Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas Show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star And
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan yonasshow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on Continental Philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The Pekanyonashow dot com. Everything's there.
I want to welcome everyone back to the Peakin Yona's show.
Thomas is here and we're going to take a little
diversion away from the Continental Philosophy series. But as Thomas
is about to explain, it relates to it. So take
it away. Thomas. Hey, what, First of all, how are
you doing today?
Speaker 2: I know it pretty well, man.
Speaker 1: Health is better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've been feeling pretty well. I mean I I
still have like respiratory symptoms that can't seem to shake,
but yeah, overall I feel pretty well, man.
Speaker 1: Cool.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about the radical traditionalist school of philosophy,
which is a discrete intellectual tradition, and a lot of
people don't understand that, and those that understand that basic
Pasha with they don't really understand what it is. The
part of that's because like pop academ they claim that
everybody from like Nietzsche to Alexander Dugan to Ellen de
ben Wah to you know, Edmund Burke is part of
this thing called traditionalism. That's not correct. Yeah, we're talking
about a very discrete you have thought I didn't clude
I didn't include. I'd include Heidegger and Joseph de Maistra
in there too, although some people probably wouldn't. But the
same imperatives that framed radical traditionalism. It's metaphysics and it's ethics,
and uh, it's postial. It's about the human condition translated
to a political theoretical construct. You know that that's what
demeestra and that's what Heideger is and Demeestra also people
like Carl Loeweth and people like Isaiah Berlin. They claimed
he was the progenitor of what became fascist thought. I
actually accept that that's true. You know, obviously they were
suggesting that in punitive terms. Although low With was not
a liberal, he you know, he's he's somebody who's all understood,
kind of like Leo Strauss's and they were. They were
avid correspondence. If I say ill understood, I mean the
fact that they were anti liberal doesn't make them right
wing or like that didn't make them pro fascist or
something point the contrary. But you know, so, Joseph de Maestra,
he's essential to understand the position that I consider to
be the the the right wing perspective or aspect of
the resistance as it stands contra globalism. Okay, it's not
conservatism and it has nothing to do with that. Okay,
Medical traditionalists aren't trying to conserve things. You know, we'll
get into like why that's misguided when people suggest that
that's their ambition, you know, in the in the traditionalist view,
the entire conservative enterprise, it's it's basically a bourgeoisie liberal
tendency that you know, holds attachments to certain institutions in
their deteriorated modern variant at least, you know, things like
the nuclear family or things at least like nominal concepts
of private property. You know. But they but this idea
that you know, they're somehow the standard bearer of some
perennial tradition. Like that's laughable. And it's the point is
guided too for people to act like thinkers like Demeester
were conservative, like he wasn't at all. And he was
a very very very heterodox Catholic. He was a Freemason.
He defended the Jesuits. Now admittedly in that era, the
Jesuits were totally different than the are today, but they
were very much at odds with, you know, the Catholic
leadership and the Holy See. You know, he Demeisra supported
the American Revolution wholeheartedly, you know, and it's not because
you'll you'll read like modern or contemporary scholars were like,
so he was a friend of democracy of publication. No no, no, no,
no no, The American Revolution had nothing to do with democracy.
Like the way he looked at it was this was
an aristocratic yeomanry that was exhibiting, you know, this kind
of like energetic tendency towards the creation of a of
a of a new state based on higher forms and potentialities,
a human action that we're no nos, based on you know,
transcendent the principles you know, all the historical and theological
in nature. You know, there's there's nothing egalitarian about this.
There's nothing leveling about this. Quite the contrary, you know,
like when uh, when these That's that's one of the
really weird things about the current illiteracy of the left.
I mean they've always been pseudo intellectuals, like going back centuries,
but now it's like they can't make up their mind.
You know, Like on the one hand they'll claim that, uh,
you know, America is a monstrous enterprise because only this uh,
white male warrior yeomanry had the franchise. But then on
the other hand they'll claim that America is basically this
kind of like Jacob and socialist paradise that wasn't realized yet,
but that's you know, and such that people like the Maistram.
