Speaker 1: Yes, far out the exterior darkness, no breath steeps, no
light shines, and no sound is heard. One can glance
towards the spinning earth ball in the astral regions. Illumination
is of the soul. Hence all is dark, but this
certain star, and only a part of it, is a glow.
From such a distance one can obtain an utterly untrammeled
view of what is transpiring on this earth ball. Drawing
somewhat closer, continents are visible. Closer yet population streams. One
focal point exists, whence the light goes forth in all directions.
It is the crooked peninsula of Europe. On this tiny
pendant of the great land mass of the earth ball,
the greatest intensity of movement exists. One can see for
out here the soul and its emanations are visible. A
concentration of ideas, energy, ambition, purpose, expansiveness will to form.
Hovering above Europe, we can see what never before was
so clearly visible, the presence of a purely spiritual organism.
A close look reveals that the light stream is not
flowing from the surface of the Earth upwards into the
night sky, but downwards from the hitherto invisible organism. This
is this discovery of profound and revolutionary importance, which was
only vouchsafed to us by reason of our complete detachment
from terrestrial events in the outer void, where spirit is
visible and matter visible only by reason of the light
from the spirit. Thus begins Francis Parker Yaki's magnum Opus
and I contend one of the greatest books of the
entire twentieth century written by an American imperium the philosophy
of history and politics. That little sample gives you an
idea of what you're in for when reading Imperium and
I worry Imperium has a reputation because it's so long,
of being dense and difficult to reach, it's imminently readable.
And the entire book reads that way. And you can
already see in the first opening paragraph. And this drew
me in immediately. I was sold immediately when I read
this paragraph on this guy and this book. This gives
you an idea of how Yaki talks about culture and
how Yaki talks about race. It's a book of metaphysics,
and he talks about the spiritual, and he talks about
materialism as a fallen state in the spiritual being a
higher thing that most intellectuals and historians ignore. Part of
Yaki's mission was to bring the spiritual aspect of culture
back into the discourse. And tonight Thomas and Pete have
joined me to talk about Yaki Yaki's perspective on race,
but Yaki in general, and his ideas and how they
why they are important for us today. And I guess
my first question to you guys, before we get into
Yaki's ideas, is that I don't think we can call
Yaki forgotten anymore. But he was forgotten for a time,
or not forgotten, maybe overlooked is a better word. And
I've personally never heard of him until maybe five years ago.
So I think it's good to start by saying that
this man's work was intentionally buried. This man's work was
intentionally kept out of the discourse. And I don't think
there's anything like this that's been written by an American
since World War Two. I want to say I don't
want to call him forgotten now because he's been brought
up by the dissident right and he's being talked about
now online. But for a long time, I don't know.
I don't know if his name was talked about in
political discourse much at all.
Speaker 2: I suh teric. I mean, there's a handful of people
who really understand Yaki, like that's not some kind of
flex and honestly, and nor is this a flex. But
the reason why Yaki as Kasha now and is because
of me. I mean, I you know, the fact of
the matter is unless you've got some rudimentary fluency in
German like reading it, you're not gonna understand Heidegger. You're
not gonna understand Ficta. You're not gonna understand Chopin. However,
you're not really gonna understand Nietzsche, which means you're not
really gonna understand as well Spangler nor Hagel, which means
you're not really gonna understand Francis YACKI. So there's these
guys who on what passes for like the dissident right
in America, and despite what the Internet guys think, it
wasn't like the dissident right wasn't like invented in twenty
nineteen by like Internet guys. It goes back decades upon decades.
But their perspective was generally like this kind of policy based,
pragmatic viewpoint that was like discreetly oriented towards specific problems
like why is racial integration being forced at gunpoint? And
looks like at that from a policy perspective, or like
why is there this kind of schizophrenic seeming disposition towards
the Cold War and communism? Looks like deal with that?
You know, like America is not a philosophically driven society.
You know, like there's like Roy Russell correct Mede that point.
This isn't something like wild dissident point. So this like
Hegelian Spinglerian like national socialist author who basically defected the Europe. Like,
no one's going to be into that because it's it's
not speaking their language figuratively and literally. And Willis Cartero,
who was an important guy. And there's the Willis carter
Library now online, which I highly recommend to people because
there's some really fascinating stuff there if you're a historical
research or not just his writing, but his correspondences with
all kinds of people and stuff. But Cardo Cardo has
kind of in that vanity American right I talked about.
