Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana Show.
I'm here with j Neil Janiel right, Jay, Jay's okay,
you can call me Josh, Josh, Josh Neil.
Speaker 2: What's going on, Josh, Oh, it's going well, it's it's
a great pleasure to be speaking to you. I have
to say shout out to my friend Jefferson Lee. H
he put me on to you because you have this
great series with Thomas seven seven on like all these
historical things, and it's just a it's a real it's
a real public service you two guys do, so kudos
to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and then tomorrow starts the balk the nineteen
nineties Balkan Wars.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, tell everybody a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, so, as I said before, I host or
co host Jefferson Lee Show with my friend Jefferson Lee,
who's also in this. I write. I have a substack
Jneil dot substack. I've branded it as Psychopolitics and it's
mostly essays on psychology and politics, and there's an accompanying
YouTube channel. My first book with Imperium Press is called
American Extremist. The Psychology of Political extremism, and I actually
got a new one coming out with them in a
few weeks called Understanding Conspiracy Theories. But yeah, for people
who don't know me, I've been i would say, in
the radical righte with my name and face out there
since twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. I made the switch. I think,
like for a lot of people I know, we were
hardcore Trumpists, like very libertarian, but like on that cusp
of well what used to be called the liberty, like
the libertarian to a right pipeline. And so I was
one of those guys. And when when the Seria strikes happened,
that's when I started to look away from Trump and
start looking to other things. And then in twenty seventeen,
obviously that was the ault right. So for people who
don't know me, that's my background.
Speaker 1: Tell me a little bit about American extremists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so a little bit of a personal story. I
was in twenty nineteen. I was involved with some people
that your audience may be familiar with, people like Richard Spencer,
so on and so forth, Augustas and Victis. At the time,
he was running for office at presidential office and remember yeah, yeah,
and it was wild, great guy, terrible what happened to him?
He's out, obviously, and so he's back to streaming, you know,
to your audience, showing your love and affection. He's a
great guy. But I got docked as a result of
getting involved with a lot of those people. And I
had already I came into the alt right because I
have a background in psychology, maybe you guessed from the
title of the book, and I went you know, I
didn't go to the doctoral direction because the kinds of
questions I was interested in were more political and philosophical
than like strictly speaking about mental health or whatever social
science research I guess on today. So I was already
working on some stuff observations I had over the years.
But it was really like getting into the radical right
was like having the veil pulled away from your eyes
entirely so, and then getting docked as a result of
that kind of made me have to confront some kind
of realities. Like when I got into it, I was like, oh, well, Nazis,
that's not a real thing. That's just like a libtard fantasy.
And you know, by and large it's not you know,
it's not like there's a well organized, politically active machine
that has political, cultural material resources, things like that. Obviously
that's not happening, but none the less, there are people
who espouse those views, and they range from totally harmless, tepid,
you know, contributing members of society who just want the
trains to run on time, and on the other end
are actual degenerates, people you wouldn't want to associate yourself with.
The reality I think, as most people probably know, is
that really is an extreme, heavily ostracized minority, not just
by polite society, but even in these kinds of circles.
You know, I do think we do a really good
job of self policing, maybe to our detriment, because obviously
the left doesn't do that at all. They just set
their freaks loose. So when I came out of that,
I felt like I had some unique things to say
about what was wrong with American politics, left right and center,
and so I kind of wrote the book imagining I'm
holding someone's hand through a red pill process a very
you know, not like cutesy memes and gifts like this
is a little bit more. You're gonna have to take
some breaks, you have to go back to the corner
and have them you know, fucking whatever those things in
boxing that they put when you get when you start
developing the mouses, they put that huge fucking like think
or compress on your head like this is a red
pill like that, but you'll need the compress and everything.
So it starts off talking about media control, myth, the
mythological narrativizing as the framework people should be thinking about
rather than like ideology or so on and so forth.
And so I carry people through this, you know, here's
what's you know, here's what myth is. Here's like how
this kind of psychological framework is influencing your decision making,
so on and so forth. And I give actual lots
of citations to that. And then obviously going of the media.
You know, this is because the basic thesis of the
book is it's not an original idea. I just really
kind of beat the hell out of it over the
course of the book. Is that the liberal establishment is
genuinely where political violence originates from. Whether it's you know,
forced integration by gun by military, whether it's Antifa in
the streets, which is not so much a thing right now,
whether it's journalists going after you wait, oh, yes, right,
just yeah, I don't want to speak too soon. Knock
on wood. So getting people to think, which is very
easy if you're talking to conservatives, because they already hate
the government, and they hated the government for like one
hundred and fifty three hundred years. The Americans have just
always hated the government, and so it's very easy to
be like, well, here's here's this persecutory framework, but you
have to adjust some of the variables because obviously Connink
runs on his own persecutory framework and it's false, as
we all know. So that's the basic thesis, and then
I try to explain how that is. And in some
cases it's talking about literally I was writing this during
twenty twenty, so every week i'm like kind of pseudo
like like almost like a historian of it, like an
ancient Roman historian, like there were this many black people
on the street this day, and they busted this many
heads or whatever. So it's half like okay, philosophical analysis,
but also half like detailing the actual political violence that
was happening at that time. I actually think it made
it even more impactful because it's like here's theoretical stuff,
here's some nice size sources and citations. And then also,
here's the video of a black guy stomping on someone's
head until they're bleeding all over the place. Obviously that's
not what's in the book. And then taking these people,
you know, well, here's what's wrong with the left wing
in America, here's what's wrong with the centrism, liberalism it
kind of informally, and then what's wrong with the right,
And a lot of it relies very heavily on kind
of classical psychoanalytic theories, but it's not all psychoanalysis, and
as Mike likes to say, the book does take Freud
back for the right. So I mean, if you have
if you're allergic to or sensitive to Freud, and obviously
I understand why people would be. It's very much like
a different spin on kind of a familiar story.