When he talked about democracy, he was talking about in
the actual meaning of the term, you know, the demos
being the subject of it. You know, when when regime
people invote democracy, they mean the literal opposite of what
the term means. You know, they're talking about this social
engineering regime, you know, based on these kinds of radical
humanist postulates, you know, in these in these anti traditional
conceits and this kind of tradition such that anymore it
even abides a discreet and intelligible philosophical tradition. And they're
telling people like Ben Thumb and stuff, okay, like they
don't this, this is nothing in common with you know, uh,
the understanding they held by people like uh, you know,
like the Greeks, you know, during the Ran Empiricles or whatever,
which I'd consider to be the zenith of classical democracy.
But because it may the core thinkers of radical traditionalism,
I said, oh, saying a sir, I think he's still alive.
He's an Iranian academic. He uh was educated my Tea
among other places, you know, and like Wolfgang Smith, he
came up through the hard sciences. But uh, nasire an
interesting back as I'm jumping around a lot, but there's
no more cogent way to explain this and describe these
personages and why they're significant within this school of thought.
Nasir Uh he found himself at odds with Komene's revolutionary government,
which is interesting because there was no friend of the
shop and the shot was actually a terrible individual. I
know that like internet guys think he was based, he based,
He was not at all. He was just he was
a kleptocreate pimp. But one of the interesting things about
the Iranian revolution is that one of the ways Komine
he was able to when he came back from exile,
you know, he'd been exiled from Iraq for decades, okay,
and the shah had uh approached the Iraqi regime, you know,
and this this was uh, this was basically like in
the wake of like the Bathist descendancy, you know, and
Uh they'd worked out something of a concord, I mean,
which makes sense because Iraq along with Iran, as you know,
like the Shia heart land, and Komane had been in
Iraq and he was unceremulously banished. But Komane was uh
Komane when he returned from exile. The revolution as it
was developing in the street, it was these pious Shia
elements who were the core. But they also there's a
bunch of left wing labor agitators, and Ahmadinajad for example,
was like the legacy of that tendency. That's why you
still find these guys in the Iranian government. There were
there were there were kind of right wing social nationalists
among them. It was this kind of broad coalition, okay,
and to Comeni and to a lot you know, many
elements within the revolutionary cadre. If you're a guy like
Nasir as like a kind of reactionary, you know, this
guy's an elitist. You know, even though he doesn't like
the Shah and he used it as a corrupt element,
he still has no problem with monarchy, you know. He
he's not the kind of person we should permit you
know within you know, uh, the intelligency. You know, because
people like Kim have a tendency to be able to
corrupt revolutionary imperatives and open the door to you know,
kind of revolutionary activity. But Nasir was very much a
disciple of Renee Gillon, and Renee Guillon was a Frenchman
who was a convert to Islam. I don't want to
get into discussion is how people feel about those kinds
of conversions. That's not important. But what is important is
that Islam, especially on the Shia side, in my opinion,
plays a huge role in the traditionalist school of thought,
and in terms of praxis, the significance of their participation
in the resistance contra globalism can't be overstated. That's one
of the reasons why it really really irritates me when
stupid people talk about the hate Islam. That's unbelievably ignorant, okay.
And the fact that you don't like some random Pakistani
criminal who's deployed the euro up under the auspices of
refugee relief when in reality it's part of the Zionistic
cleansing efforts. Declaring that that guy is some instentation of
Islam makes you just a complete ignorantus. Okay, one thing
has nothing to do with the other, okay. And the
traditionalist school, from Rene Guillon to Julius Evil to Mercia
Eliotti to Joseph de Maestra is highly ecumenical. They're not syncretic.
They're not saying that all religions are equal. They're not
saying that, you know, you should abandon your own tradition
and you know, worshiping a mosque or in an Orthodox
seminary or in a Protestant church, because it's all some
sort of loose, you know, ill defined spiritual wisdom that
you know, and there's nothing holistic about it. That's not
what I'm talking about. That's not what they're talking about.
