Speaker 1: Of the black Hueber Israelites and props, and shout out
to Yakub, my maker for making such an evil cracker
man with such extensive predictive skills and beautiful visage. So
shout out to Yakub. We did have total Yakoub victory
yesterday overall, I think, but setting aside yak Kub, shout
out to everybody in the chat, welcome everybody. I have
to point out that I was completely accurate on bitcoin.
Did I not tell you that if Trump won many
of us would wake up a lot wealthier today? And
thank God for that because the markets reacted accordingly as
we expected. I think yesterday today was my single largest
bitcoin day of all going back to twenty seventeen, like
the single biggest daily games. So thank thankful for that.
I don't have any intention of slowing down my stacking
and holding these bags. So glad to glad to be
in the situation. It's a blessing, and hopefully we have
other high IQ individuals that are doing well in that
regard to today we're going to be talking not about
bitcoin per se, but not just the victory in this
sort of political football game. I guess and you know,
I don't want to spoil anybody's parties, but remember we
talked about the limitations of the presidency and what he
can and can't do in last night's dream, and we
had a lot of fun. But today's going to be
a little more of a historical sort of philosophical discussion.
I want to go into the psychology of the left
and how the left is ultimately a kind of a
spiritual delusion, and I want to do it from the
vantage point of some of the historical figures that are
really important in the left and today's so called leftism.
And remember, ultimately, it's certainly, unfortunately the case that even
today is so called conservatism is really just another form
of liberalism. But a lot of people still don't understand
why that is the case. I was reminded after this election,
in regard to the numbers that popped up, that half
of the nation is literally insane, goblin demoniacs, and it
has to be half. Now, somebody said, well, not all
of this number. It doesn't matter whether the number is accurate.
It's enough of a gauge for me to know that
sixty six million plus people are walking around essentially mentally insane.
And how do we get to that, How do we
get to the point where how could anyone I just
I can't understand what's happening to for a person that
they would support Kabbala kabala. Harris, Well, I think we're
gonna have to do a little bit of a historical journey,
a historical process, and understand how we got to where
we are after the Enlightenment. We haven't talked about this
in many years. It's always good to review. In fact,
I would say, since we've talked about this, we're not
just talking about the cultural effects, not just toxic culture
and TV and no, I want to talk about the
political ideologies that have evolved. And we haven't talked about
this in many years, and we have again probably I
probably have one hundred thousand subscribers since I've talked about this.
So we're gonna go through some of that history because
I'm just once again smacked in the face and reminded.
Even after last night's you know, reality stream, we wanted
to be sober, and everybody was saying, hey man, you
had the most sober, accurate analysis, and everything that I
said yesterday came true today. So we want to talk
a little bit again about what we want to expect
or what we should expect, Be ready for the crazy
stuff that's going to come, have accurate, realistic expectations about
what it's even possible for the presidency to do, to
remember everything that Cameron talked about in last night's video.
Otherwise we're really just setting ourselves up to be duped
in this dupery game of the political process. And the
political process as we know of it is itself a
product of liberal civilization, Enlightenment civilization. What do I mean, elections,
party politics, that itself is part of the Enlightenment heritage. Now,
as you guys know, not everything that we've talked about
and criticized, not everything Enlightenment is bad, but a lot
of the Enlightenment is bad. And one or two of
those things that come to mind are just, first and foremost,
the absurdity of elections in general. I mean, this is
just so silly if you stop and think about it
on a national scale. Now, there's flexibility, I think in
terms of societies how they want to govern themselves, what
types of things they want to set up, you know,
for people groups determining their own destinies in their own futures,
they don't have to all have the same forms of
political expression or governance and so forth. So there's freedom,
and I guess you could say flexibility here. I think
the forms themselves are almost always going to tend towards
the hierarchical. There's never ever ever gonna be any kind
of really equalitarian, egalitarian style of society, utopia, whatever. It's
just never ever gonna happen, for one because it's contrary
ultimately to the principles of nature themselves. In my view,
you don't really see this in nature. I mean, people
come up with sort of obscure Oh, there's this bug
in the Amazon, and they actually live in Look, none
of that really matters on the whole, because humans are
not like bugs in this respect, or at least in
regard to some bug that lives in some communal way
which probably doesn't even really exist. Humans tend towards appreciating
successful paternal relationships, and I think this is the root
of monarchy, is the idea that since family is so fundamental,
and since humans are actually constituted to have essential realities,
biological realities, the most natural form of government and governance
in human sphere will be some form of paternalism, potter
familias and monarchy, and so the family and a royal
family becomes a kind of an icon or kind of
an image that ideally the rest of the nation wants
to emulate, wants to take pride in, et cetera, et cetera. Now,
as we know, that doesn't always happen effectively in history.