Speaker 1: One of these days, you've got to come back and
do an episode just on narrative building, because I mean,
that's where everything is. And anybody who doesn't realize that
after the last four years is just not paying attention.
They're in their ideological box and they're you know, playing
playing with is them and their friends playing by themselves.
You know, it's just you and stepped out to look
around and see exactly what's happening out here. But one
of the things that I really been looking at lately
is individualism. And I think it's hard to miss that
this was. Individualism was a big part of the founding
of this country. You can see it in the founding documents.
People will argue that, sure, you know there was individual
people talked about individual rights, but there was collectives and everything.
Well sure, okay, yeah, there were collectives and everything, but
everything always moves left, it seems, so you you sort
of knew that it wasn't going to last anyone who
you could look at you you know things, things don't
get better until they get really, really, really really bad.
And so there's a section in the book where you
talk about is after the narrative, part about the narrative,
it where it's individualism, anarchism, and I think sociopathy. So
can we get a little bit into you know, like
what you see as when it comes to individualism, is
that what you see is that is that what you
see this society and this culture being all about.
Speaker 2: Yes and no pros and cons on both sides of
that equation. I mean, Kevin McDonald obviously famously has written
about this. I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that
the Western tradition is the tradition of the individual. However,
in the same way, to be a liberal in the
eighteenth century meant something different than to be a liberal today.
To be an individual in the eighteenth century meant something
different than it does today. I read a lot. I've
been reading a lot of San Francis and James Burnham lately,
and you know, one of the things that San Francis emphasizes, Sorry,
I just lost my train of thought is that.
Speaker 1: In eighteenth century liberalism is different than liberalism today.
Speaker 2: And then being an individual okay, thank you. So he
talks about like, for instance, great safe, very good job.
You know, he talks about okay, you know, there's these
different types of liberals, and if you were a liberal
in the eighteenth century, actually, you know, fundamentally, what's distinguishing
it from today's liberal is all of these restraints and
considerations and obligations and duties and belongingness and embeddedness. That
is the background of all this cool, sexy enlightenment liberal
stuff that we started doing over the last couple hundred years.
There was a story in the news not so long ago,
maybe a couple of years ago, someone was trying to
get Immanuel count canceled because they found his like private
correspondences where he just talks about racism and hating women
and stuff like that. And it's like, none of these
people it was just a foregone conclusion that that that
whatever they theorized was occurring in a homogeneous European Christian context.
So same thing with being an individual. You still had
responsibilities and obligations and duties and and and other things.
Your individualism was still curtailed by larger social forces, the church,
the different political organizations, so and so forth at that time,
and so you still had to fit in society. But
today it's really the opposite. Society is now increasingly bending
to accommodate the most extreme individual people who can collectivize
and then create this political edifice that that makes the
rest of us conform to them. Where I work, you know,
I had to accommodate a gender, non whatever kind of person,
and you know that's their individualism kind of like having
this warping effect on the social fields around them. Like, well,
suddenly the rest of us are caught in your madness,
And that's just part of the equation you said before
you kind of like hinted at the moldbug line about
you know, Cthulhu always swimming left. I think that's obviously
because technology has this corrosive effect on social norms and
morera's the ultimate consequence or outcome of which is this
kind of radical liberation from all this social embeddedness going on.
So today, to be an individual is I mean, I'm
not the first person to say this. Your audience hopefully
very well understands this. To be an individual today is
unlike any probably any kind of person that has ever
existed in human history. To the point I remember I
for a short spell, I was a teacher, the university teacher,
and I remember telling my students like ten years ago,
like because the hot question I would always get day one,
like intro psychology classes, like okay, professor deets, what's up
with all these trans folks?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: And then like I'm trying to go through the like
syllabus and they're like can you make sense of this?
To me? Like all right, hold on, but like to
go through that conversation with them and be like, well,
guess that's not even weird, Like just wait seven years
and you're going to have people like with prosthetics and
you're gonna have to start calling them what they want
or just the the the the the, if you want
to say. The continuing like revolutionary spirit of this is
just going to keep bringing new manifestations of this. So
with regards to the title of that section, Individualism and Sociopathy,
the argument I make said, effectively, to be like an entrepreneur,
you know, the Fu Coodian self entrepreneur, to be this
neoliberal person, to be an American you know extensive air quotes,
is to be this radically self constructed person with like
no predecessor, no context, no pretext. It's solipsism. I mean,
it's every nasty word you've ever heard in a philosophy class,
but ultimately it's pathological.
Speaker 1: Do you see that as like, particularly a post World
War two phenomenon where you really start seeing things this
it all start breaking apart as far as a real
change and what it means to be an individual.
Speaker 2: Yes, although the seeds of that were very clearly starting
to show in the fifty sixty years prior to that. So,
you know, the progressive tradition in the United States at
the turn of the twentieth century was a Nazi progressive vision.
To put it indelicately, I mean everything that the Third
Reich did, not everything, but the things that we mostly
remember them for, the economic policies and the kind of
extreme technocratic interest on social policies. That's those are Anglo inventions.