What they're talking about is that various permutations of religiosity,
like true deep religiosity, the kind that you know shapes
the prime symbols of living cultures and a timeless capacity,
and that you know, informs the configuration of institutions cultural
and political and social, and that dictates where people devise
their concept of authority and legitimacy therein and beauty and
aesthetics and everything else. They're saying that, like various religious
traditions and tendencies, there are all permutations of this. You know,
that the mind of God is received by man. Okay,
and somebody like the Ma Shaw would go a step
further and while he wasn't a racialist in this sense
people think of it in the twenty and twenty first
century capacity, he would say that there's an organic and
historically contingent and culturally dictated basis for how religiosity expresses
itself with in discrete cultures. Okay, So being down on
a great civilization like Iran because they're not Presbyterians like
me is is really really really stupid. Okay. And plus too,
that itself is a liberal postulate because you're saying, like, basically,
everybody's the same and should receive a you know, divine
imperatives and perceive them the same way, regardless of race
or historical you know, historically contingent variables or you know,
linear memory of an epigenetic character, you know the if
you're a real if you take race seriously, if you
take deep culture seriously, you would not only expect there
to be this kind of sectarian diversity, but you welcome
its existence because it's you yet another discrete signifier. You
know that that demonstrates the insolarty of races and cultures. Okay,
And that kind of thing should be curated, okay, obviously,
because the eradication of it is one of the prime
imperatives of you know, the regime social engineering paradigm, because
it wants to reduce everybody to this kind of low humanist, deculturated,
deracinated sort of a you know, slave cast as it were. Okay,
so that's what we're talking about. And just to get
into just get into renegion a bit, you know, because
again I think Demeestra and Renee Dillon our most important
in terms of praxie. Arguably Julius Evela, particularly some of
his later stuff, probably holds more significance to a contemporary partisan.
But you know, theory is is paramount in my opinion
because of that theory, there is no praxis, among other things.
But the Gione essentially identified, he said, when we're talking
about traditional civilizations contra modern ones, you know, not modern
in terms of technological developmental little it is a fact
or modern in terms of their rejection of metaphysics and
their rejection of God. You know, like what we think
of as you know, uh, the conventions of the Enlightenment,
the ideological conventions of it. You know, that's that's synonymous
with modernity for purposes of what Thean was talking about.
You know. One of the one of the things that
that's done is it's eliminated metaphysical points of reference. You know,
when every civilization prior, you know, great and small or
u you know, dynamic and and and brilliant, or primitive
and savage. All civilizations were characterized by the recognition of
higher order than man, you know, even those that exhibited
some humanist tendencies, you know, when in their ethics or
their aesthetical judgments, or their you know what have you
the understanding that you know, elites only derive legitimacy from
a transcendental mandate and the principles and values necessary and
adequate to constitute you know, the not just the mandate,
but the kind of guiding ethical disposition of authority. It
has to represent some sort of pathway to higher knowledge. Okay,
at least in terms of its intended structure. And when
leadership fails in that regard, traditionally, it's unders they're understand
to have lost their mandate. Okay, that gets a bit complex,
and we'll get into Demestra's take on that these would
be the French Revolution, because that is the case and
point really modern civilization and contrast is it's the deliberate
opposite of that, you know, and this isn't accidental. There's
this mythology that of you know, moderns that well, you know,
the scientific method, you know, and the Enlightenment, you know,
literally bring us out of darkness. It just revealed to
us that these things aren't true by some sort of
splendid accident. That's nonsense. This was an ideology. This wasn't
is an ideological program to deconstruct not just the tendency
of the body politic to believe in God, but to
do everything to make this higher belief impossible, okay, by
essentially breaking down the institutions that are suggestive of such things,
even if they're not, you know, and obviously the eradication
of anything so dedicated. You know, that's something Wolfgang Smith
used to make the point a lot that. You know.
One of the ways that particularly the anglosphere like handles
religiosity is they try and appropriate it in a way,
not unlike the Communists did, and just turn it into
this kind of goofy almost like going to a bowling
league or something, you know, like, oh, I'm religious, I
go to this, I go to this building where there's
you know, it's kind of like a movie theater. And
this guy, you know, like Joel Austin, he talks about
self help sorts of things and how to manage my
money better, you know. And then and then we go
into this big room and like drink lemonee together, you know,
like it really it's deliberately shorn of anything suggestive of
the divine or tuding towards worship. And I know that
there's a tread Catholic Like tread is not traditionalism, it's tread.