Certainly hierarchies can be abuse us and so forth. But
the problem with leftism and the whole history of it
is precisely, first and foremost this egalitarian equalitarian mistake, the
idea that everyone is fundamentally identical equal and some kind
of like manufactured unit, like a bunch of widgets coming
out of a factory or something, right, And the reality is,
of course, humans are born with different skill sets, different qualities,
different abilities, already stamped into their very being, into their soul.
Now that right, there is a huge departure point for
a lot of the modern world. And that's because leftism, liberalism, progressivism, etc.
All the way back to the Enlightenment are essentially remist.
Maybe not so much in the first stages of the
Enlightenment per se, but they're really beginning with the assumptions
of some size. Some elements of Greek philosophy believe it
or not. One of those elements of Greek philosophy that
they start with is this idea that no man sins
or does evil knowingly. And this is something that Plato,
for example, was a proponent of, in this tradition, in
its idea, in its notions, the only way that you
would ever do something immoral has to be because you
don't have enough facts. But of course the problem with
this is that it overlooks other means and reasons why
humans might do evil actions. What if lack of knowledge
is not the only reason that humans choose by or
choose evil. What if we're falling? You see, so right
away there's a disconnect between a worldview that believes in
fallen humanity versus say, a Greek metaphysic or a Greek
philosophy that doesn't believe in a fall. It just locates
vice in a lack of proper education. And also in
that view of the Greeks, there's no such thing as grace.
And so really, again, all that's necessary is the right
set of facts, and if you have the right set
of facts, then you will choose the good, but not
everybody wants the good. What if people are in some
cases absolutely malicious? What about the evil genius? I mean,
the evil genius has presumably not just all the facts,
but many more facts available beyond everyone else. And if
you read something like Dostievsky's Notes from the Underground, you
get an idea of this kind of line of argumentation.
Fute the Greek notion of evil really just being located
in man's ignorance. What if it's not an intellectual problem
but rather an issue of the heart. And that's really
where Orthodox Christianity really departs from the Hellenic Greek ideas.
Now in the Enlightenment we get a return in many
ways too Greek philosophical pagan traditions, not in total, and
I don't mean the more superstitious metaphysical aspects of Greek metaphysics.
Rather a return to, as Peter Gay called it in
his famous books, Enlightenment paganism or Greek rationalism. And this
is not surprising, of course, the Enlightenment. Many of those
characters are reacting to superstitious Roman Catholic excesses, abuses, theological errors,
many of which I would agree with. Now, some of
those mistakes had already been called out by the Reformation. Right,
So you know when we talk about the excessive and
bizarre views of the supererogation of the merits of the saints,
you know, all kinds of weird ideas about female spiritual
mystical piety. You know, scrupulosity, et cetera, et cetera, all
of these things that you see Luther and Calvin other
people whining and fussing about, some of which have basis
in reality. The extreme, then is to go all the way.
This is just what humans do. They swing all the
way to the other opposite when sometimes many cases maybe
the truth is somewhere in the middle. And so modern
leftism really cannot be understood or divorced from the idea of,
as we said, first and foremost, locating all of man's
problems not in anything internal per se, in terms of
the heart, but rather in education up here, intellect, and
in the fact that there is no nature which would
have anything to do with man having these vices or
so forth. In other words, in the nature versus nurture debate,
it's all nurture. Right. Think of the most common leftist
kind of oh people in the ghetto. They only rob
or steal because of poverty. Oh, they only do these
things because of poverty. And if we could just cure poverty,
what suddenly we would have people acting virtuously. This is
so dumb, right, But this is a lot of really
stupid people believe this. They think that there's a necessary
can action between curing poverty that will then lead to virtue.
