Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana Show.
Aaron's back. How's it going, Aaron?
Speaker 2: What's going on? Happy to be here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about We're gonna look at a speech
by a Nazi.
Speaker 2: I don't believe it.
Speaker 1: This is amazing.
Speaker 2: I was just sitting a bird earlier. You know, I'm
coming on the heels of your close out of Hitler's
foreign policy with Thomas, and I'm like, who the hell
is going to want to listen to me after that?
Speaker 1: Oh? I think you know, if you remember that Gebels
at this time was still running around with a kpd M.
You know that he I mean really up until the end.
I mean he he ran with them for about twelve
thirteen years. Yeah, then you start to you know, when
you when you read some of the stuff that he's
when you read his speeches or read the stuff some
of the stuff you wrote, you're like, oh, okay, that
makes sense, this makes sense. Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, having you on for that, because I mean,
I don't know that you know as much about communism
as Thomas does, but you know a hell of a
lot more about communism than most people I know.
Speaker 2: Yep, I'm a real comrade, all right, talk a little
bit of just a little bit about this is.
Speaker 1: It is from January ninth, nineteen twenty eight, to an
audience of party members at the so called Cultural four
Politique for Politique, a series of training talks for party
members in Berlin. It's Gerbel's most extended discussion on the
nature of propaganda, all the more interesting because of its
early date. It is worth comparing this speech to one
he gave seven seven years later to a closed gathering
of party propagandists at the nineteen thirty five Nuremberg Rally.
That speech was not published. The text is available, but
YadA YadA. So yeah, this is I mean, nineteen twenty eight.
This is five years before four is five, you know,
more than five years before they take power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so their situation is even more tenuous than it
was when they took power.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, all right, I'm gonna start stop me anytime
then you know how this works? All right? Knowledge and
Propaganda by Joseph Gerbels. My dear fellow party members. Our
topic this evening is hotly disputed. I realized that my
viewpoint is subjective. There is really little point in discussing propaganda.
There is really little point in discussing propaganda. It is
a matter of practice, not of theory.
Speaker 2: One experiential. You have to experience propaganda in order to understand.
Speaker 1: It exactly exactly that there's no there's no theory behind it.
It doesn't it doesn't work unless someone experiences it. Yeah,
one cannot determine theoretically whether one propaganda is better than another.
Rather that propaganda is good that has the desired results,
and that propaganda is bad that does not lead to
the desired results. Consequential consequentialism. Yeah, it does not matter
how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is
not to be clever. Its task is to lead to success.
I therefore avoid theoretical discussions about propaganda, for there is
no point to it. Propaganda shows that it is good
if over a certain period it can win over and
fire up the people for an idea. If it fails
to do so, it's bad propaganda. If propaganda wins the
people it wanted to win, it was presumably good, and
if not, it was presumably bad. No one can say
that you're yeah, well, you.
Speaker 2: Can tell that this is before the invention of the
twenty four hour news cycle, because propaganda today is designed
to fire you up for about ten minutes. Yeah, and
then you click on whatever you need to click on
to general great revenue, and then you forget about it.
So that is the standard for what's good propaganda now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's basically it's just a brush.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: If propaganda wins the people that wanted to win, it
was presumably good, and if not, it was presumably bad.
No one can say that your propaganda is too crude
or too low or brutal, or that it is not
decent enough for those who are not the relevant criteria.
Its purpose is not to be decent or gentle, or
weak or modest. It is to be successful. That is
why I have intentionally chosen to discuss propaganda along with
a second theme knowledge. Otherwise our discussion this evening would
be of little value. We have not gathered to discuss
lovely theories, but rather find to find ways of practically
working together to deal with our everyday challenges.
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Speaker 1: What is propaganda and what role does it have in
political life? That is the question of the greatest century
to us. How should propaganda look and what is the role?
What is its role in our movement. Is it an
end in itself or only a means to an end?
We must discuss that. But we can. But we can
do that only when we begin with the origin of
propaganda itself, namely the idea, then move to the target
of propaganda, namely people. Ideas in themselves are timeless. They
are not tied to individuals, much less to a people.
They rest in a people. It is true, and affects
their attitudes. Ideas people say are in the clouds.
Speaker 2: So who does that sound like?
Speaker 1: People say, yeah, you're in the clouds. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Ideas exist independently of the mind. Yeah, yeah, that's
that's what I picked up. When I read that. I
was like, oh, he's a he's platonic.
Speaker 1: That's also in Hinduism too, And oh is it yeah,
outside the mind watching the thinker.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thing when someone comes along who can put in words
what everyone feels in their heart, each feels. Yes, that
is what I always want it in hope for that
is what happens the first time one Here's one of
Hitler's major speeches. I have met people who have attended
a Hitler meeting for the first time, and at the
end they said, this man puts into words everything I
have been searching for for years. Yeah, the first time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when you can, when you can distill and articulate
what people are, what people feel but are unable to articulate,
that's that's the best. It's it's it's it's awesome on
both ends. Like when somebody says, like, you know, I
never knew how to express that like that, that's awesome
on our end. And when we're reading something or or
listening to something that distills an idea into just a
form that's easily digestible, it fires you up. That's that's
a amazing.
Speaker 1: Others are lost in confused. Others are lost in confusion,
but suddenly someone stands up and puts it in words. Now,
I've heard everything from goat to gutsa?
Speaker 2: What do you?
Speaker 1: What do you? How do you pronounce it?
Speaker 2: Goth? I guess.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say gutsa because that's what this is the
last that's the last way I heard it say. Gutsa's
words become reality. Lost in silent misery, God gave someone
to express my self.
Speaker 2: Should ask me how to pronounce any philosopher's name? I'm
the last person you want to ask.
Speaker 1: But that's a great line there. Lost in silent misery.
God gave someone to express my suffering.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, some kind of ideas the beginning of every political movement.
It is not necessary to put this idea in a
thick book, nor that it take political form in one
hundred long para.
Speaker 2: People somehow manage.
Speaker 1: History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed
when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under
a short, clear theme. It's just something I've been saying
recently with the whole libertarian party thing is really when
it comes to activism, when it comes to ideological activism,
you don't want a party, a political party, because it's
just pure bureaucracy. The best way to do it is
you pick one narrow topic and you become like a
lobby group for it, you become a propagandist for it,
and you just go after elected Now you are going
after elected officials. You don't have to worry about getting elected.
You're going to go after the elected officials. That's the
way National Association for Gun Rights basically got constitutional carry
and half the states in this country tree is by
going to politicians and saying we're going to run this person.
We have this person who's going to run against you
in a primary. Yeah, if you don't you know, if
you don't promise this, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: That's that. I the Libertarian Party has somehow sunk to
new depths. I didn't know we're imaginable, but I guess
it's not surprising.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean I said it was going to happen.
You're just you know, managerialism takes over. So yeah, right,
that is clear from the French Revolution or Cromwell's movement,
or Buddhism, Islamer Christianity. Christ's goal was clear and simple,
love your neighbor as yourself. He gathered his followers behind
that straightforward statement because this teaching was simple, crisp, clear
and understandable, enabling the broad masses to stand behind it.
