Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and AD free, head on over to Freeman
Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support. There's a
few ways you can support me there. One there's a
direct link to my website. Two, there's subscribe Star. Three,
there's Patreon. Four, there's substack. And now I've introduced gum
Road because I know that a lot of our guys
are on gum road and they are against censorship. So
if you head over to gum Road and you subscribe
through there, you'll get the episodes early an AD free,
and you'll get an invite into the Telegram group. So
I really appreciate all the support everyone's giving me, and
I hope to expand the show even more than it
already has. Thank you so much. I want to welcome
everyone back to the Pikinona Show. I have the two
gentlemen here from Metho the twentieth Century.
Speaker 2: How are you doing, Adam, I'm doing great, and Lance
is a recurring guest, but he has his own show,
so I just want to make sure that Lance gets
an opportunity to mention that. But I'm thankful that you
had us both on Hey problem how you doing, Lance.
Speaker 3: I'm doing great. Thank you for having me. I'm a
big fan, by the way, so thank you for having
me on.
Speaker 1: Thank you. What show do you do on your own?
Speaker 3: So I do Lance's Legion and I do a bunch
of military kind of esque related things, also political kind
of analyzes and stuff like that. But it's more theory
and just interesting military stuff. But I've been on a
h anti communist bentz from the Cold War era, and
so this becomes salient to me. I'm very excited to
be talking about the Revolution of sixty eight with you guys.
Speaker 1: Oh man, if you're your anti communist stuff, I would
love to hear what you have. What you think of
Thomas's take on the Cold War?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know like ten
parts on that, but I can't keep up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's funny. We spoke.
Speaker 3: We spoke when Henry Kissinger passed away. It was actually
very interesting. He had to be a lot of interesting
things to say. Oh you spoke to him, Yeah, yeah,
a while agoing on the X spaces that there is.
But yeah, absolutely, I don't want to take away from
from what's going on right here, but let's get into it.
Speaker 1: Sure. So the I guess the reason we're getting together
is that Carrie Bolton released a book called through Antelope
Pill Press, Generation sixty eight, The Elite Revolution and its
Legacy start with Adam And you guys can go back
and forth. I don't you know? What?
Speaker 4: Do?
Speaker 1: What you do? What? What's the interest in generation sixty eight?
Speaker 4: What you know?
Speaker 1: The sixties was the big deal.
Speaker 2: Aside from the media always portraying it as like the
best era ever, I'm not even sure if it pales
and compares in the World War Two. I mean the
amount of media that Woodstock and the heat Ashbury and
the Hell's Angels, all that, all that stuff.
Speaker 4: It's so glamorized.
Speaker 2: And my parents actually grew up in that sort of
time and know some of it from a personal level,
not from partaking in it, but just having been caught
up in it. And they can tell me at least
that they I was played up a lot. Now, a
lot of it was obviously true, but it was definitely glamorized.
And I think as a cultural point, just taken on
its faces, you can't get.
Speaker 4: Away from it.
Speaker 2: Now it has deeper implications as well, and those are
more complicated, and I think the book does a good
job tying it to some of the elite powers that
were actually either co opting it, funding it directly, trying
to steer it, or trying to deflect it away from them,
because it was very much sort of a cultural revolution
in the West in a time when communism seemed to
be in the East on the rise, and I think
it was a very close to home experience for a
lot of people, and in the implications are still the
waves are still being felt today in our generations, and
a lot of the people in political power also grew
up in that generation. I think a lot of that
mindset is still stuck in their heads. And you can
call it the boomers or whatever, but you know, these people,
we just cannot get away from.
Speaker 3: Them, the boom set, no, absolutely. And I think the
follow on interesting part is, of course, as time progresses
and we live in this kind of meta organism of culture,
we tend to misunderstand history that is extremely proximate to us,
and the Cold War is really not something that's really over.
We're feeling the secondary and tertiary effects of the social
subversion policies and general subversion, Soviet subversion of the United States,
and a lot of it comes to its fruition during
this time. Obviously, this is something that most Americans are
unaware about because most of the mythos and interest it
predates the Revolution of sixty five and sixty eight. Right,
it focuses specifically on the paradigm of the Second World War. However,
so much has changed since then that really the most
salient aspects to be recognizing in analyzing is precisely this
moment in history, this crux, this time paradigm shift, which
is why I was so interested on it, and I
am so. I butted myself in on this conversation because
it's absolutely necessary to be kind of reviewing and passing
as time goes forward.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the things he starts talking out about
is the idea of the inclusive economy, which was heavily
promoted by the Rockefeller Foundation. And when I look at that,
I see obviously a planned economy, but I also see
the civil rights error, the Civil Rights Act, and a
plan to basically shape an economy around everyone everyone's needs
and not to you know, not to embrace my my
Austrian economics background. You know that, I question strongly. I
loved your episode with Micah actually on on List. That
was that was wonderful. That was that was very edifying
because I really need to read that book. I've studied.
I've read everything about List except reading List at this point.
And when when I look at this in economy like
they were trying to create and it just it seems
like it's a it's just a straight reflection of the
kind of society that they wanted to create, and the
kind of society they wanted to create was bound to
and we saw it just became one of tension. You know.
I read Race Warren High School by Saltzman on my show,
the whole book, and we saw what integrating the schools
did and basically now you're looking to integrate the economy
in just about the same way. And to me, that
just seems like an ultimate disaster.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: There's a there's a movie out there by one of
these documentary guys on the dissident right, and it was
by the title of Communism by the back Door, and
I haven't watched it in a while, but it's quite
good and I really think that it sort of encapsulates
what's going on here, and it's it's easy to sort
of label things. Maybe communism isn't the best descriptor, but
I think it's good enough. And if I actually to
compliment you, Pete, I listened to one of your shows
that you did with Yuri Maltsaf and if anybody hasn't
heard him off.
Speaker 1: You really were to You really were digging deep, weren't you.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: It was fantastic because he grew up in the Soviet
Union and he clarified what marks defined communism as correctly,
but colloquially, when we call communism communism, we're actually talking
about socialism. But communism was a government free society that
everybody was an angel, and they did everything they're supposed
to do, and you would go and get what you
need and produce for other people without them asking.
Speaker 4: It's a fantasy, but it grabs hold of people who.
Speaker 2: Are probably missing out in their own society and they
want something and they want the government or they want
the ideology to provide for them. And I think that's
really encapsulating. What was going on in the sixties was
there were these opposition forces outside of the West that
had alternative systems, and the powers that be in the
West were like, Okay, we don't want to lose power,
and we don't want to necessarily hand it over to
the polop Bureau, but we need like the Rockefellers in particular,
and the Fords get mentioned and other people, but the
Rockefellers are recurring throughout this book.
Speaker 4: They I think, and you could say the Rothschilds or
anybody like that.
Speaker 2: They want to sort of keep their power, but do
it in a hidden way, through the back door, so
that it's not obvious that they're pulling a lot of
the strings. And David Rockefeller actually ran for he had
I think, had a presidential campaign, and he was the
governor of New York. That's as bad as political as
they got. But a lot of their power was through
the foundations. They set up the Museum of Modern Art,
which had relationships with the CIA and stuff like that.
And I think it's a very sophisticated model. Actually, it's
a diffuse way that actually works only in a sort
of quasi democratic system where people have a sense that
they can elect those that represent them. And I've said
this over and over on my show, but there was
a very good academic research paper by two professors by
the name of Gillen's and Paige, and they observed that
the correlation between the opinions of the masses, the voters basically,
and what Congress does is almost zero. So in effect,
you're voting doesn't change anything in Congress. But what does
change Congress is the donor class. And these are the
Rockefeller types. And so I think this book documents how
they go through the civil rights movement, setting up modern art,
doing all these other things. And it's really kind of
a secretive, backdoor thing. And is it really communism, I
don't know. It's maybe a form of corporatism, but it's
basically an elite power system. And you can look at
where Davos is and it's kind of a global version
of that. But you know, the Rockefellers, you know, funded
the un and they built that whole thing, and they've
donated the land. And you can start to see once
you have that much power and wealth, you start thinking
on a grander scale than just your community obviously, and
even your nation. And so I think it's an interesting
evolution of thought that probably can be traced back to
the end of the Second World War, and it really
got going on the streets in the sixties.
Speaker 4: But yeah, the book the book does.