But Carter realized, Yaki, he was an important person who
had important things to say. So when Yaki was locked
up in San Francisco on on Schorge, devestpionage and a
bunch of other stuff, Carter went to visit him and
made sure he made contact like with Yaki's sisters and stuff,
so that he could make sure that like his his
his work got out there. Because Yaki's number was up.
Even if he hadn't killed himself, he was gonna go
away probably for like decades, okay, And Carter was the
first to admit he wasn't some like political theory scholar
or some kind of like high falutin intellectual. But again
to his credit, he realized this was very important, you know.
But again the reason why people never really bandied Yaki
is because they didn't understand him, Like he wasn't even
in there. He wasn't even in their wheelhouse. And that's
like a point. When I started studying this kind of stuff,
I came across Yaki through the I h R n
C Versus Over Review because like Vick, you know, pre Internet,
their newsletter was like an essential source of a scholarly
information and Yaki's book would come up again and again.
And that owe to Keith Sneimley, who I mentioned before,
I went live who was a an I HR writer
and he h he was a big Yaki. I So
I began wondering, like, what's like. You know, you'd hear
like bits and pieces about Yaqui being an important uh
intellectual from various people. And Yaki was also much a partisan.
I mean that's why he died. I mean he was
he was very engaged as as a as an active partisan.
But so I sought out Imperium and I found out
to use the bookstore and I started diving into it,
and I realized, Okay, this is like the only like
meaning full post war statement in national socialism in English.
It's not like because Americans don't know what the fuck they're
talking about in this regard generally, like national socialis isn't
George onnkon Rockwell like trolling black people.
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 2: It's not. It's not. It's not guys who who don't
like school bussing, like dressing up like Horst Vessel. You know,
it's not. It's not just like conservatism on steroids, you know,
like and other than Yaki and guys like George solvester
Viereck and Kandie McGinley and a guy who I think
who I draw a out of inspiration from James Hartzung
Medal and the National Renaissance Party, like they were very
thick with yacky like Maddal new yaky and anything Rockwell
did that was worthwhile, which was not a lot. He
basically stole from metal like Maddal had a legit like
fascist presence in the street in the fifties, and the
NRP indored until the late seventies, and they were openly
pro Soviet now because they liked Stalinism and not because
they liked the Russians. But they realized that the Cold
War paradigm, you know, meant that uh, an American victory
in the Cold War would lead to the situation we
have now. And if for no other reason, you know
that Europe's only Europe's only opportunity to liberate itself would
be some kind of concord with the Soviets. Was absolutely true.
You know, these these these are the only guys who
were who really understood national socialism. I realized that was
long winded, but that's I mean that, that's that's why,
like you don't really see Yaki on the right. I mean,
now you've got people on the internet who banded you
and without really understanding. But yeah, well that's true.
Speaker 1: I found out who Yaki was because of you, and
I had read Decline of the West, both volumes, and
you know, at this point, having read Emperium more than once,
I would say you should probably go straight from Spangler
to Yaki. He's he's very much Spangler's air. And I
don't know. I think this stuff is pretty lucid and
straightforward and comprehendible if you haven't read Spangler. But I
think you're missing a lot if you haven't read Spangler.
Speaker 2: I mean, like I I said, the standing to people
about Heidiger, it's like, yeah, like in plain English, if
there's a correct translation of Heidegger, you can proceed it
in some basic way. But you basically need to have
a deep understanding of Aristotle, and that means you need
to have a deep understanding of the prescritics. And again
you've also got to understand the lineage there, you know,
And I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't present myself as understanding these things that I'm
so smart. But I'm almost fifty years old and I've
spent thirty years studying this stuff. You know, I mean
like it so there, so there's that, you know, like
it's a very involved enterprise, and there's epistemic priors to
people like Jaqui and Spangler that draw upon the European
canon that again like doesn't really exist in America, you know,
like such that there's an American like metaphysical tradition. It's basically, uh,
it's basically biblical, you know, and that's and I'm not
putting shade on that. That's my own heritage. You know, I'm
a Bible Protestant. There's a the Federalist papers, uh like
draw upon the capital are Republican tradition in some basic way.