In the end, conquered the world. One then builds a
whole system of thought on so a brief, crisply formulated idea.
The idea does not remain limited to this single statement. Rather,
it is applied to every aspect of daily life and
becomes the guide for all human activity, politics, culture, the economy,
every area of human behavior. It becomes a worldview. We
see that we see that in all great revolutionary movements,
which begin with a clear, crisp, understandable, all encompassing idea,
they spread more and more and become a mirror of
life that reflects all activities of the people, and indeed
in a particular way.
Speaker 2: I wonder if there's a German word for ideology that
seems more like what he's describing.
Speaker 1: I think he's describing a culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Then one can say that a person has a
worldview not because he knows a lot or has read
a lot, but because he sees all of life from
a certain standpoint and measures everything by a certain standard.
I'm a Christian when I believe that the meaning of
life is the heavy responsibility to love my neighbor as myself.
Kanton once said, act as if the principle of your
life could be the principle for your entire nation.
Speaker 2: Is that the categorical imperative?
Speaker 1: Act as if the principle for your life could be
the principle for your entire nation? Yeah, huh, Well, I mean,
look what he mentions in the next sentence. He says,
I am a national socialist, not when I want this
or that from this or that, from politics, Rather, when
I consider all aspects of daily life, I must act
in all things by putting the good of the whole
above my personal good, by putting the good of the
state above my personal good. But then I also have
the guarantee that such a state will be able to
protect my personal life.
Speaker 2: That is such an important caveat, And that's why I's
it's going to be very difficult for us people on
our side to put their trust in any type of
person or movement or or idea that turns into a
worldview that that ends up you know, that could potentially
end up getting power. Is it takes a very long
time or a very desperate population to place that trust
in those things.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it takes uh, it takes a whine more.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, it takes desperate It's going to be desperation.
You know. Time. You can talk to any number of people,
they'll tell you that time is not on our side.
So it's going to take desperation.
Speaker 1: I am a national socialist when I see everything in politics,
culture of the economy from this standpoint, I therefore do
not evaluate the theater from the standpoint of whether it
is elegant or amusing, rather or I ask is it
good for my people? Is it useful for them? Does
it strengthen the community? If so, the community in turn
can benefit, support and strengthen me. I do not see
the economy as some sort of way of making money. Rather,
I want an economy that will strengthen the people, make
them healthy and powerful. Then too, I can expect that
this people will support and maintain me. If I see
things in this way, I see the economy and national
socialist terms. Does that sound like socialism to you, as
you know, like a libertarian would say, oh, call someone
a socialist.
Speaker 2: No, the antithesis that is the antithesis of anarcho capitalism.
I mean, I guess they would say, you know, you
have the option to think that way, but you have
the option to think whatever way you want and still
participate in society.
Speaker 1: Yeah. If I deliver this crisp clear idea into a
system of thought that includes all human devices, which is
in actions, I have a worldview. As an idea develops
into a worldview, the goal is the state. Knowledge does
not remain the property of a certain group, but fights
for power. It is not just the fantasy of a
few people among a few people among the people. Rather,
it becomes the idea of the rulers, the circles that
have power. The view does not only pre the view
does not only preach, but it is carried out in practice.
Speaker 2: I recall a long time ago when we were reading
State and Revolution, just going over it and viewing it
in terms of praxice. You know, during the during the
October Revolution, November, everything leading up to and everything after it,
practice practice, practice, And you know, at the time, we
were kind of moving away from libertarianism because of that.
And it's the same thing with this national socialism. It
places emphasis on praxis, like practical application of your of
your knowledge, of your of your theory or whatever. And
I don't I don't see that happening with a even
you know, unfortunately, a lot of people that I like
that espouse a worldview that I agree with, I don't
see them emphasizing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yep. Then the idea becomes the worldview of the state.
The worldview has become a government organism when it seizes
power and can influence life, not only in theory but
in practical everyday life. Now we must consider who is
the carrier, the transmitter, the guardian of such ideas a
great man. An idea always lives in individuals. It seeks
an individuals to transmit its great intellectual force. It becomes
alive in a brain and seeks escape through the mouth.
The idea is preached by individuals, individuals who will never
be satisfied to have the knowledge remain. There's a loan.
Speaker 2: I thought that was a very well constructed paragraph and
figured that's why he's the Minister of propaganda.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, the great thing about
a speech about knowledge and propaganda is he's propagandizing with it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, he practices what he preaches.
Speaker 1: You know that from experience. When one knows something, one
does not keep it hidden like a buried treasure, but
rather one seeks to tell others. One looks for people
who should know it. One feels that everyone else should
know as well, for one feels alone when no one
else knows. For example, if I see a beautiful paint
again at our gallery, I have the needs to tell others.
I meet a good friend and say to him I
found a wonderful picture. I have to show it to you.
The same is true of ideas. If an idea lives
in an individual, he has the urge to tell others.
There is some mysterious force in us that drives us
to tell others. The greater and simpler the idea, the
more it relates to daily life, the more one has
the desire to tell everyone about it.
Speaker 2: And it's a testament to, you know, the the system
we live under, that we hesitate to tell people about
these great ideas in real life. I mean, I I
see great ideas on my timeline every single day, and
I want to tell people, but I usually just stop
at my wife and see how see what she thinks.
And then you know, if if if I go, if
I go to bed, nothing happens that I know it
was a bad idea and I just annoyed her. So
but it's it's a testament to the counter propaganda machinery
that we live under, that we we naturally hesitate two
to promulgate these good ideas almost like they know what
they're doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we we have.
Speaker 2: To say it in hush tones and quiet, you know,
amongst people we trust.
Speaker 1: Right, And then if it gets to the point where
it's so dangerous to say certain things, then everyone's a
fed and you don't want to talk to anyone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, as awesome as the Internet is,
I think that the next big thing is going to
spread via word of mouth and probably semi hermetic circles
because it has to, because nobody wants to get arrested.
Speaker 1: If I believe that the nation must be governed by
the principle that the common good comes before the individual good,
I will tell it to those to whom it applies.
As soon as I realize that this principle is not
only of a transcendental transcendental nature, but that it applies
to daily life, I have the need to tell it
to those in the economic world. And if I see
it applies to culture as well, I have needs to
tell it to those involved in cultural activities. The great
masses will never be won simply by such a sentence.
It must cast its shadow over all areas of human life.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Grams, she was Grams, she was the one who
understood this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It has to march through institutions.
Speaker 1: Yep. You see how an idea spreads and becomes a worldview,
and how the bearer of the individual reaches out to
form a community, and how an organization, then a movement
grows from the individual. The idea is no longer buried
in the heart and mind of an individual. Now there
are four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, eighty, one hundred
and ever more. That is a secret of ideas. They
are like a wildfire that cannot be restrained. They are
like a gas that sees through everything.
Speaker 2: I saw that sentence. It was like, this is too easy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where an idea finds entry, it enters, and soon
that person is influencing others. The others cannot stop it.
They may believe they can stop the fire by force.