Speaker 2: A fantastic job, and I really commend you for having
mister Maltsovon, because I thought he spoke from genuine authority,
giving that he lived in the Soviet Union and he
saw the horrors of it, and he saw how many
people that system killed, not just in Russia but in
China and everywhere else that was tried. And he's banging
the drum on, you know, as a professor to his
students who don't want to hear it because they live
in a nice society and they're kind of spoiled, and
they're kind of like the kids after World War Two
where their parents fought in.
Speaker 4: The war and they had had.
Speaker 2: Them and they didn't really have to struggle. And I
don't know what causes this, but it's it's interesting, and
I think the end of the Cold War maybe reproduce
that here in that like it was another war that
was over and there's another generation that's going through this
nonsense and so but we'll maybe get to that later
as to like how it's affecting today.
Speaker 1: Bolton pretty much concludes the chapter or the first chapter,
by stating that he, in his opinion, the election of
Biden is a resumption of the globalist's agenda along with
the new Left, which represents groups like Antifa, and they
continues to agitate in the streets to make the country ungovernable.
I know when we hear the term global ast, we
immediately think of Alex Jones. But what was what's your
opinion on either one of you on Bolton's take there?
Speaker 3: Do you mind if I take this?
Speaker 4: Go for it.
Speaker 3: So my understanding, especially when you delve into the kind
of Marxian stratum of the United States especially, is that
the origins and the roots of our leftists generally come
from Gramsci communism, which is a different brand than Marxist
Leninism or Maoism and primarily focuses on cultural questions as
the vehicle for social, societal economic change downstream. And for
those of you who don't know Antonio Grahams, she is
this guy who was an Italian communist who was imprisoned
under Mussolini, who stayed in prison for twenty years, wrote
this thing called the Prison Notebooks, and in them he
basically elucidated that the Marxian paradigm of seizing the material
means of production by the worker for a proletariat state
ultimately do not harbor. First of all, it's not as
an effective vehicle for revolution, nor is it efficacious in
the long term. Why is this because most people, as
opposed to what we generally believe in the liberal Western
society anglosphere, we are irrational, and to form irrational opinions
and condition them into humans is a quite different vehicle
than the economic considerations that we have, or especially marx
and so the new Left, or what is actually just
rather the gram Schite Trotskyite Left, focuses on locustes of
cultural power first and then through that while maintaining of
course ties with capitalist powers such as the Rockefellers and
so on, exude their cultural power out into wider society
and condition a difference of revolution cultural revolution. This has
been a long thing coming, especially since the terminus of
the Second World War, but it really took an entire
generation from World War Two all the way down to
the Baby Boomers and found such fertile ground precisely because
the highest levels of governance as well as education were
these ex communist individuals who had exfiltrated from the ex
Soviet sphere or had close ties and so on and
so forth. Figures that come to mind that we probably
knows Fransis Fukuyama for instance, or a number of other
different individuals. Now, this is important because I think, especially
when we talk to libertarians specifically, we consider the economics
to be the nexus of political power. Where I think
they have us hooked is the fact that they're able
to change culture and then they can they basically tap
into the monetary power. But I think it's important to
state that, especially in the second chapter of the book,
where it talks about, for instance, women's liberation. This is
why this is so important because social questions figure pre
eminently over material questions, and material questions come later. Did
you notice that, I mean, maybe push back on me,
but that's just my personal view of how things kind
of shook out.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the what Graham she was able to
figure out, which is something that actually libertarians don't have
an answer for, is that Graham she could figured out
how to radicalize the private. The whole idea of the
whole idea of Marxism was you were going to take over,
take over the state, and you know, eventually it went
awayh YadA, YadA. I mean, there's a lot more in
between I can go through lenin two. But the gram
She was like, well, let's radicalize private industry. You know,
let's when you see when you see something like the
inclusive economy, you and once you grasp that concept, then
you understand why DEEI is here, You understand why ESG
is here, You understand why there are trans people, you know,
trans people in every every third or fourth commercial. Precisely
all of this needs to be brought in. And this
is this is a direct result of Grams. She understanding
that Sombart wrote a book, Verner Sombart wrote them why
is there no socialism in America? And basically because I
mean simply, people like to own shit, And that's what
he came down to. So once once somebody like gram
Chi figures that out, then he's like, okay, well we
got to figure out a way around this and radicalizing
figuring out how to radicalize the private you know, which
is something that then libertarians and civic nationalists have to
basically defend that, well, it's a private company, bro, they
can do what they want, and they don't realize that
the social engineers are at work. And you know, one
of the reasons I stopped being a libertarian was I said,
they libertarianism has no answer for social engineers, and neither
does neither does republicanism, conservatism pretty much anybody accept this
progressive worldview precisely, precisely.
Speaker 2: Well, when I'm hearing you both speak, I just hear
this term cultural Marxism pop up, and it's funny. I
don't even know if the left uses that term.
Speaker 4: I've only heard it at right.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't use it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I don't know what it means, but it
just my rough understanding and maybe correct me here is
that it's just an attempt at Marxism obviously, I think,
at least by other means. And it's not necessarily through
getting people to voluntarily join this giant global corp that
owns everything and you own nothing, although Klaus Schwab would
like that, but he's dying apparently.
Speaker 4: But they'll find somebody else, though. But I think I've.
Speaker 2: Heard in America in particular, that a lot of these
left type people observe that, as you just said, people
like to own stuff, and so we need another way
to get to Marxism. And maybe it's through culture. Maybe
it's through race, And I think the race relations are
I think a key.
Speaker 4: Vector for that.
Speaker 2: I mean, the book talks about black panthers. Nowadays it's
blacks are such a minority frankly that it's more hispanics
and stuff like that. But there's just a lot of
different groups, and using the different groups against each other
to fracture the sort of remaining wasp elite. I guess
that supposedly still there. It doesn't seem to be there anymore,
but I think that's been a huge vector. Now call
it what you want, I don't know, but I think
that there's some truth to that.
Speaker 3: The interesting thing is it's the same dialectic, however. I mean,
it's I probably saying something that you boys already know.
But originally under Marx it was you know, the bourgeoisie
or the proletary against the BOURGEOISI The same dialectic maintains,
except it's the oppressed versus the oppressor, and that paradigm
can be grafted onto any kind of social conflict where
anyone perceived to be the oppressed has the upper hand.
The first principle the societal inertia, if that makes sense,
and so and secondly, I don't mind us actually generating
terminology and culture ourselves. That's precisely what we need to
start doing, is actually being self confident in our own
academic terms, our own type of language, because when you
start using the frame of your adversary.
Speaker 1: You lose.
Speaker 3: So, yes, it is good that we use terms such
as cultural Marxism and other kinds of terminology that they
don't use because it's advantageous to us because it advances
our paradigm. So I'll just leave it there. But Pete,
do you have anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to I was going to say
that the you know, when you look at what gram
she was teaching, well, Gram, she's writing from jail. And
even though he well, you need a way to get
this out there, you need a way to communicate this
to the masses. You need a way for the masses
to buy in. And even though he predates in gram
sheet in his activity, I would say that probably, I
don't know, you can push back on this, that probably
no one did more to help to push forward at
least the spirit of what she was talking about, more
than Edward Berne's springs up in the second chapter. Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, And you're precisely right. The reason why I bring
Crumb She's because it provides US Westerners who are unfamiliar,
especially if you're not an autistics bog such as myself
researching all this kind of stuff. It gives people the
starting block, right, And I'm really grateful. I'm grateful for
this book because it really goes into fleshing out and
the later acolytes of gram Shee downstream, because they are
really effectual. I mean, look at society the world now.
I mean it's not just the United States. It's infected
every aspect of the West. It's infected even Russia for instance,
and the p RC as well, or the People's Republic
of China by the way. So it's it's incredibly effective
and the answer must be found, and I guess that's
what we're doing here, is trying to find it through
this book, you know.
Speaker 1: And one of the things he talks about in there
in the book is that uh Brene's seeking to advise
the c i A on its ideological offensive against the
US s R. And you know that he was involved
in in that. And one of the things that he
writes in there is that the New Left, rather than
being a Soviet a Soviet plot more had its origins
in the in the Cold War, which I think anybody
who's looked at the U the foundation of where of
the Trotskyites in the United States and crossing over into
neo Conservatism and then just carrying on through the Cold War,
that doesn't come as a surprise to many.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I mean to add on to that, I
think there is a lot of I mean, if you
read Stalin's work, for instance, by Sean mcmakon, it's he
makes a compelling case to talk about the deep socialist
integration with the American government in the twenties and thirties,
and obviously that bear fruit during World War Two and
our close association with Uncle Joe. But I don't think
the so you noticed that a lot of these individuals
that were moles or you know, actors for the Soviet
Union during the war and a little bit after their
disassociation with the Soviet Union is probably genuine. I believe
what happened was primarily America became a Pinko state with
its own unique brand of communism. And it's basically too
common in the States to communist ideologies with their own
paradigms battling each other out. Very interesting kind of paradigm
to see. And I think the you know, you hear
Yuri besman Off, everyone talks about him, I'm not really
so sanguine on him. But he does make the point
that a lot of KGBA officers felt that if the
Cold War had permanence another thirty years, that they would
have won, and I really doubt that. I think that
what would have happened is just that America would have
just gone a lot more crazy, you know, it just
continued to be what it is today.