But you know, there's not there's not there's not a
philosophical tradition in America that's continental and such that there's
like American philosophers like they're they're guys in the analytics school,
and it's the formal logic and like philosophy of science
and like theoretical math. There's nothing that's that's important stuff.
But that's not political theory. It's something totally different.
Speaker 1: Well, I was okay, so I'd like to start with
so check the show notes, because Thomas and Pete have
a great episode which is more introductory on Yaki. I'd
like to just get right into his ideas and his
concepts here because they're pretty idiosyncratic for an American audience.
And to build on the last episode. I don't know
if how do how does Yaqui understand race? And how
does Yaquie talk about race? And the thing that I
really want to ask is why was his perspective on
race controversial? And it still is today.
Speaker 2: Because Americans don't understand it because it comes on epistemic triers. Okay,
if you're talking about including the actual national song of
the third Reich, if you're talking about race like Ross
and in the traditionally understood sense, you're not talking about
like people's biology or like you know, animal husband dream
but applied to people, and like we're not talking about
race because we're worried about you know, do these people
have an IQ? Like these people? So is affirmative action
the right way to go? That that's not within anybody's contemplation,
but Americans yea. And this kind of idea. The fact
of the matter is what Americans think is like right wing.
They think it's basically like a post Enlightenment discussion, unlike
the efficacy of like treating everyone the same or different.
That has nothing to do with with with with with
capital or race. The August position is this, it's it's
it's it's the Aristotelian position. It's the it's the traditional
capital t position that the origins of human culture, like
the origin of human life, is mysterious. It's not clear
exactly where this comes from. But what's fundamentally important to
it is things like historical memory, which is in part
biological and epigenetic but is in part ill understood, and
like how people inherit it. Oh, the things that can't
really be rationally quantified. You know, culture basically is defined
by prime symbols, a certain like esthetic, like a certain
series of symbolic psychological phenomenon that people identify with in
some perennial way, you know, the natural environment in which
they live, like the soil in which they're dead are
literally buried, and then from which like the food the eagros.
You know, this has the effect of like shaping like
a people into kind of like this common like social organism.
And that's what a race is, like, is there a
biological component to it? Like, yeah, of course, but like
you're not. I mean the point of people bore too,
especially these like weirdos who insist that like being Jewish
is some like biological thing. It's like, so if I
took I took like a baby who like had Jewish
parents and put him on a desert island and he
never heard of like the outside world, Like when hit
twelve years old suddenly start acting Jewish like that that's retarded,
that's not that's not the way human life is. And
but that was like that was Jacky's like perspective on
a race, okay, and like the collision with the modern
world of you know, traditional things and the capital t
this this kind of fear and loathing of what Arms
and Nodi called practical transcendence, this kind of not just
like a demystifying of the world, but this kind of
inability for people to engage psychologically anymore with you know,
these prime symbolic aspects of culture, but also the historical
phenomenon that underlies it. Like that was like a big
concermon national socialist obviously that was like their paramount concern.
But people like misunderstand. But you know because in the
twentieth century, as politics became total, and the state became
this kind of absolute arbiter of affairs of a political
and sociological nature. You'd have like you'd have guys like
in the Third Reich and in America and everywhere talking
about race, you know, in in juristic terms or in
administrative terms, like oh, we need to sterilize habitual criminals,
or how do we define as a matter of law,
like who is a white person? That's not what we're
talking about in philosophical terms. It's like whatever race is.
You know, you're talking about like some kind of some
kind of diminished understanding of an incredibly complicated and deep
phenomenon for the purpose of administrative like praxis and like
a practical business and government, and like that's what the
problem is. Yeah, And like, don't get me wrong, like
people who's people who are interested in like human biological
diversity and interested in like race and anthropological terms and
not saying it's like something wrong with it. And I'm
not saying it's not important. But that's totally different than
like what I'm talking about and what people at Yaki
and Heidegger and Spangler and Nietzsche and Ficta and Hegel
and everybody else was talking about for the last literally
thousand years.