They may even be able to do so for two
or ten, twenty or fifty years, but this is not
significant in the larger course of world's history. It is
irrelevant if something happens today or tomorrow or even years
in the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a very transcendental view.
Speaker 1: Well, the you know, and the thing is is that
you can have the greatest idea in the world, and
you can tell it to a bunch of people, and
you know, two thousand people can hold on to it
and love it and want to talk about it. But
if they're not willing to put it into motion, if
they're not willing to you know, get the ball rolling
on it and implement it. It's use. That's when it's
just theory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: It is possible to slow an idea by force for
a certain period of time. In reality, however, that advances
the idea for forces to drive out that which is weak.
That's really good. That's really good. Yeah. Now, when everybody's
like what you believe, you know, hardly anybody believes that
there might be a reason. Yeah, there might be a reason.
The elements that do not really belong collapse. Suddenly, the
individual becomes a community, a movement, and if you prefer
a party, each movement begins as a party. That does
not mean it has to follow the methods of parliamentary parties.
We see a party as a part of the people.
As an idea spreads, becoming a worldview that spreads to
the community. The community will once to give the idea
practical form. The party will feel the necessities organize. Someone
will suddenly have the idea. You think the way I
do a way I think. You are working over there,
I am working here. We know nothing of each other.
That is absurd. It would be better if we work together,
If I did my part and you did yours. Would
it not be good if we met every month and talked.
That is an organization. Gradually, a strong organism develops a
party ready to fight for its ideals. A party that
does not want that will indeed continue to preach its ideals,
but will never bring them into reality.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, it's it's extremely hard to start that process now,
because anything outside of you, if you want to call
it the Overton window, never gets beyond what step.
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, never gets beyond not being buried in the heart
and mind of an individual or you may you may
get up to for those numbers.
Speaker 1: No, it's funny.
Speaker 2: It's a four eighty one hundred. Yeah, it may it
up to one hundred. But and I'm talking in real life,
not not x not social media. That's a whole different
story that that has its own endpoint that never materializes.
But it's yeah, it's I'm telling you, like, the next
big thing is going to be something you hear in
real life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it may have already happened. A recent example may help.
Our movement is often accused of losing its character as
a movement. Oh have you ever heard that that if
you you know change, if you're change a little bit
Oh you've you don't understand it anymore.
Speaker 2: You're not a real national socialist.
Speaker 1: You've lost a plot. Yeah, yeah, you couldn't hack it.
What we are accused of taking the vast, broad and
ever moving system of thought of Vulcansh movement and forcing
it into a proto pro Chrustian bed.
Speaker 2: So procrustian bed. I look that up, and it's basically
a like an arbitrary like forcing something to be arbitrarily different.
That's all it is. Okay, The emphasis is on the
arbitrariness of it.
Speaker 1: Oh you mean, like they try to say post libertarianism
was just Yeah, we supposedly had to chop off the
legs of the movement that stuck out, eliminating important parts
of the Volcansh idea. Vulkansh idea. National socialism is only
a surrogate for the real movement. Some say, in fact,
the Volcansh movement ran a ground on this matter. Each
declares his own particular intrat central to the Vulcansan movement
and accuses anyone who does not share his views as
being a traitor to the cause. This sounds familiar, huh.
That is the way the Volcish movement was before the war.
If someone had been able to take this great idea,
and the Volkish idea was greater than the Marxist idea
and develop out of it a tightly disciplined political organization,
then the Volcush idea, not the Marxist idea, would have
won on nine November nineteen eighteen. Marxism won because it
had a better understanding of political conditions, because it had
forged the sword it would later use to conquer the state.
If a Volcansh organizer had understood how to form a
great movement, it is a question of life or death
for a nation. The Volkish idea, not Marxism, would have won.
It was a worldview, but it did not understand how
to form a party and how to forge a sharp
sword that would have enabled it to conquer the state.
Speaker 2: So is he drawing a distinction? I didn't get this.
Is he drawing a distinction between national socialism and uh like,
the Vulcan movement?
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, because the volk movement. Yeah, because people
who are adherent to the Volcan movement argue that National
Socialists was just a was basically a bastardization. You know,
you don't understand, you don't understand what you're doing, you
don't understand who we are kind of Yeah, but you know,
he points he points out that at the end of
the war. I'm reading this this book on my show
Blockade right now, and it's about Vienna at the end
of the during the war and at the end of
World War One, and immediately in Vienna, social the when
the troops come back, when the kids come back, when
the men come back, socialism has taken hold. So I
mean they're bringing back socialism with them, They're bringing back
Bolshevism with them. Why Why because it was the only
at that point, It's really the one the one thing
that is pushing back against the what they would call
the war profiteers and people like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that makes sense because I mean the right
wing coalition in Germany post World War immediately post World
War One was like a coalition that included democratic socialists
and communists, right m and these and Volcanish of the
Vulk movement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that was I mean, for a second, I
mean they actually talk about like these whole she talks
about that. Well, I think her daughter went and visited
a relative in Lenz in Austria, and this is in
like nineteen eighteen, late nineteen eighteen, and there are roving,
roving hordes going through the town and just taking everything,
destroying everything. And she just offhandedly mentions and they, I
don't know why, but they look Russian.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: Well there's a reason. There's a reason why they looked
Russian because they were pouring over the border to take
a country, to take a country that was in tatters.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the state needs a worldview. Christianity also conquered the state,
and in the movement and in the moment that it
conquered the state, it began to carry out practical political activity.
You can with justice claim yes, But at the moment
Christianity took over the state, it began to cease to
begin being Christian. That is the tragedy of all great ideas.
At the moment they enter the realm of this life
of sin, of the all too human, they leave the
heavens and lose to romantic magic.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: Sounds like James Burnham. Yeah, it's just yeah, it's just
Burnham talking about how when when ideology is introduced to reality,
it just it gets punched in the mouth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I I I don't know if I agree
with that. I don't know that you can with justice
claim yes, but at the moment Christianity took over the
state of cease being Christian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean yeah, I mean, it's it just
it depends.
Speaker 2: It might have it might have changed changed his nature
and it has to Yeah, but yeah, I don't know.
I guess something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, the dogmacies, Yeah right, okay, it becomes something normal.
We are not discussing whether or not one can change
the nature of life. Things have gone on this way
for millions of years, and we'll go on in the
same way from it millions more. You will have to
ask a higher power why that is so. At the
moment an idea takes practical form, it loses its angels wings.
It's romantic mystery. If someone had had the courage to
strip the Volcanish idea of its romantic mystery, if one
had taken account of the hard facts, it would not
look as romantic today as it does to some dreamers,
but it would have kept millions of German children from starving.
For me, it is more yeah, yeah, well, you know
you know what I learned from that, that diary blockade,
the the Save the Children Foundation that was started to
feed German and Austrian kids after World War One. Huh yeah,
yeah yeah. For me, it is important that a nation lives,
that a nation live. For me, it is it's more
important that a nation lives than that an idea remains
as pure as possible in the heads of a few dreamers.
Speaker 2: Very practical.