And yet the same people will turn around and points
out that the wealthy people are the wicked people. Well
wait a minute, so I thought you just said that
curing poverty would create virtuous ghetto citizens, and yet when
you talk about wealthy people, they become a class of oppressors,
the very root and source supposedly of many or most
social ills. Then, as you can imagine, leftism is also
premised on this idea that more and more and more education,
hence great society, hence welfare programs, hence state funded drug programs,
on all of this education is what will somehow cause
the virtue in the good actions of the citizens. But
that is presupposes a kind of blank slate tabula rossa
human nature, which is precisely what we're talking about. And
the idea is, well, if since man we know post
enlightenment is just a piece of putty to be molded, stamped,
and formed by society. There's nothing innate. There's no innate
human nature, there's no innate soul, there are no characteristics
stamped on the person from God. They're just products of
their environment or of nature itself, the products of blind,
random processes, you see. And so the idea then becomes
to form and to create and to mold the perfect man,
the right man, the man of the future, the new man,
as the Marxist and Communist leader talk about right, the
Soviet man, et cetera. It's the it's essentially the create
of the perfect external environment which can tweak and manipulate
the stimuli to produce the effect that they want to produce,
the being that they want. Again, all operating on the
assumption that there's not a soul, or that there's not
a principle within man given by God or something like
that that makes him a unique being. Again, everything is
pretty much nurture. Now, that's not to say that there
aren't you know, haven't been phases of say, atheist materialist
type people who believed in no, no, it's everything is
is a nature not nurture, right, so that you can
fall on two sides of that extreme there. But in
this regard, no, we're saying that there's only really in
modern progressivism the assumption for the most part that the
solving of man's ills comes about through tweaking and fixing
the external, the social order out there, and not really
anything to do in here, except that at times they
also do fall back on the sort of genetic determinism,
perhaps more so amongst the academic, psychological or technocratic elite right,
which believe that no, actually we can tweak man and
fix man internally through transhumanism, microchips, genetic DNA manipulation, et cetera.
So sometimes they do sort of switch over into this
genetic determinist type of camp. And this would be maybe
more so Malthusian minded people, But those people are not
in the majority when it comes to the left right.
That's very much the minority of people on the left right,
you know, people like Han's Icing and people like that
who have been in trouble for scientific publications and discoveries
that go against the mainstream liberal orthodoxy of so called
scientism and psychology and whatever. And that doesn't mean that
I'm saying that Hans Eising is necessarily there therefore all
the all correct in all of his you know, eugenics
and new enthusian ideas. I'm just pointing out that those
just tend to be the minority amongst liberal academia. So
the nature virture's nurture debate, i think pretty much ended
up being almost wholly uh dominated by the left, siding
with the idea that everything is essentially an environmental external
nurturing stimuli, and hence the assumption that all of these
you know, external means and programs can somehow tweak and
fix me, and this is what undergirds even public education.
Now that doesn't mean that I don't believe in educating
the populace, but I don't know that that means that
I don't think that means that the state or the
federal government should be in charge of educating the population.
There are plenty of private organizations, religious organizations, etc. That
I'm sure could do a far better job of educating
than some sort of you know, gigantic federal whatever Soviet
minded program that's literally copied from the Prussian socialist model
of public education. So as we're you know, speaking about
the Enlightenment and the Revolution and those characters. One thing
that we should keep in mind is the oddball nature
of the individuals in the French Revolution. Thank you, thank
you guys for the super chats you guys, would it
like and share? We got a thousand live and only
two hundred and fifty seven likes, you guys, don't I thought,
this is what you guys want. Isn't this what you want?
Of course, it's what you want. And now my sources
for this are not just from firing the minds of men,
but firing the minds of men is probably over all
the best encapsulation of what we're talking about in this
first part of tonight's talk, and that's the early revolutionary
phases of the mindset of the left, the psychology and
spirituality so called of the left. Because we're gonna We're
gonna say I think that leftism is really a spiritual
disease and delusion is the premise or the conclusion of
tonight's the theory of the thesis of the night's talk.