That's Atlanticist philosophy. Turn of the twentieth century. American and
Englishmen are looking out at the world and they're seeing
what we've come to inherit and they're like, oh my god,
what what the hell do we do about all this?
And I think there was some kind of attempt to
shepherd in a new vision of the individual that could,
you know, protect the white race, to protect white people,
to protect America, to protect England, the British Isles, to
protect political sovereignty in European nations, so on, to protect
the Constitution. I mean, these these things are all synonymous, really,
It's not like they're separate things. If you want to
protect the Constitution, if you want to say of America,
if you want to do the North I almost had
Norman Rockwell, if you to the George Lincoln Rockwell thing, Well,
it's all the same thing. But uh yeah, So as
far as that post war aspect of that, I look
at the post war order, and this is an argument
I'm making my upcoming book. There was a slur that
was very common at that time used by effectively the
radical right whenever they would talk about the liberal consensus,
you know, they would talk about, well, that's that's what
they would call them. It was this consensus view, and
it had a kind of derogatory uh kind of like
proto libtard, like if you were the consensus, your your
you were brainwashed, you were just spouting kind of like
this new fangled liberal social ideology that had no popularity
really or history prior to the Second World War. So
this consensus was the meeting of you know, the dying
Atlantis sist Empire and this surge of European migration into
the West, of a very particular type of European from Russia,
maybe the Pale somewhere over there, and they met in
the middle. The West had to be saved. We you know,
the whole European experiment, like twentieth century is like this
great tragedy of us, just like figuring out new ways
to just roast each other, and by the middle of
the twentieth century, how many of us are left, not
a lot of the good ones. So it's this waning
Western empire that's bringing in a lot of this well
as we know now ex Bolshevist you know, or descended
from Bolshevist types who came in wanted to find a
place in America, and they found flattering ways to reinforce
the waning American liberal ideology in a way that made
sense post you know, San Francis to speak, to invoke
him one more time, post this managerial revolution, this mass
managerial revolution. So you know, there's a lot of ideas
and concepts that emerged at that time that are not
necessarily related. Maybe if you tried to do a genealogy
and try to connect these things, like Glenn Beck on
Fox News with his whiteboard, maybe you couldn't do that.
But nonetheless they're all talking about the same goal. I
invoked Fuko before the Entrepreneur of the Self, his idea
of neoliberalism. This is the new American economic policy post
World War Two, which the major emphasis of which was
about this internal kind of psychic development that was supposed
to be this you know, essential to unlocking this American
economic engine to fulfilling you know, the old American idea,
but in a new way, uh, in this new technocratic society.
And so my inherited wisdom. You know, I'm a little
bit younger than you. I'm still in my thirties. I
had my birthday earlier this week. The things I was
told growing up, that we're good pieces of advice, follow
your dreams, do it makes you happy. This is like
the head smashed in, you know, inherited version of of
like the Fucodian ideas, like you can liberate yourself and
you can be anything that you want, and all of
this is like a radical political act, but it's also
American and bubblah. So I think it's specifically and obviously
the purpose of this consensus being, you know, how do
we manage the existing populations while we get this new
migratory program in place. So I feel like that individualism
not to get like crazy tinfoil hat is not like
an intentional thing that was done, like we're going to
ameliorate or we're gonna anesthetize people while we start moving
infinity Africans around. I think it was kind of a
natural development, but the consequences obviously for us have been terrible.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like we've become we're like these radical
surfs or these radical annuities, walking annuities. Basically, what they
wanted was a transactional society, and it basically turned us
into transactional beings. And yeah, nasally, that's part of the
individuality of it is what what are you contributing to commerce?
It's what the military is now. I mean, if you
go to the Navy's website, it will say that they
are there to protect the you know, the sea lanes
for commerce in the world, you know, so that it
can move. And yeah, so I was thinking you were
One of the things that you had mentioned was how
even with the individualism of the old, of the previous
to what we're dealing with now, when you had church,
when you had family structure, when you had a lot
of things to keep you grounded, to keep you as
part of a tight knit I think our our reno
return to the strong gods something like that. Yeah, and
that's that's what That's what I was thinking the whole time,
was the goal of crushing you know, like the Italian
American society and mutual aid societies, churches, and the family
is to turn everybody into this radical kind of monetary instrument.
Speaker 2: Basically, yeah, I well, some things to keep in mind
as you're talking. I've always got the eternal like devil
angel on one side or the other. I'm a terrible contrarian.
So as you're talking, I was starting to do a bit,
a bit of a like a hey man, and that's
not really fair, right, because I was starting to think, well,
transaction has always been part of society. You know, the
internal critic who's like watching us and thinking they're full
of shit. I'm trying to answer them as I'm listening
to you, like, there's always been an economic component of society.