Speaker 3: Well, let me let me ask this it. It seems
like Yakill in his chapter on race and Nations, he
definitely makes a I think one of the one of
the problems a lot of people have what Yaki too,
is is that once you get to a world where
you know, religion doesn't matter anymore, people don't don't have
a confessional heritage anymore. There you know, Oh, I'm going
back to my pagan roots kind of thing. Yaqui speaks
in very metaphysical terms, especially when it comes to when
it comes to race, because it seems like he's like, sure,
there are you know, the spirit is tied to the soil.
But it also seems like he doesn't put any kind
of importance in any race other than one that possesses
a high culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because you can't talk about Ill, I mean, how
Spangler's all point too, And like Spangler despite I mean,
one of the ways I can tell people don't actually
read this stuff because like both people in the right
end and the left, like the critiques of Spangler don't
make any sense. You know, if Spangler said that messo
America had a high culture, you know, like the Aztec Empire,
they reached genuine civilization, which goes without saying, but this
idea that Spangler like disdained like non white people, I mean,
that's that's not the way people thought about stuff like Yeah,
obviously like Spangler was concerned with his own kind. I
mean it's while point, but you you can tell you
can't talk about you can't talk about a raise in
historical terms, and we're talking about someone like forgotten tribe
of like fifty people that spoke a language nobody else
did that never got beyond like the Stone Age, that
was like a ceremoniously overrun by like the Zulu Empire,
say in like eighteen oh five. I mean it's probably
like a million instances like that, Okay, But in an
anthropological sense, yeah, like such hypothetical people have a culture,
but not in the sense like we're talking about here,
and they don't like engage with the historical process in
a meaningful way, you know. So that's that's where some
of the confusion arises. But it's also you know, I'm
always making the point that that Chopenhauer is a lot
more important to the European right than Nietzsche was, and
Yaki is constantly falling back and Chopinhower tropes. And I'm
not saying that pejoratively. I agree like Chopenhower' is a
is a philosopple giant, and he's far more important than Nietzsche.
But this idea that like the only thing that really
redeems man is is like high culture. Like that that's
a Chopenhower idea, And it's not like a will to
power idea, like although there's some common conceptual ground there,
but that's what he's getting at. Basically. It's not just
that if we're talking about historical process, you know, people's
without and races without high culture, they're not engaged with
that process. But also like if we're talking about kind
of like the raison tetra of what it quits, like
human life, like you're that that's what it is, okay,
It's the ability to it's the ability to rise above
like man's like defal aspects and partake of you know,
his truly God given aspects of not not just higher reason,
but you know, the ability to perceive like higher forms
and like the platonic sense.
Speaker 1: Well, on that note, something Yaki says repeatedly, and this
is in Spangler well as well. Is he says that
like races and peoples are stratified, and they both refer
to a culture bearing stratum. And they talk about in
Spangler the peasant class, and he says that the peasant
class is like the founding stock, but they're not the
culture bearing stratum. And this is basically Yaki seems to
agree with this and take this up. So I don't
know if we want to get into that, but briefly,
the way they talk about it is like you have
the peasants who are close to the land, who are agrarian,
and then you have the culture bearing stratum who comes
in who are the noble. And in the case of Europe,
it's like the same group of people that are in
Russia as well, the Norsemen, right, the Goths, the Varangians,
the Swedes, the Norwegians, they sort of went out across
Europe and they populated, they seated their genetics all through
Europe and they became the culture bearing stratum. I think
that the most common example of this is Normandy, France
and southern England, where the nobility spoke French, but the
peasants on the lower rungs spoke English or Middle English,
and I want to get to Russia, but we'll wait
for a second here. I don't know if Thomas wants
to say anything about this what the culture bearing stratum is,
and that these are the people who have culture, who
create culture and perpetuate culture.
Speaker 2: The standard bearers of it, you know, like the peasant
class who's like the blood and soil peasant cast. They
absolutely have culture, but you know, they're the subjects of it,
and like like quite literally they're like the mentioned material
like of the cultural organism, but they're not like the
standard bearers of it. Like if you'll allow an imperfect metaphor,
like like imagine like an imagine like a neoclassical skyscraper. Okay,
Like the peasant cast is literally like the concrete foundation
of it, like the the artifices and like the beautiful
sculpture and work and whatever, and and the edifices like
of like all around to the spires. All right, that's
the culture bearing stratum. You know, Like if you're gonna
talk about like you're gonna talk about like what it
means to be, you know, if you're gonna talk about
what it means to be like English in like historical
terms or what it means to be uh you know,
like Prussian. Like the standard bearers of that tendency are
are the nobility, Okay, that the people have like a
deep historical understanding of these things, that the people who
like embody those characteristics, that the people who literally like
rule over the lower orders and in a conscious as
well as instinctive way, you know that that that's what
the difference is the way to think about him is
the standard bearer. And that's why well that's also to
why traditional capital ti traitional societies are attached to nobility
because and royalty specifically, like that's like where the king
of the queen or like the emperor's like rule is.