And there's a lot of problems with those people. But
I know that one of their favorite, one of their
one of their favorite straw man is you know, oh
that's Protestantism, or that this imaginary Protestant church that you know,
due to its h due to its iconoclasm, it did
away with, you know, all the all the edifying aspects
of religion, and and uh, you know, shut the doors
of the cathedral so people had no choice but to
draw upon these debates and and kind of banal modalities.
That's not true, Okay, Radical Pietism basically, the force has
almost got a monastic degree of introspection visa the you know,
the inner witness on congregants. Okay, like I'm not I
don't want to start some sort of sitarian beef here,
but but you can't say that, you know, a secretarian
orientation that you know suggests that people should be guided
at all times by scripture, which quite literally, you know,
is supposed to be timeless and resound in sacred time,
as Merzia Eliati described it. You can't suggest that that's
some of like some secularizing tendency. But moving on. You
know Keon obviously he was kind of the quintessential Orientalist.
You know, he he married an Egyptian woman, he converted
to Islam, he became very insinuated into a Sufi uh
school of thought and Uh Sufi. A lot of people
call it mysticism. There are Sufi mystics, and there's aspects
of that and some of its permutations. The better way
to think of it as metaphysics, like higher metaphysics, and
Islam is derives in large measure from from Sufi philosophies
and interestingly, many Alowites who may or may not be
occulted Christians. That's an open ended question and I'm not
qualified to discuss it in uh deeper capacities. A lot
of Alowites find their way to kind of the study
of higher metaphysics through various schools of Sufiism. Okay, the
reason why Yan gravitated to his lamb it Uh was
because he believed that in the Orient. He said that
there's still are pockets of capital. He traditional modalities of life.
You know, they're beleaguered in his mind, They're at risk
of being wiped away, you know, by the triumph of
this kind of anti god modernist ideology, and it's various permutations,
but it's still extants. You know. He talk a lot
about how you know, if you go into like the
mountains in India, you'll find people who are different from
the majority racial populations in India, who in his estimation
were vestiges of the higher racial caste, who still practice
the kind of pure like proto in Indo European spiritual
you know practice. He believe that, you know, places where
an Islamic way of life still thrived, you know, obviously
not like in the Ottoman court or something, which was
you know, in a lot of ways as debased as
as these secular occidental regimes. But you know, nevertheless, you know,
within within the orient and within the parameters of Ah,
of the Islamic UH governmental structure, you know, you still
could find pure iterations of it. And Osama bin lad
And had something of the same sensibility. I'm not saying
he was like Renee Dillon. They were very very different
kinds of men, but there's something to this, you know.
So that was the owes that that was kind of
what informed his sensibilities in this regard. You know, it
wasn't just the kind of fetishism of the anthrop the
cultural anthropologists, or you know, the kind of wandering European
who uh you know is kind of uh able to
insinuate himself the due to a combination of cunning and
and and and genuinely curious vigor can like insinuate himself
in these alien cultures and and kind of master them.
My perspective of, you know, of deep reverence, that was that.
I mean that obviously those are aspects kind of been
during aspects of the European mind and soul, but that
wasn't his primary motivation, you know. And again, uh, if
your entire life's work is you know, I need to understand,
you know, how can traditional ways of life and traditional data,
as Wolfgang Smith called it, How can that thrive even
be recognized for what it is? Like, what are the
conditions precedent? Or that sort of thing can still exist,
you know, in a spontaneous way that is psychologically resonant
and instinctive. You know, this is totally different than people
deliberately trying to resurrect dead forms. Mind you, okay, because
any kind of deliberate effort to do that, I mean
that itself is just a sort of modern psychological coping
mechanism or thought experiment. You know, that's the opposite of
what we're talking about here. But you know, if you're
somebody like Gillonne who wanted to discover again, like what
the conditions were where such you know, spiritual practices can thrive,
you know that you would find yourself. You would find
your way to the kinds of environs that he did,
you know, and that and that would be your frame
of reference. As uh as a as a scholar and
uh as a partisan, and Gione was absolutely both, you know.