So fundamentally, how is this different, right, Because that's probably
what someone who's listening to you and disagrees with you
and me might say, And it's the fundamentally, it's a
qualitative difference more than anything else. One of the things
I was thinking of that I think is a really
good example of what you're talking about, a contempt a
modern phenomenon is exactly how the red pill manosphere or
community has ended up like this year, where if you
listen to or read people in these communities talk about specifically,
men talk about, you know, why they fail with women,
or why feminism sucks, or why the world has given
them a raw deal, so on and so forth. Is
they start talking about, like they roll out their laundry
list of things that they expect the woman to bring,
because it's a it's a tit for tat, you know,
I want to solve the free loader problem. You know,
all of these things where well she doesn't you know,
if she doesn't cook and do this and that and
have one hundred and seventy thousand dollars or four one
k and blah blah blah blah. It's like, for one thing,
it's very feminine because like the whole transactional thing was
like trying to solve the native sexual inequalities between men
and women and trying to solve like all of these
complex social problems fertility, pair bonding, alleviating tribal conflicts, ameliorating
tribal conflicts, so on and so forth, and so on
the one hand, you know, qualitatively has it different as
part of this inversion, the wrong people or have become
the being counters. Being counting is kind of a womanly thing,
and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, like
you know they mind the domestic life. You know, they're
very fastidious details in that manner. They make up eighty
percent of automestic spending, like that's their domain. That's a
qualitative difference. But now that it's also I was going
to say this before, it's also much more egotistical, and
we might as well say egotistical pejoratively egotism. I mean
we might as well say when I really, when I
talk about individualism in the book, it's probably better to
say egotism and extreme radical egotism, which is all about, well,
ultimately like you're not really interfacing with direct reality because
you're interfacing first with this buffer of your own self
aggrandizing bullshit, which the contemporary version of individualism is just
like constantly throwing It's like a guy just always throwing
gasoline on the fire so you can come up with
ever more insane cope, like this guy Will Stancil on Twitter.
I don't know if you've been watching him. It's like
it's like we're going on a full business week of
this and all you're watching is just egotism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's it's remarkable. Well, let's let's talk about this.
Because we can talk about individualism, we can talk about anarchism,
but what it crosses over and in your personal life,
I mean, that can cause enough problems, especially relationship wise
with your family. But let's cross over into the political. Now,
when that crosses over into the political, where do we
end up? What's the path down that road?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, anarchism is one, you know, expressly political manifestation.
I have a very small I would say, like maybe
sub ten percent sympathy for anarchism, but it's not morally
related to what you typically see from anarchists. I mean,
most people I think have a It's why we like vigilantes,
the punisher, the batman, because innately, we all, especially as conservatives,
I think, have a distrust of society. We have a
distrust of large groups. We have distrust of things that
we can't see, smell, taste, touch, hold a cant accountable,
so on and so forth, for better or for worse,
and gosh, I don't know where my brain is today.
But anyway, So the point about anarchism, right, so it's
it's a little tougher for conservatives, or maybe it's a
little easier for conservatives. That's what I was getting at.
But nonetheless, like political anarchism, it's it's distinct from individualism,
and that I think it is more specifically about kind
of you know, the Ed Dutton mutational loads, spiteful, mutant, sexual,
deviant situation. Like at bottom, it seems to me that
anarchism politically is just about protection of I don't know
what words I can use on your show. I don't
care the common pizza types. Right, So it's like it's
effectively like a political organization for pedophiles. I don't think
there's anything more meaningful to anarchism about that. But then
again again it's like, well, how do you even have
like a political block of pedophiles be party participating in
your democratic society. Well, I think that you have this
continual radical liberation. I don't know if individualism is related
to this, but certainly the criminal as being elevated, you know,
into a higher moral position than you know, people who
enforced the law or people who simply follow the law
might not be related to individualism per se, but it's
you know, this cascading decay of American society.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a it's a tool I mean, if we're
going to talk about Sam Francis, we can talk about
a narco tyranny. And I know a lot of I
know a lot of anarchists, especially a narco capitalists, who
absolutely hate that term because you know, it seeks to
you know, it makes anarchy look bad. And historically it's
let's talk about the Spanish Civil War. I could do
that for ten to twelve hours. Okay. When I think
of anarchism, I think of the Spanish Civil War, digging it,
disint turning nuns and priests. But when you look at
a society where basically the people in charge are off
doing whatever they're doing, like you were just mentioning, but
they're allowing they can only get away with that, doing
what they're doing by unleashing the worst dregs of society
upon the good people and telling the good people they
can't protect themselves from the dregs of society. And then
if the drugs of society do something really horrible, they
don't even just like this cop that just these cops
that got jumped in New York a couple of days ago,
and they were the people who did it. Migrants illegals
were released on wind, noobail. It's all a tool, and
it's anarchy for some and not for others, and definitely
not the kind of anarchy that anarcho capital, a narcho
capitalist one, at least most of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a certain like just base conformism that we
all have as like human people with souls that these
people don't like. I mean that kind of Look. I
went through an edged lord atheist phase, you know. I
mean I never spit on priests or did anything really terrible,
but you know, I probably said some untoward things towards
our Lord. But like that degree, like we're going to
dig up nuns, We're going to you know, desecrate graves,
We're going to just try to innovate new ways to
spit on the normal social institutions around us. That's really
what anarchism tends to be a lot of times. It's
it's that like lack of conformism, like that thoughtless conformism.
I just go to church because it's because it's there,
and I just love Jesus because that's what I do.
Right like this, you're not even contemplating on it. But
as far as like individualism and like what are the
political consequences of that well, I think by and large,
I think the two biggest outcomes are depoliticization, right, because
what if you're an egotist. The kind of persuasive filter
that ultimately matters is like, oh, does this titillate me,
does this interest me? Does this speak to me? Does
this have an immediate application to my my life world
as I perceive it? Whereas like, really political action is
is like extroverted. It's about looking at other people, looking
at the problems of other people in society. It's fundamentally,
I mean, real politics is extraversion. I don't want I
don't want to use psychiatric language and abuse it that way.
You know what I mean, You're not in an agreement.