First of all, like the origin of of of of
royalty is mysterious. I mean, in the case of Japan,
it goes back literally thousands of years in a linear capacity. Okay,
but it's like, okay, these people also they're they're they're
they're literally like the living standard bearer of the nation.
Like that that's the difference, you know. And it's and
again if we accept that, like the culture is a
constellation of of prime symbols. It was symbolic psychological nature
of aesthetical judgments and like inherited uh, inherited concepts which
are pre ration which are pre rational in nature.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: Obviously for some reasons prosaic and some profound, the the
ruling cast is going to like embody those things like.
That's one of the reasons why another problem in America
is people confuse the right wing with like like capitalism
or something like, Oh, that the political divide is capitalist
against socialists. That's not what it is. And the uh,
the rise of the business class that there was as
much enmity between them and the ears listocracy is between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, like the Enlightenment was basically
class warfare of like the business class against the aristocracy.
They're not the same thing, not only not the same thing.
In some ways they're opposites and their enemies, you know,
like that's and one of the things one of these
people like although I mean people at Cromwell, like Napoleon,
like Hitler. Hitler very constantly was trying to do this,
the former this is what they were doing, although to
varying degrees of kinds awareness, like reconciling that hostility to
reintegrate the cultural organism is like a prime mission of
these kinds of heroic figures. In the Carlisle sense, we
seem to be able to reconcile like dialectical antitheses and
do like coherent revolutionary imperatives. Okay, good, Can I jump in? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Please?
Speaker 3: Okay. So when you're looking at the culture bearing element,
one of the one of the things that Yaqui mentions
a characteristic is self sacrifice. And when I'm reading that,
I'm reading that as it sounds to me like a partisan,
like how the nobility would go out and they would
they would lead the charge in a war. They didn't
sit back, they didn't send their they didn't send the
sons and daughters of the peasants off to fight the wars.
They they were actually out there with the men. Is
that part of it is? Is is a culture bearing element
of a high culture? Are they going to be a
partisan for that culture where it's it's delivered to die
to protect it?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's your job. Like partisanship's problematic because
that's very much to me. I mean it and the
one it's perennial i mean it goes in the Bible,
I mean like zelots for partisans. But and if you're
like the nobilities, the trade off is, if you're a nobleman,
you have benefits and privileges normal people don't. And uh,
it's kind of actiomatically you're gonna be wealthy. But like
the trade off of that is that when the nation
goes to war like that, you're you're probably gonna die,
you know. And that also means that you're held to
a higher standard. You know, you're like George Bagbie and
I were talking about this the other day, Like, you know,
you're you're permitted to bear arms, and you're permitted, for example,
you know, to demand satisfaction and for insults to your honor.
But it's considered completely abhorrent and unacceptable for you to say,
challenge like a peasant to a fight, because it's not fair,
you know, and you're a say, for example, if you're
like a peasant who gets caught up, like you know,
being drunk in public and acting like an idiot, that's
not a big deal. For no, that's a very big deal,
you know. So it's yeah, it's you're you're not wrong,
but it uh it's intrinsic to uh noble you know,
not not only are not only are these guys literal
like fathers kind of the nation. And it's their job
to to be benevolent towards their charges and you know,
to be equitable and in their administration of justice. You know.
That's uh, that's why I like in the American tradition,
like King David is invoked a lot, you know, as
like a man of like sound judgment in dealing with
you know, his charges. But you also when the nation
goes to war, like you've got you've got an obligation
to put yourself in jeopardy, like one of the one
of the what as an aside, one of the some duke,
some one of the one of the lesser princes. It
was Kia in the Falklands War. And then after that,
like the British got all weird about, oh, we can't
send the royals to wars, Like the fuck are you
talking about? That's their only job, you know, and like
that there's something really perverse about that. But I mean
that's kind of an aside. But yeah, no, that's a
good point you raised, man, obviously.