Excuse me and Billington. Of course, as you guys probably know,
if you're not a stranger to this channel or new here,
Billington was the Librarian of Congress, and so this is
a classic book from an establishment academic person on the
history of revolutionary thought, and he characterizes it in a
very religious way. It is the Origins of the Revolutionary
Faith in the subtitle, and of course Billington is a
believer in the revolutionary tradition, and he sees accurately the
ethos of America as an enlightenment product and project, expressing
precisely one arm or one branch of this dialectical revolutionary
oppositional faith. We'll talk about that in a minute, but
if you're not familiar with these topics, this book is
of course a great place to start in terms of
actual academic historic scholarship. So a couple of these figures
that we read about that come to the fore are
people like Marat, Robespierre, Danton Babe, and these figures who
sort of became demagogues and very vocal figures at the
time of the French Revolution, which is where pretty much
unanimously all scholars are going to date and trace modern liberalism.
And we're talking about liberalism in the true, accurate historical sense.
We are not talking about necessarily the Democratic Party in
today's two party politics. We will get to that, but
right now we're talking about the Enlightenment heritage, which begins
as capitalism as part of the Enlightenment heritage, and then
the birth of socialism or modern socialism after capitalism. So remember,
before we get today, we're not talking mainly about economic theory.
But before we get Danton and Robespier and Moran, all
these characters, you have to have the prior phase of
the laise Fair economic theorists. You have to have Locke, Ricardo,
Adam Smith and even Kant. Then these are all the
original neo what we could call liberal. This is where
we get the term neoliberal. Neoliberal refers to economic theory
primarily here, meaning things like we should open up the
markets to not be governed by state tariffs. The king
shouldn't be, you know, giving licenses to this or that guy.
Should all be up to who has the best products.
Now that sounds good in practice, but as you can imagine,
there's a reason that kings had tariffs, and it wasn't
just always for taxation and for self enrichment. Tariffs also
protected the guilds and the crafts men within that nation state.
And so if I was a part of the you know,
shoe cobbler's guild in England in the fourteen hundreds, and
I had been taught this trade, and I, you know,
took re a lot of pride in the crafting of
the shoes and the drip that I put into these
crafted shoes. If there were suddenly no restrictions or no
tariffs or whatever, and then suddenly millions of say, Chinese
shoemakers flooded in, and the Chinese make these very cheap
different types of shoes, and they destroy me and my
shoe guild. You see. The point there is that that's
not good for the worker. And the open trade or
open borders policy actually has its origins in this type
of laise fair capitalism. Now that doesn't mean that I'm
saying that that socialists had the answer. No, I don't
believe that socialism or totally free market lise fair. There
are two sides of revolutionary thought, and this is why
it's so difficult, just like it's as difficult to explain
to people that fraudulent nature of the two party system.
They can't see past either you're a libertarian or you're
a socialist. You're either an anarcho capitalist or you're a Marxist.
Well what if I think both of those systems are
really products of the rebellion of man against hierarchy, order, church,
and state. And that's really what nobody's prepared to go
there yet. Now, I will say one positive sign is
that although I've harped on this for many years, maybe
I mean maybe fifteen years, I figured all this out
at least fifteen twelve years ago when I stopped really
being super duper libertarian, and I don't really only had
that for a brief phase. Was that was a few years.
It wasn't that long. People are just The one bright
sign is that we have seen Peterson, I think, through Pagoe,
began really to critique the ideas of Enlightenment. And as
you probably saw, this really made doctor James Lindsay Matt
so And I'm not saying that I think Jordan Peterson
is going to say Western civilization. Look, come on, dude,
like I've been critiquing these positions in classical liberalism way
before anybody else was, Way before I was critiquing classical liberalism,
even before the alt R, I, G H T people were.
So I've note about this because I had really extensive
undergrad classes and all these topics, and because I was
into tradition Catholicism in two thousand and three, so I
was already into tradcat you know, idea ideas and critiquing
classical liberalism and all that, literally before most of y'all
had like got out of your diapers. So come on,
don't you don't have to explain to me about this
kind of stuff, Like I don't know about it. I
know this topic very well and I've studied it for
a long time, but I don't really talk about it
that much because it's just not that relevant. I mean,
it's so it's taken, for example, the Pago Peterson's fear.
It was seven years ago I did my critique of
classical liberalism, and now we're beginning to hear Jordan Peterson
agree with some of those critiques. Now, I don't know
that that means he's watched my stuff. I don't know.
He probably hasn't, but probably indirectly some of the criticisms
that have been out there for a long time have
maybe filtered their way to him. Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The point is just that it is nice to at
least begin to have some questioning of the Enlightenment out there.