Speaker 1: Yes, you can see that a movement needs an organization
if it is to conquer the state, and it must
conquer the state if it wants to do something of
positive and historic significance. I have often met the kind
of wandering apostle who says, well, everything you are doing
is fine, but you rely, you really, but you rely
must also you really must also take a stand against
foreign words in the German language. And another comes along
who says, well, everything you say is good, but you
must have a point in your program that says allopathy
is dangerous and you must support homeopathy. If the movement
were led by such apostles, the jew would end up
in charge. Do we want to talk about the United States?
Speaker 2: Now? So?
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the early twentieth centre United States? Now?
Speaker 2: So I've actually been thinking a little harder about this
and talking to some people, and uh, I think, yes
there is. I I don't think it's just Judaism. That's
you know, pernicious influence and all that. But what let
me throw this at you and we could talk about
it whenever. But uh, what about the pernicious influence of gnosticism?
Speaker 1: Oh where did that come from?
Speaker 2: So just looking into the uh, you know.
Speaker 1: The modern birth of it?
Speaker 2: Oh, the modern birth, Yeah, it's it's yeah, it's the
usual suspects. And if you go back in time, it's
it's them as well. After the you know, in the
in the second to fourth century, you know, in the.
Speaker 1: Most Christians would have been of Jewish Jewish descent.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, to be fair, Yeah, but the the the
syncretism between Judaism and narcissism, and you know how that
influenced the Talmud, how that influenced a couple of other
their other books, and and it's just an idea that
came into my head. I wonder how how that syncretism
is playing out now.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the the whole idea of gnosticism. I
mean you could just peel the skin off of it
and you can see progressivism.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm, yeah, yep. And you know it's it's influence
in academia, it's influence in Hollywood, you know, not to
not to really put my tinfoil hat on. But that's
just something that I was noticing.
Speaker 1: Kay, you're noticing huh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, like putting another yea, putting another another hat on.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm. The jew would find something new every day
until nothing was left. It is not the task of
a revolutionary fighting movement to settle the dispute between allopathy
and homeopathy. Rather, its task is to take power. Yeah,
you're saying, if you're looking at alopathy, homeopathy, these are
basically cultural things, way of life. Basically, I mean you
could call them ideologies. People build whole ideologies around them.
You see people who are really into allopathy or homeopathy
or really homeopathy, who have a tendency to be of
a certain the stereotype is of a certain group, you know,
the certain kind of person. And yeah, I mean that
you can call that an ideology. And when it comes
to taking power, you know, these these things really need
to be really need to be put aside, because is
that argument right there between allopathy and homeopathy? Is that important?
When you're trying to take over a state, when you're
trying to put together, when you're trying to you know, basically,
have create national socialists, create national socialism.
Speaker 2: Doing the math five years later, I think they mostly
proved that homeopathy works.
Speaker 1: At least, the movement must have a program such that
every honest fighter can stand behind it. Now, it is
certainly true that the modern German cultural establishment produces every
manner of nonsense. I know that this nonsense is poisoning
the German national soul. There are those who say something
has to happen. You have to do something. If you
want to fight the movie industry, you must build your
own theater, even if it's even if at first it
has the most primitive equipment. And if you see that
the children are being poisoned by what they read in school,
you must begin to win children's souls and give them
the ansidote. My reply is simple. You can spend ten
years giving the ansidote to the poison that is produced
by a badly led cultural establishment, but a single degree
from a ministry of culture can destroy all your work.
If you had spent the ten years winning fighters for
the movement, the movement would have conquered the ministry of culture.
Everything else is mere piece work. That's certainly a paragraph
right there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I ministry is culture.
Speaker 1: Poisoning German national soul. Something has to happen. You have
to do something. If you don't like Amazon, build your
own Amazon even got some libertarian yeah, through some libertarianism
in here. Yeah, it's like I said, with homeschooling, I
absolutely suggest that people homeschool their kids right now. But
if only five percent of the population is homeschooling, that
means ninety five percent of the kids twenty years from
now are just going to be progressive psychopaths.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, with a single decree, I mean, with a
single decree, we would lose ninety nine percent of our progress.
If they just simply you know, enforced KYC on X,
I think you know, that would be a that would crush.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So like again, it goes back to you. You need
to do things in real life too.
Speaker 1: But then you can make you can make the argument
that if everybody is public, I mean, can they come
after everybody?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, who knows, that's a Pandora's box. I don't
know if I want to find out. Yeah, they could
certainly come after us one by one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they could, but I mean they don't even have
the money and the funding to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: If a movement wins political power, it can do the
those positive things it wants to do. Only then does
it have the power to protect its accomplishments. At the
moment a movement or party wins control of the state,
its worldview becomes the state, and its party becomes the nation.
The nation is not the sixty million people who live
in it. That is a confused mixture. One says yay,
the other says nay. That is not a nation. A
nation is characterized by consciousness. Instinct alone is not enough.
Only when I am aware that I am a member
of the nation, when I am consciously a German, do
I belong to the German people. The Great Elector did
not say, think and remember that you are German. Rather,
he said, consider well that you are German. Consideration is
at the level of consciousness. Such consciousness belongs to the
entire nation. Adolf Hitler rightly answered the Court and Munich
in this way when he was asked, how could you
think of establishing a dictatorship over sixty million with such
a tiny minority? His reply. If an entire people vulk
had has become cowardly, and there are only a thousand
left who want something great and who have and who
have to and who have the power to transform the state,
then those thousand are the people. If the others let
a minority conquer the state, then they must also accept
the fact that we will establish a dictatorship.
Speaker 2: Powerful, prescient.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the same is true of a movement. If a
movement has the strength to take over the state, then
it has the power to transform the state. I am
the last to complain that the Marxists rule us today.
As long as we do not have the strength to
overcome them, they have the political rights to rule us.
Oh he's so good. He is so good. Oh man, Oh,
it's just it's true, and it's meant to piss you
off the same time. Oh, it's so good. As long
as we do not have the strength to overcome them,
they have the political rights to rule us. I am
surprised how little they use that right. I would do
things differently. That is their tragic misunderstanding of their own worldview.
I do not complain that the gentlemen of the Berlin
police use their power against us, only that they call
themselves democrats and claim that they allow freedom of thought
and of speech. That is nonsense, that is lying, hypocrisy,
For in truth, these gentlemen are dictators. If a movement
has a strength to take over government positions of power,
then it has the right to form the government as
it wishes. Anyone who disagrees as a foolish theoretician. Politics
is governed not by moral principles, but by power. If
a movement conquers a state, it has the right to
form the state. You can see how these three elements
combine ideals and personalities. The idea leads to a worldview,
the worldviews of the state. Individual becomes a party, The
party becomes the nation. Have you noticed he repeats certain
sentences over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, yeah, a little practical application.