Speaker 2: Well, just going going back to the premise that the
Soviets and the Americans are not that different, I think
is kind of interesting and I'll completely agree. But I
think the book does put forward the notion that after
the end of the war, both sides wanted to be
the rulers of the next step, and they kind of
wanted the other side to join them, and because they
didn't want to join each other or join the other
as the leader, they wanted to be the leader. There
was a huge rift that happened. And that's not really
a controversial statement. But the notion that America itself was
actually kind of a globalist operation, the UN being in
New York, etc. And wanting the Russians to basically come
into that. Maybe you can call it neoliberalism. I'm not
really sure what to call it. That's more of a
post Cold War term that kind of took shape during
globalization perhaps, but I think that's an interesting way to
explore it.
Speaker 4: Whether the Soviets would.
Speaker 2: Have defeated the United States or the United States would
have morphed into what it is now, I don't know.
I think my current premise is that what we're going
through right now with like the trans write stuff, I
think it's because we quote unquote won the Cold War.
We don't have a real enemy to cause us to
doubt what we're saying, and maybe, you know, focus on
bigger priorities. I think we just kind of are screwing
around too much. But that's just my rough understanding of
what's going on.
Speaker 1: Well, finally, coming forward to the sixties, he starts talking
about critical theory and the critical theorists and brings up
Marcuse and his description of marcuse synthesizing Forredy and psychoanalysis
with Marxism to challenge Western culture and morality is probably
a good starting point and a probably good overall description
of what was being promoted in the sixties in the
counter culture.
Speaker 4: Definitely.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and I mean I've read Marcus is a
Repressive Tolerance on on my show before, gone over it,
and yeah, he's I mean, when you realize that he
was Paul Gottfried's thesis advisor, Yeah, you realize, Wow, this
guy was This guy was in the United States, he
was working, and he was working in you know, h
my parents' lifetime, your parents lifetime. So it's uh, just
watching that when you take into consideration, if you've if
you've studied Freud at all, if you've read Freud at all,
and once you see exactly what was being promoted in
the sixties, it's almost impossible not to see how Freddian
psychoanalysis was influencing. It had an influence over so much
of the propaganda and engineering that was putting that was
being put out there.
Speaker 2: Of course, you mentioned Berne's I mean, he was Freud's cousin.
I think you know, I have cousins too. We don't
all agree. Doesn't necessarily mean that you know that that's
like the family strategy, but it is interesting, it's very interesting,
and I don't I don't know as much about this
as you do, Pete, I think, but how related is
that to the Frankfurt School and the studies of authoritarian personality,
because that's something I have looked at a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Well it is. I mean, the the Rockefeller Foundation, it
was the American Jewish Committee that was responsible for the
authoritarian personality, but I think the the American Jewish Committee
got got money from the Rockefeller Foundation. I mean, the
Rockefeller Foundation did fund Kinsey's Kinsey's sexology studies. I mean,
he's basically like the American version of Magnus Herschfeld. But yeah,
it definitely is this all ties together because at the
end of the authoritarian personality, it says, well, how are
we going to deal with these fascists? These people are
just becoming fascists, They're on the roads of fascism. And
it was Aeros Yeah, and then you look in it's like,
well what books did the Rockefeller Foundation put out and fund?
Aeros and civilization one one dimensional man? So yeah, drugs
in rock and roll.
Speaker 3: It's interesting how the impulse had leaked into the wider
I mean he even talks about it, you know, the
wider cultural zeitgeist and the primacy of sex in a
way that wasn't really present present beforehand in history. And
the emphasis of course, especially now that there are a
lot of like neurocognition studies that coming out about you know,
obviously dopamine and all that kind of stuff and conditioning,
and of course the most important part is the like
what's it called. It's the inability for for when you
fry your dopamine receptors, there's like this cognitive situation that
your rise. Yeah, it's not even dissonance, it's it's about
lack of self discipline that that are basically cause causes
erosion in the brain, lack of will uh self, how
do you say self policing, And it's precisely what this
entire ideology is predicated on, basically keeping people from actually
having sovereignty agency by eroding them slowly over time, you know.
And there's a reason why, for instance, pornography is you
weaponize in the military operations and uh, I mean aside
from lowering testosterone in populations, et cetera, but it also
kind of breeds that apathetic type of personality.
Speaker 2: You're not the first to notice this, but I think
the way you just put it made me no, no,
I'm giving a compliment here. The fact that dopamine is
actually a drug in a sense, if it's actually artificially stimulated,
is something I hadn't considered. But that is one of
the easiest ways to grab hold of people through entertainment
basically and keep them hooked in whatever you're pushing selling marketing.
I mean it goes back to propaganda. I mean, it's
like you glamorize it, you make it sexy. I mean,
Brenees was famous for the craziest pr campaign I'd ever
read about.
Speaker 4: And you guys probably know about.
Speaker 2: This, but you know, women were considered too delicate and important,
frankly to be smokers back in the early nineteen hundreds.
And it was during I think one of the World
War One parades or something that Brene's suggested to a
cigarette marketing agency to give beautiful women cigarettes to smoke
at the parade. And this was done or described as
torches of freedom. And just there's that stupid word again,
where everybody is just given these or welling in concepts
that don't necessarily mean what they actually are, are told
you as. But you know, I mean think about smoking.
I mean, you know, I know people have had lunk
cancer from this shit.
Speaker 4: And it's like.
Speaker 2: You're telling the women that they're free and liberated now
because they're they're polluting their lungs. And so the beautiful women,
of course is the sex appeals. It encourages men obviously
to want to partake, but it also encourages other women
to emulate because they admire those women. And so it's
in pornography is obvious, you know, but you know even
movies watching, you know, the Academy Awards. You know how
much effort these actors and actresses put into their their
outfits and trying to stimulate your senses. You know, it's
almost satanic. I mean, if you're if you're religious, it's
it's it's it's creepy, but it works.
Speaker 4: It's very powerful.
Speaker 3: But keeping it from to a secular paradigm. The most
interesting thing about subversion is that it's always in the
oblique right. It's conflating terms that we understand with sustenance
or the substance of that term, instantiating it with ideas
which are foreign. And that is precisely what happens throughout
this book that he writes. Is basically, there are old
terms such as freedom, liberty, et cetera, and they're conflated
and injected with foreign abscesces which become of course organic
over time. Now, how do you push back on that?
It's almost impossible because either you're a square, which is
where the original term came from, right, You're you're like
a Christian ultra prude or whatever. Or if you try
to do the opposite, which is the Yuka Mishima type,
you go into like the saline doing drugs, and out
you become no different from them, and in effact they
win simply because they tear down the nature of society
together because there's no way to out maneuver drug addiction.
I mean unless you're like the Taliban, where you have
it totalitarian state and you're able to make discipline happen.
But you can't do that in a democracy where people
have personal freedom, because all you got to do is
induce them with this kind of drug addiction, whether it's
pornography or other kinds of dopaminergic tricks, if that makes sense.
And you see this precisely with even TV shows in
the fifties, sixties, and seventies, which start to condition the
populace to accept for instance, the breakdown of the family
having single parent homes, which was unheard of before, and
start glamorizing, making heroines out of these individuals. It's very
interesting because a lot of the things that we take
for granted, especially myself, I'm a younger generation who has
no experience of what it was like before. For them,
it was something that was like a slow moving collapse.
I mean, isn't gen X The Latchkey kids precisely from
this nexus that we're talking about that originates it. It's scary,
it's scary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the book doesn't touch upon feminism too too much,
but obviously the latch Key phenomenon is effectively a result
of that. And I kind of grew up as one.
Speaker 4: You know, my mother.
Speaker 2: I don't like to speak about my family publicly on
this type of format, but you know, just roughly like
she she did have a few jobs and so and
I don't resent it, but it just it was more
and more common, and I think that was unheard of
not too far back, and that's some of that is economic,
but I think some of it is definitely by design.