In the one of the things, excuse me, one of
the things. One of the ties that binds conceptually of
capital E. Capital t traditionalist thoughts is the concept of
primordial tradition or sofia parentis. You'll find that phrase a
lot and traditional was writings. You know, it's not traditional
societies didn't really draw a firm distinction between metaphysical aspects
and historical aspects of cultural mind and memory. There was
an understanding two that the origin of institutions is somewhat mysterious,
you know, and that that's something really like Enlightenment, modernity
never accounts for. It's just kind of purely horizontal understanding
of data, you know, whether they're talking about you know,
whether they're talking about biological phenomenon, you know, like that
darwin Is paradigm. It never gets into any sort of
horizontal causation, I mean, or any kind of vertical causation.
It's usually horizontal. You know, it doesn't make any sense anyway,
but it's okay, so matter just created itself or matter
just exists, but then like life got insinuated into matter somehow.
You know, you're just supposed to not address that because
according to Galilean science, which is totally outmoded by the way,
obviously you know that we just don't believe in God
because that's just not something we believe in it's like
this weird tautology. And interestingly, like Wolfgang Smith, who he died,
if he had his even in his late nineties, he's
still very much had his mind about him, you know,
and he wrote his background was in quantum physics, so
he specifically write a lot about how these deep field
telescopes and the emergence of ah, you know, theories of
things like black hole cosmology. You know, it's really repudiating
everything that was propping up however, weekly the kind of
scientists perspective, you know, not scientific right about scientism. You know,
this idea of you know, emergent uh cosmological theories reputiating
any uh any possibility of a divine or agen of
you know, matter and time. And that's a totally outmoded
way of thinking about things like basically, if you stop
the clock, like the proverbial clock of a human knowledge
pre Einstein and Heisenberg, you could arguably make that case,
but you know, it's it's laughable these days to speak
in those terms, you know, I mean, don't get me wrong,
that's only part of the equation, you know, like the
godlessness of the modern condition. It has to do with,
you know, ways of life and historical memory and the
ability of people to receive primordial knowledge and to contextualize
those things within a conceptual paradigm that's both historical and metaphysical.
It's not just a matter of you know, the science
not being hostile to you know, the theological postulates or something,
but it is an important aspect of it, because I'm
constantly brushing up against people who mean well and aren't stupid,
but they're not particularly sophisticated intellectually, and they act as
if they left is somehow like intellectually sophisticated or something.
They're not at all. They're They're they're proudly ignorant, you know,
and such that they can muster any sort of like
the only thing they have or had was the bully pulpit,
you know. They that's one of the reason why they're
so censorship praised, you know, because they they have they
literally have nothing to stand on, you know, And that's important.
That's not just a flex I mean, it's important to
keep in mind, you know, in terms of of understanding
how the the kind of prevailing zeitgeist is the Overton window,
if he prefers, is shifting. But the uh, you know,
g own like Merciliati and like I will Uh. He
believed in a Hyperborean tradition, you know, he believed in
essentially uh, a fall within the civilizational cycle, you know,
which is tantamount or it can be understood, is metaphorically
not unlike you know, the the the divine right of kings.