Speaker 1: The important thing is not to find people who agree
with me but every theoretical by with every agree with
me about every theoretical John's hittle. But rather that I
find people who are willing to fight with me for
a worldview, winning people over to something that I have
recognized as right. That is what we call propaganda. At first,
there is knowledge. It uses propaganda to find the manpower
that will transform knowledge into politics. Propaganda stands between the
idea and the worldview, between the worldview and the state,
between the individual and the party, between the party and
the nation. That's so good he explains it. I mean,
he explains it that I've read brene Is extensively, and
he explains it so much better than Brenes because Brenees
is always hiding.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, nope, this is pretty pretty clear cut, like, yeah,
whatever your revolutionary process is, propaganda is in between all
of the steps in those processes. Makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: At the moment at which I recognize something as important
and begin speaking about it in the street car, I
begin making propaganda at the same time I begin looking
for other people to join me. Propaganda stands between the
one and the many, between the idea and the worldview. There,
he is repeating himself again. Propaganda is nothing other than
the forerunner to organization. Once it has done this, it
is the forerunner to state control. It is always a
means to an end.
Speaker 2: H Yeah, he asked the question earlier. Is propaganda a
means or is it an end? And answers it here.
Speaker 1: Although I must hold unshakably and unalterably of the idea
propaganda adjusts itself to the prevailing conditions.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you again, Yeah, do you think our
our current rulers view propaganda as a means or an.
Speaker 1: End at this point? I think it's an end.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's yeah.
Speaker 1: There, it's too it's too clumsy.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: There's nothing. There's rarely anything manipulative about it. It's more
like we know that there's a certain group that when
we say this, they're going to believe it no matter what,
and all we care about is that group.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the constant positive reinforcement that you are on the
right side of history, that you are, that you are
a good person, that you are normal, that what you're
doing is acceptable. I think that that's that's fuel for
people to go throughout life. Now, I think if you
took that away from a large portion of the population,
they would go insane. If you cut off their serotonin drip,
which is delivered via propaganda, they would literally go insane.
They would fall into a depression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are people on I mean that that is
what ex Twitter is or whatever they're calling it now is.
I mean it is is literally somebody's probably the serotonin drip.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're just waiting. It is the and I I
think if if Garbels wasn't German, he could articulate it
this way. But the the constant affirmation, like that's that's
the serotonin drip, just just chasing after affirmation, and in
particular that's you know, the the e thoughts and just
I guess women in general are more susceptible to that
in my experience, but also I guess young men as well.
Speaker 1: Although I must hold on shakably and unalterably to the idea,
propaganda adjust itself to the prevailing conditions. Propaganda is always flexible.
It says different things here than it does there. It
cannot be polished, laminated, and stuffed. Rather, it must occupy
the space between the one and the many good sentence there.
I talk differently on the streetcar with the conductor than
I do with a businessman. If I did not, the
businessman would think I was crazy, and the streetcar conductor
would not understand me. I remember, I forget who said
it that whatever Ron Paul, if Ron Paul spoke to
like college kids, or he spoke to like a group
of Muslims, he always like delivered the same message.
Speaker 2: Would that be to his fault or was he just
that good?
Speaker 1: Oh? I mean, well, I don't know. I mean, I
love Ron Paul, but really what did he change? I mean,
I guess there are some things he changed. I guess
you would say that he paved the way for Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think that would be. That's how I
would characterize his accomplishments too. Is he definitely planted a
dissonance seed that didn't really grow until Trump, and then
it grew exponentially.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very fast, very fast. If I did not, the
businessman would think I was crazy. In the street car
conductor would not understand me. That means propaganda cannot be limited.
It changes according to whom I am trying to reach.
Let me tell you a story about a party member
in Berlin who since nineteen nineteen has promoted the national
Socialist idea. At first, he beat his head bloody against
a wall which he wants to avoid. He began by
distributing the wildest anti Semitic publications on the street. He
knew it was bad stuff, but there was nothing better,
so he read Book is Me. He knew it was
bad stuff, but there was nothing better. So he read
these books or newspapers in the subway. Everyone could see
that he was a harmless crank, And when he stood
up and left his newspapers behind, someone regularly would say, sir,
take your newspaper along with you. He would angrily take
his paper and leave it with a conductor, saying here
German brother, and the conductor certainly thought he came from
the nuthouse.
Speaker 2: Many such cases.
Speaker 1: Did you hear that somebody walked up to Dave Smith
at the Libertarian National Convention in a thong? A guy
walked up in a thong and wanted to debate him
on borders.
Speaker 2: I again, I believe that wholeheartedly. I mean.
Speaker 1: Put it this way. If somebody walks up to you,
a guy walks up to you in a thong, you,
I don't care who you are, You immediately believe in borders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you believe there.
Speaker 1: Should be a border between you and that person. I
don't care who you are.
Speaker 2: Vigorously enforced.
Speaker 1: He gradually realized that the methods that worked with friends
and comrades did not work with strangers. In other words,
there is no abc a propaganda. One can make propaganda
or one cannot. Propaganda is an art. Any reasonably normal
person can learn to play the violins with a certain degree.
But then his teacher will say, this is as far
as it goes. Only a genius can learn what remains.
You are not a genius, so be content with what
you have learned. Yes, I can, certainly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, everybody has a maximum potential, especially in the time
that we're in right now. Recognizing that when somebody has
met their maximum potential and maybe doesn't have a whole
lot to offer anymore, that's part and parcel.
Speaker 1: I can certainly teach any reasonable person the absolute basis
of propaganda, but I will soon recognize the limits. One
is either a propagandist or one is not. It is
wrong to look down on a propagandas. There are people
who say a propagandas is merely a good drummer, displays
a certain envy and lack of ability. They are mostly
mediocre philosophers whom the masses ignore. You have seen often enough.
No one can deny it that our movement has good speakers.
Since our opponents do not have good speakers, they say, well,
they are only good drummers. Hitler was called the drummer
of National Unity for five years. When they realized that
this drummer had ideas that didn't fit into their way
of thinking. He was suddenly a crazy politician who had
to be dealt with. It is foolish to look down
on propagandists. The propagandist has a certain role within the party.
It is good for our young movement that we are
young and lacking in really great leaders, though naturally not
in comparison to other parties. The great leaders we have
cannot stick to a particular area, but must be able
to do everything. They must be propagandists, organizers, speakers, writers, etc.
They must be at organ They must be able to
get along with the people, find money, write articles, and
a lot more. That is why it is wrong to
say that Hitler is merely a drummer. That is what
is great about him and what separates him from everyone else.
He is a politician and also a propagandist. While the
leaders of other parties understand neither politics nor propaganda. You
can see how propaganda relates to the worldview and to
the organization. After we have finished the hard work of
moving the idea and the worldview from the individuals to
the masses. Propaganda has the task of taking the knowledge
of the mass and enabling it to take over the state.
Speaker 2: So when I read this, my first thought was, we
have the opposite problem. Now, even the lowliest freshman senator
has a an overabundance of knowledge of propaganda. And it's
to the point now where if you're above a certain
i Q, it just nothing resonates, which is a good
and bad I guess.
Speaker 1: Well, I think one of the another problem we have
is that we have a lot of propagandasts out there,
and but.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and a whole lot of jacks of all trades.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the Brene said that you know, you you
wanted the the best is educated just enough so that
they could understand propaganda. That's one of the that's that's
the problem we're at right now, is that we have
a populace that is educated just enough to understand propaganda.