So on one hand it's it's depoliticization, and then obviously
on the other hand, it's like it's extreme, well not
just identity politics you could say would be part of it,
maybe counterintuitively, but also like single issue voting, like all
this wacky stuff like I only care about voting laws
or whatever. I mean, as opposed to like nationalist folkish politics,
where it's like, well, everything is a political question, everything
has to be addressed politically, and we're going to have
a vehicle to put people in those places to do that, right,
like the individuals who are part of the collective and
see them as selves as such and then can function
as individuals in service of the collective. You know, that's
like again part of maybe that's why it's better to
say egotism, because ultimately being an individual is a good thing.
It's who we are, it's our tradition. We couldn't really
abandon it if we tried, and so fundamentally, what's different
is this profoundly psychological dimension to modern life. You have
to have justifications for everything. You know, everything's personalized. You're
encouraged to make everything your self, and that for a
lot of people that means they're politics too, which is
not always a good thing.
Speaker 1: I still engage with libertarians online. I know, I'm a masochist,
and you know, one the other day was like, oh,
so you know, what's a bigger what's a bigger issue
than economics? And you know, one of my friends posted up,
you know, drag queens from Viimar and drag queens now
and he's like, oh, oh, I'm scared of the Oh
I'm supposed to be scared of the men dressing up
like women. And that's just that's exactly what it is.
It's the meme of Rome falling, and you know the
guy saying, oh, how does this affect me personally?
Speaker 2: But it does. It perfects you profoundly personally. I have
a working theory. It's not I'm not totally Maybe I
shouldn't bring it to you, but I'll do it anyway.
It has a lot to do with the explicitly property
focused tradition in I think the Western economic auvoir. If
you want to say this is you know, people like
me who came up six seven years ago when like
the nas bole thing was popular. And the reason why
like people like Keith Woods and whoever are constantly fighting
these accusations of communism is because I think the the
aspect of Western political society which is kind of kind
of like libertarians, but not not strictly limited to them.
The kinds that think of well, they think of America.
What makes America great is its economy. So ultimately there's
this extreme economic preference or privilege over privileging. But they
look at like Adam Smith, and they look at how
we solved the issues of property in the Western canon
as being like definitive to who we are. And you know,
I have a different temperament I actually, I mean outside
of like toothbrushes and things like that, I kind of
don't care so much about property. You kind of figured
those things out, like I don't know, maybe because I
in another life I was a musician.
Speaker 1: Well you know, you know what an anarcho capitalist is
going to say, Oh so you don't mind if I
move into your apartment? Right?
Speaker 2: Well, and are narco capitalists don't mind if they move
migrants into my apartment? So like fundamentally, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1: They really they were so many of them really need
to go fuck themselves. I mean, I mean, I saw
I was going back and forth with a guy today
who was like, like, debate me on Israel. Debate me
on Israel, Debate me on Israel, because I'm like, oh,
I mean, I know the history of Israel and I
know how it was founded and out of the opinion
if you found something on terrorism, you're always going to
have terrorism there. So anyway, but then what did I
what do you find when you go into his tweets
open borders, free trade, and then you know, well, do
you feel the same way about Israel. I mean, so
it's like these libertarian types, they're just oh, well, yeah,
if I say we shouldn't have open borders, that means
that I worship the border patrol, and that means that
I'm a boot liquor whatever did.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's They're anachronistic. It's one of the like
most BTFO political ideologies post twenty fifteen, with communism as
a very close second. But ultimately these are materialists, which
I think is related to egotism, which is related to
this obsession with private property mine, you know, delineation of
what is mine, this this over elaborated legal artifice to
define what is mine. I mean, ultimately, in a folkish setting,
these questions answered themselves, right, Like my if I leave
my shirt at my brother's place, like, there's not going
to be World War three because my property, he's holding
my property. It's like it's whatever, I'll see him next week.
It's not the end of the world. Because I think
also there's a certain assumption in a folkish, nationalistic America
first society of like, hey man, I love you, you know,
like we're related to each other, we come from the
same place, probably even literally, but metaphorically, you know, in
terms of the grand myth man myths that animate our lives,
like we're the same and these types of nerdish economic
questions which do need to be solved and at complex societies,
obviously you need to think about those kinds of things.
But it's a fixation. It has a lot to do
with paranoia, I think all of Once we start highlighting
these psychological factors, the types of people become very clear
who they are.
Speaker 1: Well, you use the term sociopathy and the header there
under individualism, anarchism, and sociopathy. So when you use sociopathy,
how are you using it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? That's so it's one of these funny psychology words
that has a million definitions. I gave my own loose
ish definition in the book. I actually don't have it
in front of me, so I don't remember what I said.
Do you have it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm looking for it right now. I can't find it.
But go on, I'll I'll see if I can. I
can spot it, the.
Speaker 2: Main thrust, because it's one of those things that like
people confuse with psychopathy, right, and you know there's there.
These are very poorly defined concepts, yet there they do
stand for something, and it means something when you use them.