It's it's mischaracterized by pop history books. Like what it
derives from is is that, you know, the the king's
sovereign lordship over his domain is not unlike God's dominion
over the universe, you know, with all that that entails,
you know, because that's the transcendental model of you know,
authority and justice and sovereign legitimacy. So the fall of man,
you know, quite literally is played out in temporal capacities,
you know, in cycles of civilization, you know, and Gale
comes back again and again. Obviously this would have been
at the forefront of his mind because in Egypt, you know,
he would have been and he was very much a
man who was very respected there, you know, being this
this cultured Frenchman who was a great intellectual, who spoke
all these languages and had all this wisdom, and you know,
he uh he married a woman of a very high standing,
you know, so he he would have found himself, you know,
in Cairo, and you know, in the in the midst
of these great monuments and uh, these towering necropolis structures
and things. It had to be on his mind in
a very active sense, you know, like these people I'm
among and these these men, these ways, and you know,
belief structures I've made mine own. They can't make things
like this anymore, you know, And that's the profound you know,
But that's obviously the Enlightenment perspective is again it's like
a pure inversion that like man is someone being elevated
from this state of brutishness and ignorance, and he's literally
mired in darkness, which again forces one to kind of
blind their eyes to you know, iterations of high culture
from the past, you know. I you know, so how
if man was mired in darkness? You know, essentially until
you know, the sixteenth century or whatever, like, how are
there you know, how are they these grand monuments that
this day nobody can givenate how they were built, that
were erected five thousand years before Christ. You know, it's
nobody can explain these things or I mean, how was
it that you know, people like told of me we
were mapping the stars or that, you know, essentially the
greatest intellectual traditions came out of Doric Athens and have
never been duplicated. You know, so I'm supposed to believe
that these people were all basically, you know, a bunch
of a bunch of unwashed barbarians, and that uh, you know,
Pride Month represents like the the zenith of of high culture.
You know, Perracles was an idiot, but like Donald Trump
is like a great, a great leader of men, you know,
I mean like obviously being deliberately obtuse. But this idea
of like man being uplifted from you know, ignorance that
that does that doesn't make logical sense, but it doesn't
make metaphorical sense either. You know, that's that's just not
the way and that's not that's not the way that's
that's not the way human life is. And that's that's
that's not the way organisms are. That's not that's not
the way matter is. You know that something gets more
robust and stronger as it ages. I mean, there's good
things about aging, obviously, and like it confers wisdom and stuff.
But you have this idea that you know, this a
this this idea that you know, things that things begin
as uh as kind of like proto human and then
the end as in some perfected state. I mean that
doesn't you know, it's it's not just counterintuitive, it's it's
at odds with you know, the the human experience, if
nothing else, to say, nothing of the metaphysical you know,
illogic of it. But you know, and that's something that's
why you know, the traditional was at least the ones
who are you know, worthy of the moniker. They're not
anti science at all. Like again, you know, necess here
Wolfgang Smith, uh Renegio and himself, like these these men
came from the sciences. You know. Wolfgang Smith made the
point he said that, you know, moderns will tell you,
these secular humanist moderns, they'll hold out something like scripture
and say, well, scripture informs us that the apostles they
saw Christ raised, you know, from from the dead, and
he you know, he was elevated from the earth and
you know, presumably he disappeared into the heavens, you know,
and the Galilean of you know, the objection of the
Galilean science was well, you know, space being infinite, it
has no high or low. So there you know, even
if I accept that such an ascension was possible, you know,
which it's not. It's meaningless because there is no true
ascension because there is no up, there is no down.
But I mean like that itself is meaningless if you
understand even as a layman, you know, general relativity. You know,
there very much can be like a heaven or a hell.
Very much can be up and down, distilled down the
kind of dummy terms, these things can be anywhere, okay,
because it's a matter of perspective and situatedness, you know.
Rudolph Boltman, uh, the kind of nonsense that he promulgated
that underlay a lot of kind of what became sort
of the the milk toast sort of Billy Graham kind
of Protestantism as well as Vatican two. His whole mandate,
as he saw it, was to de mythologize crypt script
Christian scriptures, like according to Boltman and his intellectual progeny.
You know, well before before there was an understanding of
true cosmology, you know, there was people spoken in pure metaphors,
like nobody really believed in things like you know, the
descent of man or ascension or resurrection. You know, like
people actually accepted this garbage, you know, especially like mid
century probably this probably like was earnestly believed until like
the eighties, like even in sad way, even in a
lot of you know, seminary schools and such environments. You know.