And one thing that the enemy it has done well
is and I think this is done on purpose, and
some of them are absolute agents, is they put out
quote unquote right wing propaganda, propagandists who have very who
have big plays. Yeah, but they're also gatekeeper. But they're gatekeepers.
They're they're meant to not make you notice, or they're
made to not make you go too far to the right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's I've been talking a lot about that on
my feed. I am just so disgusted with the last
couple of weeks and even with the last couple months,
because it's you know, I I don't want to say
that our movement should be fractured, but there's definitely some
some house cleaning that needs to be done. And yeah,
everybody needs to be hyper aware of when they're being
gas lit.
Speaker 1: Yep. Let me give an example. What good would it
do if everything we know to be right stayed in
our few heads? If you would doubt the rightness of
the idea since they would see that no one was
joining them. And if we do not have the people
from the lowliest essay man who distributes newspapers to the
best speaker or the leader of the party, all of
our lovely knowledge would be useless, for only we would
know it, the others would continue their nonsense, and the
German people in the end would perish. And what does
this sound like? Propaganda is absolutely necessary, even if it
is only a means to an end. Otherwise the idea
could never take over the state. I must be able
to get what I think important across to many people.
The task of a gifted propagandist is to take that
which many have thought and put it in a way
that reaches everyone, from the educated to the common man.
You will all grant me.
Speaker 2: This, so and you know, to apply that to you know,
anything in this country. I think the perfect propagandists would
have to be personable and social, and that is an
increasing rarity nowadays, you know, able to carry a conversation
in real life, able to make whoever they're propagandaze and comfortable,
you know, like like we're having a casual conversation, but
I'm planting seeds in your head, you know what I mean.
I think that that's an art that's becoming rarer and rare,
and maybe maybe maybe we'll be the last generation that
you know, still has a an aptitude for it, you know,
as as as the younger kids get alienated more and more.
That's it's almost by design.
Speaker 1: You will all grant me this. And as further evidence,
I can recall a Hitler speech in Jenna. Half the
audience was or Marxists, half students and university professors. I
had a burning desire to speak with both elements. Afterwards,
I could see that the university professor and the average
man had understood what Hitler said. That is the greatness
of our movement that it can use language to reach
the broad masses. Of course, the style will vary according
to the speaker. It would be a big mistake to
expect everyone to treat the idea in the same way.
For as great as it is, so different are the
individuals who are to be reached by it. You will
surely hear some people say that they like one speaker
while others prefer another. It would be a mistake to
try to make the soft spoken speaker into a thundering orator,
or a thundering orator into a soft spoken chap Neither
would accomplish anything. The soft spoken speaker would never reach
the heart no matter how hard he tried, nor would
the thundering orator succeed in speaking quietly. Everyone would go
home dissatisfied. The bigger our movement gets, the more kinds
of people it can house, and each will reflect the
movement a little differently. No two things in God's world
are alike. Everything is a little different. Thus one person
reflects things differently than another.
Speaker 2: That's that max potential thing coming up Again.
Speaker 1: As propaganda draws an ever growing following to the idea,
the idea broadens because it becomes more flexible. It no
longer stays in a few heads, but wants to include everything.
At that moment, it becomes a comprehensive program. We can
happily see that that in the case in our movement,
you will never find millions of people willing to die
for a book, But millions of people are willing to
die for a gospel. And our movement is becoming more
and more a gospel. All that we have comes to know,
all that we have come to know in our individual
lives is joining to form a great faith that lives
unshakably in our hearts. Each of us is willing, if necessary,
to give his all for it. No one is willing
to die for the eight hour day. People are willing
to die so that so Germans will be so that
Germany will belong to Germans. What Adolf Hitler prophets.
Speaker 2: What nobody's willing to die for an eight hour day?
That I don't know if that applies to nowadays. Yeah,
just want a grill man.
Speaker 1: But people are willing to die so that Germany will
belong to the Germans. What Adolf Hitler prophesied in nineteen
nineteen is becoming clearer every day, freedom and prosperity. The
movement is increasingly freeing itself from from the all to
human and becoming a powerful force. The time is coming
when people will not ask us what we think about
the eight hour day, but rather when Germany is seized
with desperation, they will ask can you give us fit
back faith? If a movement has brought the idea from
the individual to a worldview, building in the end a
clear gospel for which each is ready to die, that
movement is near victory. That does not happen in the study,
but rather in battle, in bitter battle each day, with
the enemy bringing him to see how he has led
the nation down the wrong path. I must say that
I learned the most from reading the Berlin or Tajeblat,
a newspaper hostel to the Nazis. That is a fine
example of the Jews at work. From the Jewish standpoint,
I've never noted a single mistake, whereas the nationalist papers
make mistakes all the time.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like your enemy understands you better than
you understand your enemy. That's not good.
Speaker 2: Yep, credit work do yeah.
Speaker 1: I now want to outline the essential characteristics of propaganda.
We have already agreed that propaganda is not an end
in itself, but it means to an end. Its task
is to spread the knowledge of national socialism to the
people or to a part of the people. If propaganda
does that, it is good. If not, it is bad.
The German nationalists claim that Hitler's propaganda before nine November
nineteen twenty three was too loud, too noisy, too popular.
Hitlery replied, Munich must become national socialists. If I achieve
that my propaganda and it will have been good. If
I had wanted to make you happy, it would have
been bad, but that was not my intention. You cannot
evaluate propaganda in mid course, but rather you have to
wait until it reaches it Samaker's goal. You cannot say
that our propaganda was wrong because the government banned it.
That is false under Jewish police officials, our propaganda would
be wrong if it were not banned, for that means
it would be hard. For that means it would be harmless.
The fact that it yeah, the fact that it is banned,
is the best evidence that we are dangerous. If the
ban is lifted, do not come to me and say
that the Jew has seen the error of his ways.
It will be lifted when the Jew sees that it
is not achieving his purpose. You can say what you want.
The Jew will put away his dagger only when he
sees that it is better not to use it against
propaganda method or when he sees that the dagger has
already done its duty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's h another salient point. If you're you know,
if if you're not getting banned, if you're not getting
put on a list, if you're not getting punished in
some way, shape or form, then you're not saying anything
that's that's in any way a threat. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was at an event, small event a couple of
weeks ago, and somebody told me that Tim Poole was
a dissonant. And I didn't laugh. All I said, all
I asked was to dissonance make a million dollars a month.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good metric. Yeah, what income bracket? What
what tax bracket is he in?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And no answer the h.
Speaker 2: Well, I think a good thing to promulgate nowadays is
that the methods with which bands are are dolled out
is via algorithm. So if you can find a way
to hack that, and you know whether it's via via
language or more more technical methods, Uh, use that too
if you can. If you can pierce pierce through the
uh the safety mechanism, do it. I have. I'll tell
you right now. I use a text obfuscator. Just Google
text obfuscator, then type in whatever you want and uh,
you can even change the letters come out in some
weird script, but uh, you can change the letters to
look normal. And it's so far, so good. I've never
even gotten a warning, and I post some pretty hainous ship.