Psychopathy effectively, we're talking about, you know, in loose colloquial terms,
we're talking about the most dangerous, violent abrace if non
conforming members of society.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have here, Okay, So it says sociopathy as
a concept is poorly defined within the disciplines of psychiatry
and psychology, and owing to its operational weakness, is greatly
abused by the late public and sadly professionals especially often
complated with other somewhat nebulously defined terms such as anti
social and psychopath. Here, sociopath should be understood as an
individual with an impoverished social feeling, often exhibited by the
following characteristics impulsivity, weak ego defenses, narcissism, irresponsibility, callousness, and
attachment related anxiety.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that covers it, because, if you want
to think in a congenital sense, sociopathy very small representation
in the overall population, not a lot of natural sociopaths,
But we're mass producing people due to this intention to
destroy the family, destroy the community, destroy the nation, religion, borders,
so on and so forth. I mean, if you encourage
people to get divorced. If you encourage people to be
sexually liberated, then that naturally has the consequence of weakening
the social unit we call the family. Children grow up
with fewer resources. Also think of like the crazy psychiatry
fads and child rearing fads over the last hundred years.
Each one's kind of like perverse and dysfunctional in his
own unique way from the one that came before it.
So like, for example, like kids don't sleep with their parents.
You know, you don't nurse the children, you don't you
intentionally ignore the children. And some of these have caveats
like it's appropriate at certain times, under certain conditions for
certain people, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not how
America works, that's not how marketing works. And an idea
is brought to people and we try to do this
one size fits all thing, which is not good. You
get people with these attachment related disorders. Fundamentally, what that
means is while they didn't spend a lot of physical
time with mom and dad, they are on a hormonal,
neurological probably other levels, malnourished, underdeveloped, and there's a very
limited window that infants and small children have to get
these resources. Especially when it comes to social development. It's
really like h five age six, and the trend over
the last fifteen years is to shove as many screens
and images and highly stimulating things at ever younger children,
so they're not socializing with people anyway. Then they go
through a crazy education system that's racially diverse, and blah
blah blah blah blah. What do you have? You have
people who don't know how to develop relationships, who don't
actually on the structural level of their brain. They can't
look at you and see you as a person with
a soul like that. They need to respect the dignity
of like all of these things that are kind of
I think second nature to people who maybe are older,
grew up with a different way of life, had more
like put in more rounds interacting with people. So you
have this mass like phenomenon of kind of like an
artificial sociopathy. People are constantly to invoke the transactional thing
from earlier. They're constantly looking at other people as means
to some other end. They are in a fundamentally exploitative
mode of social interaction, and they are themselves very distressed
and suffering, often to the point of some kind of
addiction or otherwise impairment, fixation, fetish, what have you? Sex, politics, food, tattoos,
all of the above the thing. And I'll close it
off on this. I've got gab fever all night. I apologize, Like,
like I said, I'm a younger guy. I turned thirty eight.
It was very common still is, but when I was younger,
like normal millennial discourse is is this kind of neurotic
of like am I normal? Can you? Can you affirm
that I'm normal? Are you secretly a sociopath? This paranoia
of like what laundry list of mental disorders do you have?
How quickly can I find it out? And then what
are we going to do about it? You know? For
some people will be like let me find out so
I can avoid you, And for other people it's like,
let me find out so that I can never get
away from you? Right Like anyway, point being the sociopathy
like is just the norm almost.
Speaker 1: It also seems a lot of people point out that
so many people these days there when they refer to truth,
it's always something subjective, And it seems like if you're
this radical individual, you know, this neoliberal kind of individual,
your morality is going to be based around how anything
affects you. You can't have a universal morality if everyone's
an individual.
Speaker 2: You also can't have political organization if everyone's an individual.
So this is even more meaningfully the ultimate political outcome
of individualism. If all justifications, all explanations, any any rationalization
you can offer, has to come specifically from you, your
specific circumstance of life, from the exact moment you were
born until exactly this moment. You can't have reference to
anything else. Like you are atomized. You're one node, but
all of the circuitry around you has been like smashed
with ambers, so you can't plug into the larger network.
And that's very pernicious. I mean, ultimately, with that like
type of lot, the question like how does this affect
you personally? Like that is a persecutor's logic. That is,
someone who that's friend enemy stuff like I don't talk
to you or my brother or my friend or my
neighbor like that. I get involved because I realized that
we're part of the same thing, and there's not really
a conflict or a contradiction between him as an individual
and the social ecology that he's plugged into. Like this
is a big problem with libertarians too, collectivism. Collectivism is
like one of these still remaining boogie words in politics,
and they only really see it with libertarians. But it's
like it's again, it's it has to do with egotism, right,
because there are always collectives. The type of social activity
is ultimately a collectivist activity. So I mean all this
spoils to that. Jefferson Lee would say, as nationalists, the
economic or the the the unit of society is actually
the nation itself, the people, right. But in neoliberal society,
it's just you, not even your kids, not even your
grandparents unless they want to blame you for things, shame
you for things.
Speaker 1: But it seems that there is a group, and I
think we know that pretty much down the middle when
it comes to the most important things. You know, Republicans
and Democrats are going to get together. I mean, if
you're if you're having a vote on whether you know
anti semitism is irrational and repugnant, everyone is going to
vote for that. If it's a vote for war, everyone
is going to you know, there's going to be very
few people who are going to to abstain or even
say no. It's always issues that where it's like, oh, well,
it's like to like to financial systems or the two
competing financial systems. Well, no, we're not going to cut
taxes now. Yes, we're going to cut taxes now. It
always seems to be like the things that do cause
the most control or cause the most damage to the
system and the people financially and bodily, war sending kids
off to war for nothing. Those are right down the middle. Okay,
everything's good, we've given you the you're allowed to fight
about this here. But it's the whole elite theory thing too.
You do have some people who get together, five hundred
and thirty five of them, and then you know, stretch
it out a little bit from there, who agree on things.