I think it was Aaron Russo he talked about how
like the Rockefellers were pushing this stuff basically to weaken
the individual family, basically to keep that power away from.
Speaker 4: The people and and keep it held by the elites.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, the sixties really one of the big messages
was liberation from repression. And that goes to the free,
free sex, that goes to feminism, that goes to everything.
And you know, they're just basically trying to undermine traditional
morality and create a society that that's fractured of traditional bonds.
And you know, when you take into consideration like the
post nineteen forty five what we called it, what a
bunge of us called the Nuremberg regime, the liberal the
liberal international order. It requires a fluidity in all things
and that helps them to maximize profit, production and consumption.
But it's also a control mechanism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that great term divided imperia. You know, the individual.
When we make atomic individuals, you have granulated everyone, you
have completely dominated them to the individual level. And I
agree with you, and I think the greater, the most
malicious thing is this aversion to paint right, Because what
they call oppression or whatever really implied between the lines,
is this aversion to paint self sacrifice, probably taking opportunity
costs of yourself, your personal development. For instance, women, right,
you forego a career to have a family. Well, that's
what this technology, this societal technology does, is it dissolves
the cultural structures which reinforce teamwork and induces them to
do what they've done since then and obviously has deleterious
fertility effects. It has deleterious societal effects. And we're starting
to see that now of course, as like the age
pyramids are you know, getting older and all these kind
of issues that are arising. But we are only starting
to see the terminus of this cancer, the ugly head
of this cancer come true, because it's going to start
affecting not just the Western populace, but also you know,
even those people from originally third world countries and populations.
So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But returning to the book, I guess I wanted to
ask you your opinion specifically I'm McCarthy and the interplay
between what was going on in the sixties with McCarthy
and if you had any thoughts on that.
Speaker 1: Through the sixties you mean anti con continued anti cons immunist.
Speaker 3: Uh, yes, McCarthy.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Joseph McCarthy. Well, he was what the fifties, I think,
but yeah, it's about after.
Speaker 1: I mean he he pretty much. I think the problem
with McCarthy is is that he discredited himself. He would
constantly change numbers. He was he he was drunk a lot.
And I think what he did he pointed out, he
made great points and he people try to connect him
to Huac and it's like, well, me, he's a senator.
The best thing he did was was inspired Hugh ac
and also just basically have a He really gave the
right it's real last win, like real win. I mean,
able to take out some take out some communists, take
out a couple literally.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and.
Speaker 2: Nixon was floating around during that era. I can't remember
if you worked with McCarthy directly, but he definitely put
on some of those same people on on the stand,
some of the Hollywood types. And he obviously got taken
out when he got into power.
Speaker 1: But in early in the early sixties, I mean the
when he ran against Kennedy. Most of the vitriol he
got from the press it has been attributed now to
his associations to McCarthy. Macarthy, I guess the.
Speaker 3: Reason why I bring it up is because whenever you
denounced the enemy as commis or whatever, they they have
so completely conditioned society to discourage any kind of criticism
because that's that's the red scare, that's McCarthyism, that's you know, illiberalism,
whatever it is. But he was onto something. I mean,
he was spot on, and I think the most interesting
thing is just small at side here just recently twenty seventeen,
I think it was twenty nineteen, excuse me, twenty twenty
documents regarding Senator McCarthy when he was going through, of course,
purging communists from the army and the military in general.
Then he started working into the federal government. He had
a lot of personal communicators with the CIA before then, right,
and then finally he was inching closer to the CIA,
and he's starting to open up inquiries into the CIA,
and then guess what happened. His whole career got shut down.
So it's very interesting to see because we start to
understand who has the locus of power, who is the
one that has truly the power in that kind of
political paradigm, if that makes sense, And the reason why
I bring it up is because a lot of people
they they disregard anyone who criticized the CIA because they
believe that it's just tinfoil hat type situation. But there
is increasing evidence, mounting evidence to show that the criticism
of the nineteen forty seven Security Act, the National Defense
Act or whatever was definitely a big problem. And the
origin of those course the Pinko OSS. And it's very
interesting because of you know, I read this book and
I just start seeing the connections between the OSS, the
oligarchs for instance, you know, the Rockefeller Foundation and so on,
and the people on the ground, like the hippies and whatever.
And it's very weird because the FBI, ironically enough, was
the last vestige of anti communist action well into the sixties.
It was only after, of course, Martin Luther King that
whole situation, did they start becoming part of the I guess,
how do you say, you know, state aligned if that
makes sense.
Speaker 4: The deep state.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's scary, you know, well.
Speaker 2: They they were in effect part of the deep state,
but it just wasn't oriented towards the goals that it
seems to be oriented towards today. I mean, it was
genuinely more anti communist during Hoover's era, obviously at the FBI,
that was one of his big, big things, but afterwards
I think they just got I.
Speaker 4: Don't know, I think maybe closer to that CIA almost.
Speaker 2: It's like how the CIA doesn't necessarily view communism as
a good thing. But whatever, this emerging alternative globalist neoliberal,
I mean, we really need to figure out what it
should be called. But it's something else. I think neoliberalism,
to me is probably the most accurate way of putting it.
But there are so many groups here. Maybe we should
go back to where the book guides us to keep
it keep it focused.
Speaker 4: But you know, it's all right.
Speaker 1: You brought up neoliberal as which leads me into my
next point was bringing up the march through the institutions
and how the Fabian society in Britain was such an
influence among the intelligentsia through the London School of Economics
and political science, and how students of nineteen sixty eight
in the London School of Economics became establishment figures who
helped shape new labor in the nineteen nineties which basically
brought in and champion global capitalism and neoliberalism, and yee,
it seems like that this was a again top down
This wasn't something that those hippies were pushing in the streets,
but it was something that a Fabian society, who I
mean we know names that are associated with them in
the past, that were able to were able to do
to bring in this global capitalism neoliberalism, which I think
we can agree when we look at it now, it's
basically a function of helping transform lifestyles and democratizing society,
reform the institutions, and just basically break with any kind
of true right wing legacy.
Speaker 2: Well, let's, for my edification, at the very least, let's
review the Fabian school as opposed to maybe the Leninist,
Marxist or Soviet approach to socialism. My rough recollection is
that it was sort of let's use the velvet glove
to persuade as opposed to coerce instead of using the
iron fist.
Speaker 4: Is that roughly right? Or clarify for me if you.
Speaker 1: Could, sure, Yeah, I mean the Fabian Society they founded
the London School of Economics in eighteen ninety five. That is,
we're not talking about people who are like, well, we
need to go out into the streets we need to
arm the proletariat, or talking about people who are like
we're going to take over people's minds. Yeah, so yeah,
this was truly the march for the march for the institution.
Speaker 2: Well, the London School of Economics. Gosh, there should be
a book out there that covers that place. But I
have noticed, just anecdotally, how many key figures there are
that have done a circuit through that place. And I've
been to London only a couple of times, and I've
never been inside that school, but I would only imagine
the types of discussions they're having. And it seems to
be one of those feathers in a lot of world
leaders caps or sort of the Anglo sphere at least
to sort of say, well, I went to Harvard, but
then I got my graduate to great London School of Economics.
Speaker 4: It seems to be a pattern I've noticed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to say the least, I think Edward Luthfag went too.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I'm not even sure I wouldn't go.
I mean, like I why not. You know, it doesn't
mean you have to agree with them, but you'll learn something,
you know.
Speaker 3: No, don't get me wrong, and don't get me wrong,
I'm not conflating. Just because someone went there doesn't mean
that they are a partisan of that situation. I mean,
we know a lot of guys in our sphere that
have gone to you know, ivy leagues, you know, and
you know they remain unscathed. You know, they made it through.
Speaker 2: You know, you talk about the march of the institutions.
I mean, that's what the left did, so why don't
why shouldn't the right do the same thing, you know,
to sort of this notion that we have to stand
aside from all the elite institutions and just let them burn.
I mean, that's that's one approach, But I would also say,
infiltrate and study is another one.
Speaker 4: And do what you can add to the best of
your ability.
Speaker 3: You know, I would say, I would even go one further.
I would say that's incredibly important. However, the thing that
communists have that we don't is that they understand what
they're here for. They get what the end state is.