Speaker 1: You do, I like it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's how I've I've I've gotten banned off Twitter
five times, like five new accounts, and I've had this
one for a while now. And I credit the text obfuscator.
Speaker 1: All right. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not
a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners.
It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct.
I do not care if I give wonderful, esthetically elegant
speeches or speak so that women cry. The point of
a political speech is to persuade people of what we
think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I
do in Berlin. And why I speak in Beyruth. I
think that's Beyruth. I say different things than I say
in the forest hall a meeting hall. The nazis often
used in Berlin. That is a matter of practice, not
of theory. We do not want to be a movement
of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that
can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not
intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to
discover in intellectual truths. I found them by thinking, or
at my desk anywhere, but in a meeting hall that
is where I transmit them. I did not enter the
meeting hall to discover intellectual truths, but to persuade others
of what I think to be right. I learned methods
there that I can use to reach others with what
I have found to be right. The speaker of propagandists
must first understand the idea. He cannot do that in
the middle of making propaganda. He must start with it.
Through daily contact with the masses. He learns how to
communicate that idea. It is not the task of propaganda
to discover knowledge, but to transmit knowledge, it must adjust
to those it wishes to reach with that knowledge. The
Propagandas's speeches or posters that are aimed at farmers will
be different than those aimed at employers. Those aimed at
doctors will be different than those aimed at patients. He
will adjust as propaganda to fit those he is speaking to.
You can see that all the critical standards used by
other parties to evaluate propaganda missed the point, and that
most complaints about the NSCAP is propaganda result from a
false understanding of propaganda. If someone tells me your propaganda
has no civilized standards, I know there is no point
in even talking to him. It makes no difference if
propaganda is at a high level. The question is whether
it reaches goal. My first goal when I came to
Berlin was to make the city aware of us. They
could love us or hate us, as long as they
knew who we were. We have reached that goal.
Speaker 2: He's a wrestling heel.
Speaker 1: We have reached that goal. We are hated and loved.
When someone hears the term national socialists, he does not
ask what is that? Once we have reached a first goal.
We can work on turning hate to love and love
to hate, but never to indifference. The battle against indifference
is the hardest battle. That's I mean, it's so true. Yeah,
it's just so true.
Speaker 2: If you can evoke an emotion response, what what that
emotion is doesn't matter, it's it's in their heads and
there may sometimes you can get people to do your
propaganizing for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even if it's negative just bying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, your interactions with your detractors probably convert more people,
you know, to to taking the next step and watching
an episode when when you when you really hammer some
dumb shit on X, like, that's probably just as effective
at you know, getting them to the next level.
Speaker 1: People will ask you if you're like arguing with an
account that is, like, why are you arguing with an
account that has ten followers. I'm not arguing with the
account for the sake of the for the the account
with ten followers. I'm arguing with the account for the
people who are watching.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm publicly crushing somebody that I know has a
relatively common view and letting it be known to everybody
that you know might be on the fence.
Speaker 1: You know, when you have thousands and thousands, tens of
thousands of followers you have. There are followers who never comment.
There are people who just lurk, and they lurk all day,
never comment. That's who you're doing it for. Yep, you're
doing it for the people who are watching what you're doing,
who are watching your account. I hate when someone comes
in and goes, why are you arguing with them? Why
do you keep retweeting them? Why do you keep retweeting me?
I only have ten followers? Yeah, shut up, Yeah, shut up.
Speaker 2: If you can get a couple people to dip their
toe in the water, then take it. Take it from there.
Speaker 1: Just why am I retweeting an account with ten followers? Just
be a useful idiot and just let me retweet your account.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: The battling incident. There may be two million people in
this city who hate my guts, who persecute and slander me.
But I know that I can win over some of them.
We know that from experience. Some of those who persecuted
us and fought most bitterly against us are today our
most determined supporters. You see that the important thing for
propaganda is that it reaches its goal, and that it
is a mistake to apply critical standards that are irrelevant.
Let me give another example. If someone asked me what
I think of another person, is it's silly for me
to say I like him, but he cannot play the piano.
The answer will be, so what he is a corporate lawyer.
Why don't you see if he is good at what
he does. That is a good answer, and it applies
just as well to propaganda. Our propaganda follows a clear line.
Adolf Hitler once told me that it is not necessary
to give a programmatic speech to a public meeting. The
public meeting requires the most primitive approach. If the fine
gentleman say, you're only a proper gun, the answer is this.
Was Christ any different? Did he not make more? But
did he not make propaganda? Did he write books or
did he preach? Was Mohammed any different? Did he write
learned essays or did he go to the people and
say what he wanted to say? Were not Buddha and
Zarathustra propagandis true? The philosophers of the French Revolution built
their intellectual foundations. But who got things moving? Robes, Pierre
Danton and the others. Did these men write books or
did they speak in popular meetings? Look around today? Is
Mussolini more an author or a great speaker? When Lenin
took the train from Zurich to Petersburg, did he repair,
did he repair to his study and write a book?
Or did he speak to thousands? Bascism and Bolshevism were
built by great speakers, by masters of the spoken word.
There is no difference between the politician and the speaker.
History proves that great politicians were always great speakers. Napoleon Caesar, Alexander, Mussolini, Lenin,
name whomever you want. They were all great speakers and
great organizers. If a person combines rhetorical talent, organizational ability,
and philosophical ability, if he has the ability to transmit
knowledge and to gather people under his banner, then he
is a brilliant statesman.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: And that's why we don't have any statesman. We don't
you know who that is.
Speaker 2: Right there right now, Kelly, Yeah, yep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and really yeah, and really he is, Like his
philosophical ability is I mean, it really comes it comes
out more when he's questioned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, yeah, especially by a hostile party. Yeah, he
is the master of replying to his detractors and just
strengthening himself. Yeah, there's a Massachusetts representative that he just
got BTFO by bu Kelly. Oh yeah, I saw that,
something about like moving, like relocating a painting in an airport.
He's like, yeah, we moved it two feet and like
shut up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, laconic phrases. All right, if someone tells me
today you're a demagogue, I answer him in this way.
Demagoguy in the good sense is simply the ability to
get the masses to understand what I want them to understand.
Of course I can adjust to the feelings of the
broad masses, which is demagoguy in the bad sense. Then
I change not only the form of what I say,
but also the content. You cannot tell me that things
have changed. Formerly, speakers built movements. Today we live in
the age of the press, and it is the writers
who are influential. This theory is obviously false. Of course
the press is important, but if you examine well written editorials,
they turn out to be speeches in disguise. The Marxist
did not win through their editorials, but rather because each
Marxist editorial was a little propaganda speech. They were written
by agitators. They sat in their offices or in their
smoke filled bars, writing not elegant, intellectual and polished essays,
but rather brutal direct words with the average which the
average man understand.
Speaker 2: We have a litany of those right now, But all
I can think of is BuzzFeed. Wait, what did he say?
They were written by agitators, they sat in their offices
or in their cum filled rooms.