Speaker 1: All right, So to talk about the low culture and
the high culture. Something Spangler says is that like the
peasant stock that I was referring to earlier, that's the
lowercase se culture. And a point that him and Yaki
make is that they're there like forever. The people who
were tilling the land in Europe in you know, two thousand,
let's say two thousand years ago, are the same people
who were tilling the soil a thousand years ago, and
they're the same people who are going to be tilling
the soil in a thousand years. So when culture, when
Spengler and Yaki are talking about culture, they're talking about
uppercase C culture, and there's only been a few of
those in history, and they have them worked out the
quote I read from Yaki. He goes on to talk
about all the different cultures that Spangler identified. The Mejian culture,
the classical culture Apollonian so Western culture is Faustian culture,
and Spangler says it was born around the year one thousand,
so there was a break when classical Apollonian culture died
or declined and went away. And then the Byzantines that
we know about that some people say is the continuation
of Rome. According to Spangler that was the Mejian culture,
and then the Faustian culture started in the year one thousand,
right around the time of you know, ten sixty six
and all that to Bayou Tapestry. So what was happening
between the fall of Rome and the year one thousand
when the Faustian culture was born? According to them, that's
lower case C culture, and the Faustian culture was the
upper case C culture. So that brings up a question,
what are we now here in America? Are we the
continuation of the FASTI.
Speaker 2: And America was in many respects founded in opposition to Europe,
you know. And I Hitler himself made the point that
like the American South was like the high culture of America,
and that's true, but even that it was a discrete
kind of thing. It was different than it was different
than the continental tradition. And I made the point too.
I take exception, there's a book called Albion Seed and
there's some there's there's some insightful analyses in there, but
there's also some bullshit, and uh, there's this there's this paradigm.
A lot of a lot of historians and cultural anthropologist
types assigned to the Americas where it's like, oh, you
know the North then, especially the northeast. You know, they
were they were the heirs to Cromwell in the South
with a bunch of royalist cavaliers. That's not true, and
the kind of backbone of the South was reformed the
center elements, you know, like like like Stonewall. Okay, Like
that's that goes though saying, but I make the point
a lot if you read read, especially read John Jay
and Hamilton and the Federalist papers, they're constantly coming back
to this point that America is like the Anglo Saxon
heritage and where we're reasserting the rights of like free
men in the Yalomen re against this kind of Latin tyranny.
And that's the way Americans thought of themselves. You know,
That's why Americans identified as angle Saxons. They didn't identify
as a bunch as much a Norman royals, you know,
they didn't. They didn't identify as a bunch of Frenchmen
like they they despite like Jeffersonian, I mean je Jefferson
was was completely incoherent and in his kind of ideological fetishes.
So I get sick of people invoking, like, oh, America
is a Francophone culture. Politically, it's like that's retarded, but
the it's not. It's it's not just some kind of
romantic mythos or some meaningless turn of phrase. When the
Federalists in particularly like talk about how we're like this
Anglo Saxon country that that's got certain implications, okay.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 2: You know, the like like the West is. I mean,
this is something of a different question, but it relates
directly Jacky's enterprise as a partisan as a writer, because
you know, he was he was fighting the Cold War.
America is not. America is not like the heir to Europe.
It's not fausty and civilization like not even close. It's
it's hostile to it, like the West went down at Stalingrad.
And even with that not the case, there's only one
form of government today, and there's that the prime primary
imperative of that government planetarium scope and scale, is to
eradicate discrete cultural forms and impose thiss like ideological monoculture
on the planet. So when people talk about like we're
in the West and there's these sovereign states that are
like jockeying for power, that's that's completely odds of reality,
the world hasn't been like that since nineteen eighteen, you know,
so this is important. But so there is there is
like a high cultural European derived strain because Anglophone peoples
are European. But even long before the twentieth century, and
long before the kind of controversies and politics of of
the of the world Wars and things like Great Britain
and the several cultures that constituted was discreet and insular
from the continent in basic ways that carries over into America.
I mean that's when people ask me about cultural stuff.