But that's but I mean, to accept something like that,
first of all, you're drawing up on science that is
decades out of date at best, and arguably centuries. But
also you know, you don't really understand metaphysics or the
human condition, you know, and you don't really understand what
we're talking about in terms of cosmological presentation, and you
don't understand the anthropic principle, which is key to you know,
forwarding an argument for or against this subject matter from
a scientific perspective, you know. But the point is, this
is one of the ways that you know, the regime
and the kind of post war consensus is drawn upon
these Enlightenment ideas that are natively ideological, you know, again,
like it's a one of the big eyes of history
by the proponents of these things that well, these were
just accidental discoveries or something, you know, No, they weren't
revelatory at all. They weren't discovered, they weren't the subject
of a rigorous methodology. These are ideological postulates. And you know,
you don't this idea that you can just abolish herman
nutics by appeal to, you know, an outmoded science. I mean,
that's that's preposterous. But that's kind of where this cultural
schizophrenia comes from in a place like America because in
addition to people not understanding what traditionalism is, like when
I you know, when we use that word. The reason
why I like, people have a bad i you know,
feeling about religion because to them, like religion is you know,
some some guy like Joel Ostein or it's or it's
Ted Cruz saying illiterate stuff about why he has a
kink for pretending to be Jewish and saying things that
make no sense. Or you know, when people think of religion,
they're like, oh, my parents may me go to this
bullshit you know, uh kind of glorified VFW hall of
this boring guy would talk about how, you know, you
shouldn't be racist, and you know, basically give us these
kinds of school normal lectures that were devoid of anything
interesting or metaphysical or moral or you know, but that's
like people have to understand that that really has nothing
to do with tradition. That's some weird it's some weird
social convention. That is how you know, this kind of
professional class of academics and commissars, you know, who had
some sort of vestigial interest in in academic theology just
kind of like found their way to this role, you know.
And that's because that's like what's the acceptable version of
these kind of state forms that you know, in their
true manifestation are considered at best highly subversive and at
worst basically criminal. You know. So that's when we talk
about cavallet traditionalism. We're not we're not talking about conservatism.
We're not talking out for tending it's the twelve hundreds,
we're not we're not talking about any of that. We
talk about religion. We're not talking about Churchianity or this
kind of lame like bougie stuff or you know, this
kind of cornball stuff where you know, it's it's it's
people saying, you know, what religion is about, like you know,
having manners and not using bad language, and you know,
saying please and thank you like you're in kindergarten or
something like a you know, and this is important because
like I said, it's I mean, don't get me wrong,
the last thing I want to do is try to
convince masses of people the merit of our position. That
would be a fool's errand. But that's also not what
Vanguard is due. But people otherwise are sophisticated and politically
intelligent and stand by their their culture and their race
and their heritage. This is a hurdle sometimes it must
be overcome with them because this, you know, this is
one of the reasons why like abuse of languages, it's
such a it's such a deliterious effect on conceptual life.
And that's right deliberate, because you know, then you have
to you kind of have to disabuse people of these
meanings that they've developed negative associations with, along to the
kind of endless repetition of them by ideological commissars whose
entire intention and mission is to you know, pervert the
plain meaning of these things. But moving on with the
time we got left, you know, and that's why I
encourage people too, you know, who say, like, what, what's
the relevance of all this to the president. Well again
I believe like this is our politics, okay, I mean
this is my politics, Like this is the resistance and
there is only the resistance contra globalism, you know. And
again it's not a reactionary sensibility and it's not a
return to superstition again, like that itself is you know,
an ideological postulate promulgated by you know, people who abide Enlightenment,
ideology and scientism. The superstition stuff that there is one
is this kind of nineteenth century style materialism that like
nobody believes in anymore. Like that's the superstition, you know.
And if I behoove people again, I'm very much a
layman and you know the hard sciences, you know, but
read up on what's being realized by way of things
like the James Webb telescope, like read up on black
hole cosmology and what's being postulated there, Like this is
shattering all of this nonsense, you know, like this idea
that you know, there there's no more mystery and you know,
metaphysics is dead and you know, we can explain quantum
reality is just by like appeal to you know, naked
way material quantities and you know things like that like that.