They have an end state, they understand what the end
goal is. And we can't agree on what the end
goal is. Therefore, we're not able to plan downwards. You know,
we can't. We don't even have the strategic self understanding,
how can we have operations or even tactical level efficacious moves,
if that makes sense? And so what would we be
marching through for? What would we be espousing? What would
be you know, championing? And that is the thing that
we have to answer, which we can probably deduce by
the oblique from learning from the new Left, from the
gram Shite Left when they when they talk about, for instance,
societal values that they want to condition, maybe we should
be able to self reflect and induce within ourselves or
precipitate within ourselves the core values that we have, and
then we champion those, and then of course we create
something organic ourselves, and then we can counterthrust and do
the same thing as well. I think that's where I'm
kind of I'm still masticating this idea myself. I'm still
processing and trying to figure out myself. And I'm assuming
that's why we're meeting here, you and I and Pete
as well. We're trying to find that answer, like a
Knight's on the Holy Grail? Is what is it that
we truly live for? What is our one thousand and
one goals? As Nietzsche would say, and Ultimately, that's a
it's a quest that we're all on and I feel
that we're coming upon it. Especially. I mean, say what
you want about Dugan, I don't really like the guy,
but what I can see is the tendrils of something
new over the horizon and overcoming of the paradigm of
sixty eight, right, And I think that's precisely why we
should reflect on what they're doing. Precisely because even they
they are defined by mythos of their enemy.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So, for instance, in sixty eight, the whole you know,
World War two, Germany framing themselves as a never again?
What to do the opposite of that? I mean, why
can't we do the same, And why can't we figure
out an organic response to the revolution of sixty eight
sixty eight America? Why can't we see take what was
good from them and discard the bad and put something
new that we have to offer.
Speaker 4: Well, can we come back to that?
Speaker 2: And yeah, Pete, you please direct this, this is your show.
But I wanted to capture that idea a little bit
and use the book as sort of a guideline to
kind of cover the book and then also try to
take some lessons from it to apply it to what
Lance is talking about. I think one of the interesting
things that the book does do is it covers some
of the responses to what was going on in that generation.
So the right responding to the left basically the reactionaries effectively,
and perhaps we need to stop being reactionaries and start
being the leaders in effect. But what I found interesting
was the discussion of Goldwater in particular, because that was
a little bit closer to that time, and then I thought, well,
what else will happened, you know? I think I think
Nixon also, but also obviously the Reagan thing in the
eighties was a big response to this as well. And
also Reagan was in California during this time with all
the student protests at Berkeley and in other campuses, and
he passed legislation in effect to take guns away. I
think Pete you covered this in one of your shows.
From the Black Panthers who were running around Oakland and
stuff like that.
Speaker 4: So what can we learn from that?
Speaker 2: I mean, the Civil rights movement was I think a
big section of the book because it was a big
part of that time, and so it goes into Martin
Luther King, it goes into the Black panthers and some
of the elite backing. That's kind of the thesis of
the book, that how a lot of these people were supported,
how that happened Martin Luther King, for example, one of
the quotes from the book was he was too slow
a thinker to be trusted to speak without a script
in front of him. That find that fascinating, And actually,
in rec election, I don't recall too many interviews he gave.
It was usually just him talking at a podium.
Speaker 3: I read his PhD thesis on Mithra and I doubt
that he wrote that.
Speaker 4: Right, I mean exactly, yeah, I think it's been proven
that he didn't write that.
Speaker 1: I think it's been proven says that he didn't write that.
Speaker 3: It was actually a decent thesis, But I just don't
think it sounds like the same syntax he uses.
Speaker 4: You know, and say what you will about Obama. I mean,
I don't think he was stupid.
Speaker 2: He could get give an interview, but I never heard
King say anything in response to her question. I mean, so, yeah,
it's one thing to have a a church voice and
read from a book. I'm sorry that that just doesn't
equate to too much in my estimation, But beyond that,
that whole Civil Rights Act, And does the book talk
about Lyndon Johnson at all, because I just think he's
one of the worst presidents this country's ever had, and
during that time he effectively again it's sort of like
an elite response to up the street is is burning
stuff down about it's And you can also say that
the riots may have been an op in effect or
stoked to create the conditions, maybe like what COVID was
to create a larger state apparatus. But I think the
welfare state was effectively a huge response to what was
going on and the complaining and all the sort of
burning of things, and then public housing was built and
whoac not who ac hud excuse me her uh housing
and Urban Development Group. All that stuff was was a
big expansion of Washington's power and sort of like they
they took the opportunity to grow and sort of like
the war and terror, I mean, just all these things,
it just it just keeps making it seems like it
keeps making things worse with with these solutions that keep
coming up with. But ultimately, and if you guys have
details you want to go into, in the civil rights movement,
I think some of the seventies and eighties was a
response to that, I mean, the silent majority.
Speaker 4: What can we learn from that?
Speaker 2: Nixon did get into power, he was taken out, I think,
I would argue, but he was able to capture a
certain portion of the populace's minds, share and heart, hearts
and minds to win those elections. And then ultimately you
could say the CIA or the deep state of.
Speaker 4: The time.
Speaker 2: Had to correct the people. But it was something that
did happen. It seemed to be somewhat of a successful response.
And I think the eighties as well were a response
as well.
Speaker 4: It did seem to.
Speaker 2: Do something to combat what was going on from this
generation sixty eight. So I guess my question to you
guys is what lessons can we learn from that, if any,
that we can apply to maybe our generation.
Speaker 1: Well, I think one of the easiest things to see
in what happened was is they took they were able
to take people's eye off of the ball. What's important,
and what was important is culture. So when we talk
about the you know, the nineteen nineties and growing global capitalism,
you know, liberalism, I think San Francis said once that
in the sixties white Americans were talking about black people.
In the seventies they were talking about bussing, and in
the nineties they were talking about taxes.
Speaker 2: Contract with America, very different.
Speaker 4: You're right, you're right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the the the grow the Yaki wrote about
this in Imperium. He said that what he saw what
was going to happen was that man was going to
become economized. Man was going to be forced into economics.
He was going to be forced into a field that
he should you should only be thinking about when you're
you know, writing a check or paying a bill, and
that now economics was going to become such an important
part of man's life that he actually used the term
man is going to become economized, and not like you
know there he's going to pair everything down. No, he's
going to become an economic machine. He is going to
become somebody who walks around as if they're a like
an annuity, like a freaking hug.
Speaker 2: Some people economics like homo economics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so yeah. The one thing that I just
see that it's so easy to get us to take
our eye off the ball when it comes to finance,
and you know, one of the and then what's funny
is if you look at two thousand and eight and
the housing crisis and you come forward to occupy Wall
Street or you come forward to the tea party, well,
they just reversed it. They're like, don't pay attention to
economics anymore. No, we're going to put We're going to
shove wok down your throat. I think the term racism
like did a hockey stick at that point. So they're
very easy at making us take our eye off the ball,
and I think our eyes when it comes to percentages,
we should be looking at culture in the biggest, highest
percentage possible and not allow them to distract us from that.
Because that's what happened. We were distracted from culture. Culture
was broken. And then you get into the nineties and
everybody's like, well, it's all about tax policy.
Speaker 4: I think you're right.
Speaker 2: I think definitely the nineties where you could say the
hangover from the eighties and then the seventies or the
hangover from the sixties, and during I think the seventies
and eighties, I think there was somewhat of a revival
in perhaps the religious parts of the country. I forget
what it was, eight hundred Club or something like that
there was a television program where a lot of these
evangelicals and people like that would would sort of there
seemed to be somewhat of a groundswell against this, and
there was the Satanic panic, and people were scared of
kind of the things that they were seeing, and there
did seem to be somewhat of a cultural or religious
response in addition to the economics, but that did seem
to die down by the nineties. I think you're right,
and perhaps some of the stuff today, I mean, I
would say, and it's it's it always takes different form.
Speaker 1: Can I start you for a second? Yeah, sharply for
And I think it's very interesting. I think it's very
interesting that people like James Lindsay and basically these nominal,
these classical QUT classical liberals, they all want to go
back to the nineties and when when you look and
it's like, well, what is what is everybody? I mean,
we're in a culture war. Everything is about everything is
about culture. They someone like him, and I just thought
of this now, I haven't put this together before. Wants
to go back to when it was all about economics, right,
that nobody was arguing over culture. That you know, everybody.
I mean, I remember, I remember the nineties. I was
in a band. It was it was wild, it was fun.
I mean it. I mean the nineties was a lot
of fun, and people want to go back to that.
But the reason he wants to go back to it
is people are he's He equates his worldview of classical
liberalism all with economics. If we can just have that
good economics again, where everything is so good that nobody
cares about this cultural stuff, when really it's all about
the cultural. It's all about the cultural.