Speaker 1: Jeez, probably do have some great propaganda's coomers. Yea, that
is why the masses devoured the Red Press. We must
learn from their example. Marxism did not win because it
had great profits. They had none one because its nonsense
was promoted by agitators of the ability of August, August
Bebel and Lenin. They led Marxism to victory. If the
Volcish movement had had such agitators at its disposal, its
stronger intellectual foundations would surely have let it to victory.
Some critics complain, all you do is criticize. You only
complain you can't do things any better yourselves. Does this
sound familiar at all? As anybody ever said.
Speaker 2: That to you?
Speaker 1: Love it like once a day, once a day. Others
say that the angriff Gerbel's newspaper in Berlin is entirely negative.
Say something positive for a change. Well, I am not
in a position to say anything positive about Isidor weis,
the Jewish vice chief of police in Berlin and a
regular Gerbels target. I can only be negative, and there
is nothing positive I can say about the Republic. There
is nothing positive about it. I can say something positive
when I eliminate the negative. The most brilliant statementsman on
earth could do nothing with this Republic, and Marxism preached
only the negative for sixty years. The result was that
it took over the state eighth on ninth November nineteen eighteen.
Hitler once said, keep those no at alls who always
want to do something positive away from me. We could
do something positive only when we have first gotten rid
of the negative. A leader does not emerged from a
conference table. He develops from the masses.
Speaker 2: And the.
Speaker 1: More a true leader rises from the masses, the more
he draws the masses to him. The mass is the weak, cowardly,
lazy majority of people. One can never entirely win the
broad mass. The best elements from the mass must be
put in a form where they can be victorious. That
is the task of a brilliant mind. Yep, we thank fate. Yeah, crucible,
we thank fate that it has given us one of
these minds, a mind superior to all others, whom we
willingly serve. That is to prove that we will win
if others find their wisdom and majority rule. But a
movement is led by one person, that movement will win
when it wins. Is when it wins is irrelevant. It
will win because that is the way things are. Look around,
as much as you want, you will everywhere see our
movements intellectual foundations. The task of the leaders and the
followers is to drive this knowledge ever deeper into the
hearts of our shattered nation. Each must make that clear.
Each must think things through. Everything we do must be clear.
We will never give up. If everything is clear. One
does not have to be an outstanding speaker. If he
can say it all in a few words, he is
a propagandist. If we have an army of such propagandas
from the littlest to the fear himself, and if each
spreads our crystal clear knowledge to the masses, day will
come which our worldview takes over the state. When our
organization seizes the reigns of power when we will know
when we are no longer members of a slave colony,
but rather citizens of a political state that we ourselves
have formed. That is our task on this planet to
create the foundation on which our people can live. When
we do that, the nation will create works of culture
that will endure the eons, endure for eons in world history.
Speaker 2: All right, I agree with everything you said.
Speaker 1: Really, is there anything? Is there anything in there that
that you sill combridge with.
Speaker 2: Little quibbles here and there? Yeah? Was? Uh? Was was
Gebel's Catholic?
Speaker 1: I don't know what he was. I don't know how
he is.
Speaker 2: Some weird German offshoot of Protestantism.
Speaker 1: Is that what it says?
Speaker 2: Oh no, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay, I was early life. Buh. Both of his
parents were Roman Catholics with modest family backgrounds. Yeah. What's
funny is Gerbels does definitely look German, but he could
also like pass for Sicilian.
Speaker 2: Yeah, looks a little bit too self German.
Speaker 1: Yeah, South Italian, south of the boot like way south.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean when when I read this, all I
could think is, wow, we have a we have a
long way to go. If well, you know.
Speaker 1: And it's also one of the problems with having people
who are a little too smart, because it's like, okay,
so if you speak in very plain language, if you
use propaganda, that is what does someone tell me today
it was what you just posted was rage bait. I
don't think what I posted was rage bait. I am well,
I mean it may have been.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: You tell me, is it propaganda? I'll find it. I
mean it's yeah, I get accused of that all the time,
but I think you know, when you're talking about when
you're talking about power and really how how power is
supposed to work and how power will actually work, then
you know it's.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Jake Shields, you know, Jake Shields m a guy. Yeah,
and and huge noticer. Yeah, he said, uh, I guess
speaking about Trump, he said, conservatives try to be fair,
while liberals imprison their political rivals at all costs. This
is why conservatives always lose. They need to learn to
fight dirty or keep on losing. This isn't how America
should be. But I don't see any other alternative. Yeah,
it's my but.
Speaker 2: It's it's it's a natural proclivity of you know, your
your garden variety conservative to respect legitimate authority, and you know,
the the courthouse yesterday was a legitimate authority. And that's
why today there's no demonstrations. There's just you know, Fox
News panelist screaming into the TV and uh, you know,
a bunch of people mad online.
Speaker 1: What you needed to see today was a planned effort
well in advance of Republican areas of people, Republican DA's
things like people like that arresting Democrat politicians locally, okay.
Speaker 2: And you know what, like this has always been a possibility,
and then come July eleventh, during the sentencing, it is
a possibility that he will go to jail and then
what like there's we're not even getting to the step
that talks about organization, Like we're way so far removed
from any type of will to activism or or or
anything like that. And because you're a fed now if
if you talk about that, you're a fed yeh. Which
is why it's so important that there is a real
life component that to meet people that you know, share
a common view with you and propagandize. You know that
that might be done through propaganda, is a propaganda or
it might just be like, you know, you happen to
meet somebody that has already been propagandized successfully and in
whatever your worldview is. But go outside people banking, you
go outside, go to the go to the bar, go
to I don't know, like meet people.
Speaker 1: That talks with people. So my response to my rage
bait response, as it was called was to Jake was
politics as friend enemy, simple as how do you treat
your enemies when you get power over them? And then enclosed,
I went, oh, but my morals, Fuck your morals they
want you dead? Yeah, yep, I mean is can that
be considered hyperbolic? Very? Is it true?
Speaker 2: Are are they willing to die for their morals? Because
that's something we can work with, but we know that
they're not, which is why they don't have any potential.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just it's just click it, man.
Speaker 2: They get ten cents of click, just click.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anything else you got to say about this?
Speaker 2: No, just feeling particularly jaded and yeah, I me and
me and Bird just recorded an episode that we don't
really know if we should release because we spoke very
frankly about some subjects that came up in in this episode.
Speaker 1: Ah well, I mean, if you don't really. If you
don't release it, just please share it with me.
Speaker 2: Oh I will. Yeah, I'm sure Bird will have no
problem with that. Okay, and then you release it because
I want to.
Speaker 1: Go to do your first bt w A in what
two years?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, it's coming anytime now. I think I'm interview
rebrand though, are you? Yeah? Rolling around ideas.
Speaker 1: That's good, that's good. It'd be good to see you
putting out some material. I know you work your ass
off though, so I guess we gave half the plugs
already so you can finish doing whatever you do.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You can find me on Twitter at BTWA Underscore
Returns and every week on Timeline Earth.
Speaker 1: I love every time you said that every week.
Speaker 2: All right, man, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Yep, of course