If that doesn't, you know, make you a man or
woman of faith, you're kind of asleep at the proverbial wheel,
you know, and that you know, look at uh in
my own kind of wheelhouse. You know, I'm constantly talking
about how you know, these political scientists who I distingers
from political theorists, like even some of them occasionally come
to correct conclusions, you know, like Meerscheimer. The guys really
something of a simpleton, like this idea that, oh well,
structures like the literal structure of political institutions and states.
Not only are these kinds of late modern structures perennial,
but the structures themselves dictate political events and either generate
or mitigate conflict. Like this is laughable, you know. The
look at what's underway right now with the world situation,
you know, warfare arrives like the seasons, you know, and
owing to nakedly theological imperatives, you know, and uh, even
just like the paradigm shifts that you know, we've witnessed
in the last twenty years. Really, I positive that it
began around September eleventh, two thousand and one, or at
least in the aftermath. But you know that should give
people pause, even people who consider themselves to be secularists.
And I mean, if that doesn't, I mean, if you're
your age or my age, like in real time witnessing,
you know, sort of the the merphsist Leninist dogma that
literally had shaped the twentieth century and been the catalyst,
you know, approximate and arguably ultimate for the most catastrophic
conflict in human history. You know it It it fell
to pea pieces as this zeitgeist could no longer abide it.
You know. If that's not the cutting of a reason
writ large, I don't know what is. You know, So
this idea that you know, this school of thought is
somehow an artained curiosity or something of interest only the cloistered,
aconomically inclined people, you know, who have kind of opted
to withdraw from the banality of the day to day
and the political That could not be further from the truth,
you know. And if you need another example of this
phenomenon in action, I mean, consider the degree to which
you know, the resurgence Islamic political consciousness has shaped the
last fifty years and continues to do so. Unfortunately, I
think many iterations of that are perverted. But you know
that is an aspect of the the cutting of reason too.
There's a German phrase mayor us liebn literally more than life.
You know, that's what's required for life to have any
meaning at all. You know, And this idea, if you want,
you know another example of how this relates to practice, Well,
there you go, you know, strip strip away metaph physics,
and strip away anything transcendental. You know, and and let
me know, you know how that fears in terms of posterity.
You know, the mighty Soviet Union lasted less than a
century for that very reason. You know, I was gonna
get into renege or I was gonna get into Joseph
de Meister today, and it seems that time got away
from me. But I feel passionately about this subject matter.
I'll pick up the pace next time, and after part
two we can get back to the linear progression of
our conninal philosophy series, I promise. And when we return
to that, we'll get into We'll get into live Net's
Spinozza and where this can where this study matter converges
with that, we'll get into ficked up. Schopenhouer needs you,
heide group, and I know that people will be excited
about that because they've been asking me about all that stuff,
and I'm looking forward to it too, And frankly, I
think I have more to contribute on that than on
some of these thinkers. Who I mean I minored in philosophy.
I mean I I can speak intelligently on this stuff,
but it's I can speak a hell of a lot
more intelligently on Schopenhauer and Higer than I can't like Livenut,
spoons and forth that one. But I hope people found
this worthwhile.
Speaker 1: When you get a chance, please give me a reading
list because for this specific subject, because people are going
to ask for that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, man, yeah, yeah, well I'll do so later
it's late tonight or tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Okay, sounds good. All right, Tell everybody where you're at
and where they can find you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The best place is that my website, which is
almost finished being retooled. You can find all my content.
There is a feed where like my new podcast appearances
and my own podcasts like pop Up and like other stuff,
and some of my long form writing and some like
video stuff. It's number seven h oomas seven seven seven
dot com. Otherwise hit up my substack. It's real Thomas
seven seven seven at substack dot com. And from there
you can find like other places where I'm at, like
Instagram and stuff, but those the main places to go.
And like I said, I'm in the process of kind
of retooling my content as generally, but I'm I'm always active.
I'm active every day on substack, and I try and
appear on a few people's pods every week, and I
mean try and do something every day, so you know, yeah,
I'm trying to be a busy beaver.
Speaker 1: Man, all right, Thomas, So part two, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you.