Speaker 3: Isn't it funny that man will choke on silver, but
he'll live off of breadcrumbs with spirit, with a religious spirit.
It's interesting, you know. I hope I don't instruct, but
if you guys don't mind me, I actually might have
my own thing that I have been working on myself.
It's a little bit of a minute here, so I apologize.
Don't instruct me for a second. But Adam is probably
gonna like lose his goddamn mind again because he's the
Apollonian to my Dionysin. But I think what we're trying
to figure out, or what we're actually hovering over at
the target, is we have to address the irrational. I mean,
the human man, the person with the soul, is irrational,
and that fundamentally economics and well being, and no matter
how much food you have in your belly and how
happy you are with your material possessions, there needs to
be something higher, right, like there needs to be a
certain calling. And you see this in the midd Least,
for instance. You know, most people don't know this, but
the Middle East wasn't like always such a shithole. I mean,
there were secular governments that were progressive, that offered people
secular how do you say, solutions to their problems, as
opposed to the religious ones that figures largely now in
the Middle East and what we understand them to be.
And of course, like for instance, so Solom Viladen was
the son of a billionaire and he forsook all his
fortune to seek you know, his religious you know, convictions.
I'm not saying that I'm not Islamic or anything like that,
but it should provide you a metric of understanding of
humans that we have this irrational need for things. And
the left what they do is they leverage the gravity
of their beliefs because man constantly wants to be lazy.
He constantly wants to feel pleasure. He constantly he does
not want to feel discipline. He doesn't want to feel
to be encumbered, he doesn't want to feel like, you know,
basically the discipline of life, whether it's in family, whether
it's a you know, civic service, X.
Speaker 1: Y or Z.
Speaker 3: I think the truth or the origin of where we
can start solving our problems is just like you said,
talking about culture, rather what does that mean the spirit?
And what really kind of is the engine of that
spirit is the family, It's religion, And I'm not religious myself.
I'm a pretty secular guy, but I think the truth
is that really like when you start leveraging that irrational
agency in man, you start overcoming petty pleasures. When you
start giving them a vision for something to suffer and
die for, they start ignoring and making sacrifices of things
that the left leverages. So for instance, you know, drugs,
sex in rock and roll, and personal gratification in your career.
People forsake that if you can give them a vision
of something that's beyond simply material well being. And I
know that sounds kind of like I said, It's not Apollonian.
You can't put numbers on that. It's not very you
can't put you know, put it on a map. It's
very ephemeral, it's very psychological. But if we can start
offering people that impetus, that meaning in life, we give
them a mission, some spirit in thumos in their's chest,
we can make them be beautiful again. And I think
that's what was lacking in the West is fundamentally the
destruction of Christianity. I'm not Christian myself, so I say this,
you know, unbiased. I think that precisely because Christianity became
a waning psychological force in the West, that the engine
of Western civilization came to a halt. Hence why the
Left is ascendant, because they basically break down this carcass.
So I don't think the solution is to go back
into Christianity. I think whatever spirituality that overcomes liberalism will
be the future. However, I think this is what we're facing,
is this question of overcoming this obstacle through irrational means,
through appealing to the soul. And fight Club is a
great example. I'm sure that you guys are aware of
fight Club, but it's a great encapsulation of man's disgust
with the nineteen nineties material well being in favor of
personal achievement in something that's kind of transcendental, something that
appeals to the soul, something that you can give yourself towards.
And I think that's what we're here to discuss, is
provide people with that vision. And if that makes sense,
I don't know if I'm off left kilter here, how
you guys are feeling, So give me some pushback here, Pete.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I mean I think it points towards like
this Banglarrian and Yaki high culture, where that's what that's
what a society, a society needs in order to move forward,
in order to in order to progress, in order to
be cohesive as opposed to you know, science, technology, technics,
things like that, where that immediately when you have machinery
and machinery introduced it, you basically start to realize, well,
I can create, I can become like God, and I
can create all of these things. And it has a
tendency to drive you away from that high culture, from
that spiritual and you know, I think we see that now.
I think we see that the you know, if if
the regime in charge, if the spirit of this age,
which I you know, I think is the Nuremberg regime,
the New the New Deal regime, is one thing. It's
to destroy that destroy any kind of any kind of cohesiveness,
any kind of of a culture, any kind of race,
any kind of homogeneity, any kind of order. As long
as there's chaos, as long as people are in chaos spiritually,
and the spirit of the age is in chaos, the
high culture is gone. Then anyone who has seized power
and is willing to use it can wield control over everything,
even if, as we see it, fall apart due to
incompetency overproduction of the elites. Whatever you however you want
to explain it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, And I think you're absolutely right. I think
these are material manifestations of something that's happening psychologically, on
a psychological basis, and I completely agree with you, Pete,
and I think that Adam and I are in accordance
with this as well. And I think what we need
to give to people who are lost, who are in
this chaos is a mission a city on the hill
to go and fight for and with people that are
brave enough to be irrational in that pursuit. Because if
you notice, especially with like backwoods preachers, the effusiveness and
the spiritual self assuredness is what people crave. You see
this in leadership in the military, but you see this
at large in leadership and political people. There's a reason
why they tear down political operatives or statesmen who kind
of have that gravitas, and it's precisely because they want
you to be divided from a mission. They want you
to be not part of something greater than yourself. They
want you to have nothing aside from your self interest.
And that's precisely what we got to change. And I
think that's something that we have to overcome in liberalism itself.
And Adam, I see you're going to add something here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got to jump in just because I don't
disagree with what you guys are saying. I hope you
don't think I'm all about neoliberalism and trading stock options
all day and that's all that matters. I was just
listening to something today from one of these channels that
covers people that I like, and I get crap for
talking about Elon Musk all the time, but I think
he's an interesting example of what we're talking about, because
just like generation sixty eight. What about generation sixty nine,
where well, you had a sixty nine Camaro, which is
probably one of the most beautiful American made cars ever made,
but also the country landed on the moon.
Speaker 4: And I have gone back and forth.
Speaker 2: As to whether I even believe that that's a true thing,
but I'm gonna just I'm just going to make a
make a statement here that I think it's more likely
than not. And even if it wasn't true, the fact
that they did all that they did is still impressive.
Speaker 4: I mean, they built those rockets.
Speaker 2: Those rockets were real and what was that? That was
the Faustian spirit. I mean, that was the we're going
to do I mean, I love the Kennedy speech where
he talks about this, where he said, we do things
not because they're easy, it is because they are hard.
And I love that. And I know people that want
to do things that are easy, and I don't like them.
I don't hang out with people like that. And I
have people very close to me that I have to
hear that from sometimes and it just it just kills me.
But you know, Musk was talking about how they're basically
going to SpaceX is it's funny because NASA and Neil
Armstrong particular actually said and it Elon was asked about
this because it hurt his feelings, but what do you
think about Neil armstrong statements that SpaceX has no business
doing what NASA has done? And you know, Elon said,
you know, that's that's really disappointing to me. I mean,
he's been a hero of mine, and I think it's
when people like like crabs in a bucket, have to
pull down those that are actually achieving things.
Speaker 4: I didn't understand what Armstrong was thinking with that. It's
very disappointing to me as well.
Speaker 2: But I think SpaceX is actually literally trying to build
the infrastructure that the US government and all the other
stupid governments have been so incompetent and accomplishing. He's actually
building infrastructure to make this species, as he puts it.
But let's face it, who's working at SpaceX. It's the
types that worked at NASSA back in the late sixties
make this group a multiplanetary group, and I think that
is such a great, crazy mission. And everything he's done
with the Twitter acquisition with Tesla has just been the
same spirit of just taken on really hard, important projects
and kicking their ass. And I just am so excited
by that. And I've not seen that come out of
any politician's mouth in that career. I've not seen any
of that come out of the irs Happy tax Day,
by the way, I have not seen any of that
come out of most of our quote unquote leaders in
such a long time. And we need more of that.
And you know, I'm sympathetic to religious arguments as well,
like you know, not putting yourself above God, but I
know a lot of religious people who also like what
Elon's doing, and I think there's no there's no discord there.
I think, you know, we should work together on that.
Speaker 3: You know, the most evil thing that Hannah Ardron ever
wrote about liberalism is the idea that the abolition of
great missions and to be content with, you know, your
personal life and being happy with I don't know, being
an interior designer or something. And there's something deeply disgusting
about that. I mean, it's one thing if you're in
a corporate society, we're all one team. Everyone has a
function and no matter how small or big you are,
you're defined by the greater mission. The evil liberalism is
it destroyed all greats. It makes everyone temptible and small,
and that is the beautiful thing that Elon Musk is doing,
is making men and woman gigan. They're going to places
that man hasn't gone before. It's a self overcoming mission.