But when everyone is a radical individual, when everybody's a
neoliberal individual, getting groups to get together to possibly push
back or to even supplant what's existing makes it impossible.
It's like they it's like they designed the perfect system.
If it was a hydrae, you wouldn't even know where
to start cutting off heads because yeah, yeah, yeah, so yeah.
The individualism thing also is a great tool for them
because there hundred and fifty million people can't organize against
what is essentially probably what two thousand.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's there's a lot of aspects to what
you just said.
Speaker 1: What was the devil? What was the angel devil saying
there that I say something to you that made you.
Speaker 2: No, I just well, just I always think because as
the older I get, the less psychologically inclined I become,
or in fact, I mean we should say, the more
I think about these types of issues, the less psychology
uh factors into my ultimate kind of analytical process. Not
to say it's unimportant, because it's you know it, it's
explicitly on a psychological battlefield that what you just said
is being waged, right, is by putting you into just
your body and blocking off all of the literally social
resources that make us who we are, like just on
a small level, or been like with the group friends
and then the chat ended or the friend group fell apart,
or maybe you just like checked out for a little
while and you felt like dumber or like less sharp
or less on your less like you normally are, because
actually you're like plugged, you're like plugged into the Avengers.
Like Okay, now I have plus fifteen IQ points because
the guy next to me is a super genius, and
I've absorbed all of his knowledge, right, So, like, so
much of what makes us great, even as individuals, are
the relations that we have. And to impose this program
of individualism is to impose this program of ultimately kind
of psychologism, which makes us all prisoners of our own
fears and anxieties, except for those of you know, people
in the audience who are extroverts and not neurotic. You know,
I hate you. I hope you have a great life,
but I hate you the rest of us, you know,
it's it's this I'm imagining, like the guy on the
train throwing the coal into the into the oven or whatever,
like you've just got it. It's just endless coal. You
can just kind of keep like psychologically, you just have
continual resources to harm yourself because life is difficult. Being
in the body is weird. Nobody gets it right, but
we all come from crazy circumstances. And there's a criminal,
exploitative class at the top of everything. So it's not
exactly you know, rosy pictures, rainbows things like that. However,
there's no devil an angel. I just do like to
emphasize that, you know, this is a program of containment.
These are the parameters through which that gets achieved. And
so yeah, like if you can't get a couple of
people together to flyer or rally or protest or pass
around some kind of petition, I mean those first barriers,
and they're the most important bearers. A lot of the
times are fundamentally psychological, Like seeing myself as a unit
with Peter r. Kenonia's right, Like that's a psychological hurdle
that you have to clear, not expecting. There's the joke
about like you know the guy who like meets hangs
out with his cousin from like Norway or Denmark and
then gets a venmo for like seventy eight cents because
of half of the coffee you drink on the way
to work together. Like that kind of like tit for
tat am I going to get everything out of Peter
that Peter is getting out of me? Like that's not
a normal response. If we're a family of folk, we think, okay,
we're gonna work all this out together. So yeah, I
feel like I'm repeating myself a little bit, but I'll
leave it at bet.
Speaker 1: People need to hear that. Let's finish on this.
Speaker 2: What's chophobia it's the hatred of the familiar, or fear
of the familiar, maybe even disgust of the familiar. It's
what every Midwesterner, every Midwestern eighteen year old, you know,
just at a fresh out of college who moves to
New York that I've ever met, That's what they're all like,
Oh my god, Wyoming is so terrible. It's like, fuck you,
I'll go there in a second. Let's stright place. It's well,
I say, this is someone who suffers it. Right, Like,
if you want to again, on psychological terms, what is acophobia,
It's high trade openness. Right, you are a novelty oriented person.
You buy your temperament, experience lower levels of disgust at
unfamiliar or things that would typically that trigger discust. Right,
feel less discussed, You're more inclined to experiment, try new things.
You're more novelty seeking. You're probably less neurotic neurotic, meaning
the intensity of negative emotions that you experienced. Like sometimes
we think of neuroticism as just like self attacking, but
it's more like how hot does the engine get when
you're stressed, and if you're very neurotic, well, it gets
very hot, very quickly. And it takes you a very
long time or maybe never to totally decompress, not literally never.
That would be like a very extreme case. Co morbidity
is up to you, huh, but a certain type. But
it's also of the condition that we've inherited. Especially and
I want to emphasize this, it's technologically facilitated. It is
absolutely like you would not see the kind of Jesus
Christ get me if there was not an ease of
the ability to get the fuck out of town. So,
you know, travel being the way that it is, these
things encourage psychological tendencies that have pros and con you know,
I love Peter Gabriel's album that's also his like I'm
a third worldist, you know, screw Whitey album. But it's
great and he's has a great ensemble of musicians and
he's playing this kind of world style and it's interesting
and it's cool, but you can't live there and uh yeah,
I mean the flip side, I guess is auchophelia. And
this might be like the conservative disease of too much
veneration of tradition and too much kind of well to
be crass boot licking right, like the extreme like a
peliac is effectively the boot licker, and the extreme likegophobic
is going to be the you know, the race trader
or just just the trader.
