of Machiavelian virtue. And that's
what's going to have to come. We need a Caesar,
we need a Napoleon, we need somebody like that to
bring us out of the scales, and who will that be?
Who will be the man who is great enough to
take on this mantle, to wear the armor of God
and to say, I don't care about your constitution, I
don't care about your liberties, I don't care about your equalities.
This will happen for your sake, and it will be.
Speaker 2: Speaking of cathedrals and being a culture that doesn't and
being a system that doesn't build cathedrals. Have either of
you seen the it's making its rounds the new article
in Harper's about the whole Gooner that have you seen this?
Maybe we can put it in the show notes a
link to it. It is chilling, but it's along it's
along these uh, along these lines of where this the things,
this culture is is building.
Speaker 3: It's in Harper's. Harper's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll send the link to you as soon as
we get off, and I probably need to start wrapping
up here pretty quick, guys, but uh, I'll send the
link when we get when we get done.
Speaker 4: Pete, please do please do all right?
Speaker 3: That?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that sounds good. I'm on Harper's right now, and
i'll uh yeah, I'll is it called the goon Squad? Yeah,
all right, I found there's yeah, I'll put it. I'll
put it in the Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, people need to be aware. It's awful.
Speaker 1: Okay, yep, all right, let me wrap. I really appreciate
it as always great conversation. I have a tendency to
take people down some paths that they would probably not
go on on their own. But I appreciate you taking
the walking that path with me. Ron. Tell everybody where
they can find your work.
Speaker 2: All right, for the American Mind, which is part of
Claremont all right, for American Reformer, and I am soon
to be featured in Responsible state Craft. And then I
have a substack on Twitter.
Speaker 4: You can find me.
Speaker 1: Faitess.
Speaker 4: I'm on modad geopolitics dot com and on Twitter you
can find me on at modad g op Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right, gentlemen, So the next time, thank you. It's
always a pleasure.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Great talk to you both. Thank you,