I mean, first and foremost, if you're somebody like me
in my background, your confessional heritage is paramount. I mean,
I'm like a Reform Protestant, but also I'm Anglophone. I'm
not I'm not a European, you know, like I I
don't mean know like pejoratively or something, but like people
if you're at the center of an Anglophone heritage, and
that includes people like hugano Us, that includes people like
you know, German Protestants, not not of the Lutheran tradition,
but of the Reform tradition. And there's more than you
might think. I include that in the same kind of
cultural prestige. And that's why in places like South Africa,
that's why in places like Ulster, that's why in places
like Australia and New Zealand you find this kind of
common constellation of those different ethnicity is kind of ossifying
into this like anglophone hole. But it's different. It's different
than than continental cultural tendencies, you know, And that's one
of the reasons mostly it was such an interesting figure everyone.
I'm jumping around a bit because mostly kind of reconciled
that divide in a way that that was meaningful in
organic terms. But that's basically the way to understand it.
And that's also why it's that that's also why it's misguided.
People talk about like the West. I mean, I realize
like like regime conservatives, like when they see the West,
they're talking about like fast food and certain ways of
doing business and like like governments they approve of. It's
like literally like meaningless. But I'm not talking about that.
But even people who are obviously more intelligent and you
know who's who are who's are, they're in the correct
place in terms of their ethics and in the concepts
that in form those ethics. They don't really understand that like,
there's not you know that there's not like we don't
live in like a truly multipolar world. We don't live
in a world of like nation states that are truly
discreete and sovereign. We don't live in a world where like, Oh,
America because it has like a bunch of white people,
is like is the error to the fausty and civilization
And that's not what's happening at all. And that that's
the reason why World War two is so critical because
that created the modern world in political and sociological and
historical terms.
Speaker 1: Okay, good, this is extremely important to understanding Yaki and
his concept of imperium. Go ahead, Peter, I'll save this.
Speaker 3: Is one of the reasons why Yaqui would say that
the the Jews don't have a race is because they
all they're appearing to do throughout the last two thousand
years of history is to either preserve a bloodline or
preserve a a way of living. It doesn't it seems
like he would say that there's no high there's there's
not even a hint of a high culture there because
everything seems to be on the it aimed at the material.
Speaker 2: Well, it's also it's not something people don't understan. Yeah,
that's true. What's something people What I'm saying either, is
that when you're talking about like the Jewish people of
like twenty twenty five, like you're not you're you're not
talking about the descendants of King David. Like you're not
talking I don't mean that in some corny Christian identity way.
The temple was destroyed in seventy a d Like Judaism
was done, Like there is no Judaism without a sacrificing priesthood,
without a temple, you know, without a kingdom. So Judaism
was done. Then in one hundred and thirty five, Aed
basically a bunch of Jewish lawyers, like literally like a
bunch of Jewish jurists and uh, like rabbinic students and
guys who spend all their time like studying the Talmud.
They approach the Romans and they're like, yeah, we want
to sit up, we want to set up like a
rabbinic school, and the Romans will like, do whatever you want.
So this like Robinic tendency developed around around Talmudic Judaism,
and it's about it's about tricking people and like hostility
to the other and this kind of ethical discourse on
you know, on vengeance and things. It's not like what
we think of as like a religion, and it's not
premise that it's like a political grievance structure, you know.
And yeah, that's why I'm always making the point and
people chalk this up to people chalk this up to,
you know, my own prejudices or whatever. Like goo at Israel,
it's this weird pastiche of like twentieth century like racialism,
like military socialism, like bizarre kind of totally outmoded like secular,
atheist identitarian stuff. And it's like why do they speak Hebrew?
That makes no sense, you know, Like like why why
wouldn't they speak Aramaic if the whole thing is we're
gonna pretend to be you know, the Kingdom of judae U,
you know of as Saul and David and Solomon. Like
whole thing's like really fake, you know. So yeah, he's
right and this idea and you see that too, like
with these the ultra orthodox that people are called that
I mean, obviously they've got a more sophisticated than an
incredible view like of their own heritage, I mean, regardless
of what anyway thinks about them. But people like Mitt
Yaho and he's like idiots, uh who casts it to
kind of the front bench of leak, which just like
look the way they talk. It's like sometimes they're pretending
to be just what I said, you know, like the
standard bearers of like Old Testament Judaism and Masada. Like
sometimes they're pretending the to be this this like superior race,
like like they don't it doesn't Sometimes they're like pretending
to be uh true blue Americans. Like it doesn't make
any sense, and and and and that I don't just
mean it doesn't make any sense in that it's it's
cynical and and tailored the discrete audiences. And in terms
of it's propaganda, I mean it's that too, but in
like anthological ways, it doesn't make sense, you know, because
there's nothing there. You know, like it's it's fake. You know,
it's this idea of they're being like this deep kind
of heritage. Uh to to to Rabbinic Judaism is nonsense.