Speaker 1: It's funny that that came up because I was saying
on Twitter the other day that like the town I
live in there, I have friends who their families have
been here for two hundred years and they they own
their own land here, they owned businesses here, and even
though you know, they went an hour and twenty minutes
away to go to college, they came back and they
knew they were going to come back because they were
continuing a tradition and continuing continue well a legacy. And
I think it's really interesting to find out that when
you start talking about that to people and you're like,
you know, it's not too late to start do that. Now,
find a plot of land, find something, start building, you know,
start living you know, as Thomas seven seven seven says,
start living historically and teaching, you know, teaching your progeny
how to do that. And did the amount of pushback
that you can get from get from talking like that
is just you know, what if I want my kid,
what if my kid meets somebody, you know, from another state,
you know, and they want to get married with someone
from another state, Well he or she can move there,
you know, could move there if you have ten if
you have ten acres, if you have twenty acres, Why
would you want him to go buy a house. Just
build a house on the property and you know, stay
there and you know, build something and build a legacy
of some sort. When you when you look at Monticello
and Mount Vernon in places like that, I mean, those
were supposed to be legacies, and now they're museums. And
I think Monticello is now a museums awoke of some sort.
And I don't think that's achophelia. I think that's just
the way people have lived and kept order within society
for hundreds and hundreds of years until until we this
technological revolution, but also this individual revolution.
Speaker 2: The And they would certainly like to pack. When I
say they, I mean people who are opponents of our
worldview would certainly try to paint that as I mean,
they would take it a step further. Iphelic might be
kind of a sort of polite way, still derogatory ultimately
in this context, but they're going to take that to
the next step. I mean they're just going to accuse
you of being like an in breeder, and then it
immediately becomes some kind of dysgenic, disgusting thing, which ironically
or humorously enough, is like the opposite. You know, the
thing that they're instituting is very much what they're accusing
us of trying to promote. I would just say one thing.
I mean again, it's also part of the political program.
If you de industrialize major parts of the country, it
becomes a less attractive place to live. And what happens
to the people there. They get fat, they become addicts,
they die early, They beat the shit out of their
kids and their wives, They fucking kill people. They turned
the local law enforcement into just bullshit, They turned the
court system into everything decays, and young people grew up,
and that young people who naturally have an inclination to
explore and persevere and test boundaries and are very much
bored with the familiar. Actually in the climate that we're in,
what else are they supposed to feel when they look
at the town they grew up in and know people
either leave or they die. That's you know, that's that's
a political program. And that's also something I think people
don't understand all that.
Speaker 1: Well. I talked to friends and I'm like, you know, family,
I wish I would have grown up in a family
that would have put such a great importance on family
and the family, the family land and everything. My my grandmother,
my grandparents had land in Puerto Rico that could have
been handed down, but of course it got sold off
like all boomers do and everything like that. I didn't
want the money I wanted, Yeah, I wanted the legacy.
But the I'm talking to a friend of mine and
saying how important family is, like, well, my parents were
shiit my you know, my mother, my mother was a
piece of shit. And it's like, well, why why do
you think there was some kind of external circumstance. Do
you think they grew up in a in a society
that gave them this mentality that just poison their food,
did all this stuff to them that made them become
become like that? You know, it can all start with you.
And I mean that's yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's trauma induced I hate to
use that word, but or if it's more akin to
this individualism and egotism we're talking about. But you know,
like I not to get too personal. I mean, I
love my family. I'm glad I had the family that
I had. I'm glad I grew up where I grew up.
I like my life, but it wasn't the greatest situation.
But I always felt and this is something I saw
reflected in the people who grew up around me, was
that at a certain age, you look at the people
around you as people who have had to answer the
same challenges of life that you have to answer, and
then you come to understand them in a more human way.
I look back on my parent parents, and of all
the things I'm dissatisfied with now as an adult, I
think back, well, when they were my age, well, they
probably thought the whole world was like constantly on the
precipice of nuclear abomination, you know, like they row. They
really thought that right for decades, they really thought that
it was a real thing. And before that everyone they
knew had had fucking pieces of them blown off in
Vietnam or Korea or w W two uh. And before that,
maybe they grew up poor, and maybe their parents lived
through the there lived through the Great Depression. Maybe they
were immigrants and they came here and they had all
kinds of like generally speaking, you know, like when when
lefties talked about how awful and brutish and violent and
terrible history has been, They're right, it's it's a it's
a rough go. You know. The twentieth century was literally
us just like, how do we fucking kill more? How
do we kill more European people? Industrial baby, let's do it.
Your parents inherited hellscape, grandparents inherited hellescape, your great grandparents.
We've actually, maybe for only a couple of generations, have
kind of had it pretty good where you know, you
didn't have to go through child labor, you didn't have
to like all the things you could. You had an adolescence.
That wasn't the thing. One hundred years ago. There was
no there was no idea of let kids be kids.
Oh don't you know, don't give little timmy too much homework.
There was that idea did not exist. Turn of the century.
Twentieth century British psychiatry was telling parents just short of
beat your kids, it's good for them.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So this is all a very different thing, and maybe
I'm willing to bet it has more to do with
the psychological dimensions of suffering and trauma that people don't
look at these prior generations, see that humanity and want
to be the torch bear for that tradition. That's where
I ended up. That's where most of the people I
know end it up. And if you want to end
up there too, I think logical questions cool.
Speaker 1: All right, remind everybody where they can find your stuff again,
and I'll end the end.
Speaker 2: This Jneil dot substack dot com. That's for the Substack
on YouTube, Psychopolitics on X, Psychopolitics with the K, and
then check out Imperium Press for American extremists and then
probably in like three weeks understanding conspiracy theories. And thank
you again so much, Peter for your patience and your
your invitation.
Speaker 1: No problem, and come back real soon and we'll talk
about narratives or something like that. Absolutely, thank you, Josh