And the paradigm of today is not between left or right.
It's between up or down. It's between people that want
to slink to slums or people who want to conquer
the stars. And I'm grateful to say and proud to
say I'm part of the latter, not the former. And
I think that everyone here feels the same way as
I do.
Speaker 1: I think so.
Speaker 3: I don't want to put words in Pete's mouth, but
I definitely have a feeling he's a self overcoming Faucian man.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, And here's the thing. I was interviewed by
a friend of mine today for almost two hours, and
we were gone over a bunch of stuff, and one
of the first things he asked me was He's like, okay, yeah,
you were a libertarian at one point you came out.
You know. I didn't coin the term post libertarian, but
I started using it, and people started using it started
and immediately started using it as pejorative against me. But
he asked me, so, what do you know what, and
I said, I'm a problem solver. I said, that's what
that's what the world needs.
Speaker 4: I said.
Speaker 1: Book Kelly N. L. Salvador was When he ran for Mayorador,
he was in the left, he ran in the Far
Left party. As for Santo, when he started running for president,
he ran in the far Left party. They kicked him out,
went to another party. He had to do. He had
to jump through hoops just to get elected president. And
what did he do? The first thing, He's like, we're
the murder capital of the world. This is going to stop.
And he solved a problem. And he didn't give a
fuck what anybody thought about it. Sorry, I cursed sometimes
in the show. And he he he cleaned that place.
So he turned I mean he turned it into a
place where I'm like, I'm you know, my wife and
Iron talking. Maybe we're going to go for four or
five days, you know, in the next couple of months. Yeah,
I became still well it's still cheap, you know, well,
it's still cheap. If you look at you, you're like,
holy crap, you can really the dollar goes pretty far
down there. But he went in there, he solved the problem.
The other thing he did was, and I don't know
if I agree with this, but he's like, well, there's
a money problem. I'm gonna adopt bitcoin. Yeah, and okay,
so what is he? Okay, all right? The bitcoin bros
want to call him a libertarian, but he obviously doesn't
care anything about civil rights. He was just basically arresting
anybody with a face tattoo? Is he? You know? The
authoritarians are like, well, he also is adopted bitcoin. I
don't care what his ideology is. He solves problems. Give
me someone who can solve problems. Ideology is bullshit. Sam
Francis pointed this out. James Burnham pointed this out. You
create ideologies created in a lab. As soon as it's
introduced to the public, holes are shot in it. It
doesn't exist, solve problems, become a become a problem solver.
If you cannot solve problem, every the only politician that
you should even take seriously as somebody who's like, this
is a problem, this is our biggest problem. This is
how I'm gonna solve it. Let me do it. That's
the kind of person you take seriously. Now in this
we know in our system. How difficult that is. Well,
I'm going to solve the immigration problem. You know that
you're gonna have arrows and even bullets might be coming
at you from all directions if you want to do it.
But what you if you're not talking about solving solve
the first problem, then go to the second problem, then
go to the third problem. But figure out what the
biggest one is first. That's what someone's ideology should be,
and that is a Faustian spirit, and then you can
and after you solve the problems, then you could be like, Okay,
what do I Oh, I want to let's inhabit marsh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what's next?
Speaker 1: Great? You know, yeah, what's that? But until you solve
that first problem, you have to be able to solve
that first problem. If you don't solve that first problem,
if you don't focus in on one thing and fix it,
you're just you're you're just playing the game of politics
as it's been played since nineteen thirty three.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, yes, Pete, holy shit, yes, I'm sorry. I'm
like just getting pumped from hearing you say that, because
it's precisely that there's this weird paradigm people are stuck
in the mythoss of the Second World War, and it's like, dude,
that is like dead and guard read what is now?
What's happening now? Like the considerations of our time are
not an ex collapse, it's a and those issues stem
from precisely what you're saying, the problems of the soul
of seeking out great challenges and building a team around it,
building a vision. No one's doing that, aside from tearing
everyone else down so that they can aggrandize themselves. Let's
build everyone else up. Let's let's make a team effort.
And I love hearing you say that, Pete, because that's
exactly Especially Bukeley is such a great example, because it
shows that yes, you can, you can fix you know,
your shipthold whole country and make it like a paradise
with America and make it a paradise. It's only a
matter of willpower and vision. I think we can give that,
especially if we can we stand true to our principles.
And I think one of the great things about Elon
Musk in his interview is that he stands great risk
all the time. I mean, the government is constantly now
litigating him under specious charges, bullshit charges, but that's what
it's going to take. And that's part of life, is
that people want to tear you down and you have
to conquer them for their own good to build them up.
Speaker 1: And one of the.
Speaker 3: Greatest things Bukeley does did was cracked down on the
lowest and most detrimental segments of society and rebuild from
what was good upwards. And I completely agree with you, Pete.
I want to go down there to myself and like
help him. However I can, you know, in my small way.
Speaker 2: I think the lessons that we can draw from these
two individuals and other people that have risen to power
is that it's a long game. You know, Eland didn't
show up. I mean, he's been doing this for three
four decades. Bukele as I don't know as much about him,
but and he's a younger man as well, and it's
a smaller country and so perhaps there's a quicker path
to things like that. But from what Pete has described,
it sounds like he had to go through some trials
to get to where he is. He had to go
through the left, which is an interesting angle, but it
works so good for him. Hats off. Whatever works, and
that's that's something I think a lot of people, whether
they're entrepreneurs or leaders or builders or whatever, I think
they maybe they take the Hollywood montage. To me, it's
of the guy who goes from rags to riches. That
the scarface, you know.
Speaker 4: Like boat off a Cuba and now he's going to
push it to the limit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that that's not real. It takes a little longer
than two minutes. And you just got to be a grinder.
And I think, uh, you know, there's something to be
said for charisma, of course, but you also gotta you
gotta tell yourself.
Speaker 4: You know that that this is going to happen.
Speaker 2: Uh, and tell others as well, and keep that positive mindset.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And if you if you fall into that negativity trap,
it just destroys you, It destroys your team.
Speaker 4: And I think real leaders have to do better than that.
Speaker 1: Well. And I think something that that Thomas seven seven
seven says is we're not j Elvis witnesses. We're a vanguard.
We don't need we're not looking for numbers. We're looking
for people who you know, like the PayPal mafia. Take
that mean the paypalm mafia is a perfect example. It's
just a it's just a small group that gets stuff done.
Basically controls controls Silicon Valley or controlled Silicon Valley, and
the ankle biters. They you have to dismiss these people.
You don't need these people, the people who when I
say something about Boo Kelly go, well, you know he
kissed the wall one time and his wife is probably
and his wife is half Sephardic. I don't get I'm
judging him by what he's doing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well what does the other guy got?
Speaker 2: I mean, like, what's if you're saying he's so bad,
show me something better. And I'm not gonna I'm not
going to like, you know, look back one hundred years
for what your model is.
Speaker 4: Like. We need to get going. Now, show me some progress.
Speaker 1: I mean, how are you? How are you waiting for?
You know? And this is what I tell people all
the time. Do is I mean you have to be
insulating yourself. You have to be doing things for yourself,
you know. I mean, we're we moved to where we
did because it's it's very quiet. It's remote. It's not
a it's not in sanely remote, but it's remote. We
can grow food here. We have we have friends who
have chicken houses and all sorts of stuff. We can
take care of ourselves. It's a small group, a very
small town, very manageable, very manageable politically. Everybody knows everyone,
everyone knows the police. Until we can get that, you know,
we have those people, put that vanguard together. Even if
you're not part of the vanguard, even if you're just
a thought, you know, somebody who's there to help with ideas,
Somebody who has money, somebody who can I mean, I
mean some of these assholes like Stephen Crowder who was
like crying because dli wire was going to pay him,
what fifty fifty million dollars for four years. What could
we do with fifty million dollars?
Speaker 4: That's a great question.