But it's also again like there is there is no
Judaism without a temple. I mean like read the Old Testament,
I realized, like, I'm not saying everybody should bide my
traditions confessionally, but okay, when you read the Old Testament
and they're talking about the temple, and they're talking about
the sagecies and the Pharisees, and they're talking about the
essential aspect of sacrifice, essential aspects of literal sacrifice, that
sound like Judaism today, Like no, it doesn't you ever
met a Jewish priest? No you haven't. You know why
they don't exist because there is no more Judaism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it's it seems like if you're going to
use the definitions that Yaqui uses for race and for
high culture, there's just nothing there. No so all so
all you're experiencing and all anyone was experiencing at the
time that Yaqui Wash was alive, was basically this group
of people who their whole, if you want to call
it a heritage, is tricking people and basically looking to
get over on everyone. And that's basically what's controlling Europe
now and the United States. And the only the only
pushback you're getting that he even sees starts to see
is in the fifties with the USSR.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and Yaki had a complicated view of the Russians,
which I basically agree with, you know. But but yeah,
the in Russia, Russia and the Jews, the people are
are magically at odds, you know, I mean that and
people That's another thing Americans can't seem to understand. I mean,
that's a whole other issue. But yeah, I I basically
agree with that, and that's why. But that's also too why.
I mean, a lot of people must understand Nietzche's writing
on Jews, and a lot of that stuff is also
kind of deliberately deemphasized because uh, academ American academ is
totally midwid but it's also obviously like like very left
wing in nature. So they it's it's a combination like
misunderstanding the the nuances of a Nietzschena storiography, but it's
also a basic discomfort with this account of the Jewish people.
But Nietzs's all claim was that, well, like we're beinting,
Judaism is gonna cease to exist because there's no foundation.
So he's like, essentially these people are gonna become European,
you know, or or there or their culture just gonna
die out of inability to perpetuate itself, like if we
can call it a culture, I mean for the reasons
like we've been discussing, you know, because like howging something
like that endure. You know, of course, like Nietzsche was
writing during the nineteenth century and uh that it would
have been impossible to predict the outcomes of these kinds
of Titanic struggles of the century subsequent. But yeah, I'm
gonna raise up in a minute, Frank, because I don't
feel great. I'm sorry to like the abrupt, but it's
kind of like a rough day in terms of the things.
I'm not trying to be a bore pitches about its health,
but it's ah, that's where I'm at. But we can
reconvene later this weekend or next week if you want
to continue this discussion.
Speaker 1: I do. As we're talking, it's hitting me that it
was completely naive of me to think we could talk
about Yaki in one episode. It's it's way too expansive.
So if you guys stop for it, not to put
you on the spot.
Speaker 2: Oh no, it's we whatever, you guy, This is what
I do with my time. I mean, like I we
can reconvene and talk about this anytime you want. Just
let me know when you want to do it. You know,
like I said, you can probably next week would be
better for this weekend is a lot of it. I
got a lot of commitments, like like the content words,
but yeah, just let.
Speaker 5: Me hope you.
Speaker 4: Will say I listening about the say anything I saw,
anything I say or anything they say. I think I
said everything about something. Listen anything say something about some
of the things I know were the sensation like the
sing sing away saying about the s A S I
T I S S sings I sing s not sure
I show or anything that I saw. I p I
S T S S S stay out as a time
sing I say.
Speaker 5: Out sing something like that snything s S S S
S S S S S.
Speaker 4: S S.
Speaker 5: S say s something s S S S S S
S T I say times.
Speaker 2: The thing.
Speaker 5: I'll show anything a thing sure athation no thing, I'll
say things.
Speaker 4: Everything said I show I sthside some of the something
else I say about the pay.
Speaker 5: Show at S S S about the shout been did
to them and