Speaker 2: Actually, we we should probably figure that out because those
are you know, again, I'll shut up about Elon Musk someday,
but I'm always fine new things. I like that he's
taught me, and he one of the earliest things, Like
there's a hilarious clip of him when he like didn't
get his hair implants, like after he sold like a
x dot com or whatever it was to PayPal, he
got his first millions and he bought a McLaren and
they're lowering it to like his suburban house, and he's
still married to his first wife. But he's sitting there
and he's like giving this really dorky interview, and he's like,
you know, it's really easy, like in Silicon Valley. If
I just want to go raise ten million at the
capital's right there, and I'm like, wow, what a mindset.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 2: You know, if you actually have the idea and the
team and the leadership and the capability, you don't have
to get that yourself. You just raise the money, you know,
And that's how actually true movers and shakers think. They
use other people's money. There's like books about this, but
I think that's a great question.
Speaker 4: What would we do with fifty million?
Speaker 2: I don't know because I actually haven't adopted that mindset
in a practical sense. But until we are, we start
thinking big, we're not going to achieve big things.
Speaker 1: Well, I started small. I read Peter Thiel zero to
one on my podcast. I read the whole thing over,
I think, with seven episodes, and it's just a way
to get into the mind of people who think way
differently than we do. I think he said. In one
of the chapters, he said that all the people who
started PayPal, He said, I think the five people who
started PayPal, four of them as teenagers, had independently of
each other, built bombs. Okay, so what does that mean.
It means these are outside the box there, these are
these are way outside the box thinkers, you know. And
you know what he talks about in that book is
he's like, everybody, we've been conditioned to believe that competition.
Competition is what what the world is all about, the
world of business is all about. He's like, no, He's like, no,
monopoly is what the world is all about. The monopoly
is the only way that you get innovation. Because we
don't want monopoly, you know he and he downplays us
a whole way through the book. We don't want to
have the kind of monopoly that is like cronyism, where
you're lobbying the government to be the only one in existence. No,
you want to create something that is so groundbreaking, that's
so outside the box that you make billions off of it.
But in the process of making billions off of it,
you've changed humanity. You've just you've improved humanity.
Speaker 2: That's where the breakout occurs. It's when you've created that news.
It's what the title of the book is. It's zero
to one as opposed to one, two, a million or something.
I mean anything times zero is zero. So if you can,
if you could like you know, the primordial Big Bang
or God creating the universe, that's what he talking about,
doing something that groundbreaking. There's another book called uh I
think it's Blue Ocean Strategy. I haven't actually read it,
but it seems like a really simple idea, so I
didn't bother but the concept was, so there's these big
tidal blooms that happened in the ocean, and it's basically
a bunch of like plankd in and stuffed whales eat
that they just they go nuts. They breed like crazy,
and they choke off all the oxygen to the point
where everything is just it just dies. At a certain point,
they kind of reach that Multhusiam limit and everything just
starts collapsing. But you don't want to be in the
middle of that. If you want to stand out, you
want to go where the water is blue. That's kind
of the thesis of the book. So you kind of
want to think tangentially, you know, they all want you
to kind of go to the London School of Economics
or Harvard or whatever and played by the stupid rules
that are kind of rigged against you.
Speaker 4: You're not going to get.
Speaker 2: Really far with you might you might become a millionaire
or something, but you're never gonna become a billionaire by
of getting good grades. You have to I mean, most
of these guys dropped out of school, so I think
that's that's that's a big lesson. It's like, okay, you
can do okay, but if you really.
Speaker 4: Want to change the world.
Speaker 2: I forget the quote, but it's it's sort of like
nothing nothing ever. I think it was like a feminist quote.
It's like nothing ever changed by like reasonable women or something,
so all the all the change is like unreasonable women.
Speaker 4: You could say the same thing about men. It's like
you have to you.
Speaker 2: Have to think kind of tangentially, almost irrationally, that these
crazy things are possible. And I would just say, you know,
make sure you know you're honest with yourself about what
you're accomplishing, and if it's not working, try something else.
But you know that there is to me at least
some some value in being realistic. But you you need
to team and you need to inspire people. And I
think that's that's a big lesson here, is like you
need to have something really, really impressive and exciting.
Speaker 1: I want to apologize to Lance. I was on a
different screen than he dropped out and he was out
of there for a while.
Speaker 3: So yeah, they just attacked me, dude, they attacked me.
It's okay, I'm back.
Speaker 1: Do you have any do you have anything to add
to that? I know, even listen to it.
Speaker 3: I think you know, like, I think you guys are
spot on, and it doesn't just extend to the world
of I guess, of course, innovation extends in many different
directions and everyone has their specific skill set. I think
the most important thing that you guys pointed out is
to seek opptunities wherever they may be and making the
most of it, exploiting it. And I think you're absolutely right.
I think Adam is absolutely right. I think the PayPal
mafia is incredibly inspiring precisely because they were able to
out maneuver the crony cap you know, establishment as it
had been before, with just something completely out of the box,
as you'd said, and uh, and they have real world effects.
I mean, look at you long Musk, he owns X
major social media network, he owns Tesla, He's going to Mars,
He's doing multiple things, and that's because he pursued. I mean,
do you think he had fun with PayPal? Do you
think that's interesting to him?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: I think he understood that it was a stepping stone
to something greater, to going to Mars, and I'm absolutely
sure that's how he feels about Tesla and everything else.
So it's absolutely great and it's a great example for
our own selves to set for our own selves, for
our own success. And more importantly, probably.
Speaker 1: More all right, Lance, you're roboting like crazy, so now
it's you know you're roboting like crazy. But all right,
let's wrap this up because I've been sitting on my
butt in front of the screen for now going on
in a little over three hours today. So I'll give
I'll give you guys to Florida to say something and
hopefully Lance can uh not sell Space Odyssey, but Adam
go ahead for.
Speaker 2: Just just glibly, I want all the listeners to know
that any support you give to Pete will be going
towards his purchase of a standing desk.
Speaker 4: I think that's that's a great thing as.
Speaker 2: We all reach our middle age, we need to we
need to be getting good posture.
Speaker 4: So hope you're not sitting too much today.
Speaker 2: But in any case, yeah, I think the team is
absolutely critical. I think that's sort of what Lance was
trying to hit upon another Musk thing, and I hopefully
we'll stop. But he's interesting also because he has the
guts and Pete, we actually talked about this when you
came on our show a couple episodes ago, where Musk
is willing to fire people and lay off people. And
that's that's hard. I mean, it's really hard. It's not
something I'm comfortable doing. You know, I have, I've had
to do it, actually, but it really sucks. But it's
a skill because you need to know what your culture.
We're talking about culture, right, and a company culture or
a government culture, or a nation's culture. You need to
know what that culture stands for. And if you have
people to come in that actually are problematic, they need
to go and it. You know, you need to be
fair about it, and you need to set performance goals
and measurements that can be objective, but you can quickly
murder a company with bad culture. You don't have to
look any further than Boeing and what's going on with
that place. They have a bad culture, and I think
Musk recognizes that and what he did at x Twitter
when he bought it. The first thing he did was
he laid off eighty percent of the employees. And guess
what the company did. Find it's actually doing better now.
So do the same thing for the US government. If
and I forgot what that thing was called, pete A Project.
Speaker 4: Twenty there you go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is a good idea, and it was sort
of what Vivek Ramaswami was pushing and that we need
to get rid of most of these people because frankly
they're useless, and secondly they're actually worse than useless. They're
problematic and they're obstructionist, their counter revolutionary in the communist terminology.
So I think that's a big lesson that I think
if we ever get in positions of power, we need
to take it seriously, and take culture seriously, and take
our team seriously, and reward those that do take it
seriously and do a good job, and get rid of
the people that are not doing that, because in effect,
you're poisoning the well for those that are instrumental and
caring for that mission by keeping the people that are negative,
are problematic, are not willing to learn, are not willing
to become part of that project.
Speaker 4: They are extremely detrimental. And I think that's another lesson.
Speaker 1: Less well.
Speaker 3: I just want to say thank you for having me
on p I don't want to carry on too long
because don't want to lose connection again. But I just
want to say thank you and thank you Adam.
Speaker 1: Of course to your plug. Tell people where they can
find your work.
Speaker 3: Lance Just go ahead and you can find me on
Twitter at Lance Legion, and you can also go to
DVX Publishing Company dot com. You can find all the
information there. I just wrote a book.
Speaker 1: Check it out.
Speaker 3: But again, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: No problem at all, Adam plug.
Speaker 2: Myth twenty c dot com, same thing on Twitter. Also,
our writing companion site is the americansun dot substack dot com.
We just moved over there, so it's on substack. But
the American son is Hank my co host project and
Ryan Landry actually used to do a lot there. He's
still involved as well, but it's a growing site. And yeah,
check us out on Myth twenty c or the American son.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Gentlemen, thank you very much.