If you go back ten fifteen years ago, when I
was being pretty insistent on debating and critiquing, arguing against
some of this stuff, there was nobody, I mean literally
nobody would even listen to a person criticizing classical liberalism.
I mean, classical liberalism was just everyone's bread and butter.
Or they were like just straight up socialist Marxists. But
at least we're beginning to think about the possibility ideas
are beginning to be put out on a decent sized
scale that challenge these entrenched dogmas of either socialism or
classical liberalism. Can we begin to think outside of that either,
or can we begin to think about out thinking outside
of the idea that somehow democracy or even republican democracy
is somehow sanctified and hallowed. Says who that it literally
makes no sense. Remember in the January event a few
years ago, and Pelosi spoke about the hollowed halls of
democracy being defiled. Are you speaking in this religious language
and so you know democracy as religion as just this,
and half the people, probably most of the people that
you if you were to ask them, well, Explain to
me what democracy is. Tell me about Greek ancient Greek democracy,
Tell me about its origins. How did they operate? Did
the children vote in ancient Greek democracies? You think they
let everybody vote? Obviously we know that that's not the case.
But again, you know, democracy was intended for most likely
small male dominated societies where men were landholding, you know,
tax paying individuals. I'm not a fan of taxes. I'm
just saying that that was the idea. So this preposterous
notion that is which we have today, that democracy somehow
automatically values all people in society equally because they merely exist,
is preposterous. Even the democratic elements of the American system
still assumed that you would be a landholder, that you
had some stake in voting because you had skin in
the game. Right, So random indigent hoboes don't have the
same stake in the game as the landholder man. Obviously,
children children aren't competent and fit to vote. Women also
should not ultimately be voting. They never have voted because
women were not seen to be in the role of
being involved in world affairs and keeping up with civics
and the issues and the news and this, and that
it's just not the role that women were assigned in life.
That was up to men, just like going out and
doing you know, soldier type jobs like that's left for men.
And the more societies conform to those roles, the more
healthy and functioning they are. The more that they deviate,
the more you get abnormal, dysfunctional societies. And that's precisely
what happens in the characters that we're going to look
at right here, these press revolutionary characters who are ideologues
and like many leftists that you probably know or have
no or whatever maybe you were at one time. The
problem with this position is that it takes what seems
to be ideal or rational to this or that revolutionary
and to assume that that could be forced into and
stamped into reality on a large scale. And they're so
narcissistic on the whole, these sort of revolutionary liberal leaders,
that if there's something that doesn't fit, why it must
obviously be the fault of the person not fitting into
my mold here, and so they must be dispensed with. Clearly,
that's the only possible option, and that's the insane, tyrannical
narcissism of the revolutionary leader, the leftist leader. And so,
as you may have heard Conserva, a conservative that really
been saying this for a long time, but it bears
repeating because it's it's a really essential element to understand
the psychology of the leftist, the liberal, and that is
to understand that there is a narcissism and self worship
that underlies every single liberal proponent and ideologue. And yet
at the same time there is a hatred for the people.
Now that might seem odd because wait a minute, I
thought they were the men of the people. I thought
they were standing up for the masses, for the people. Ah.
You see, the leftist sees himself as a salvafic figure
for the masses, this collective blob, this abstracted blob. So
he loves and wants to save humankind, but he actually
hates you see. That's a very very crucial, brilliant insight
that I heard some years back from a conservative. Maybe
it's even David Horowitz that said that, and I thought,
that's actually really profound. That's absolutely correct. Every leftist, committed person, activists, etc.
On a one to one level, they're usually described as
some of the worst people. They're hateful, they will lie back,
to cheat, do whatever, and they have no moral compunction
at all about doing it because for them, all of
their actions are justified to save humanity. And I mean
quite literally here that many of the leftist ideologues and
activists literally have a God complex, they have a savior complex.
Many people have, for example, pointed this out about George Soros,
that he's talked on occasion and interviews and sort of
views himself as this person who, with that wealth and
power that he has, will save society, mankind, modernity, whatever.
Now let me be clear, I'm not saying that this
never exists on the so called right. I'm going to
again stress that really we have to toss out left
and right. A big root of this whole problem is
left and right itself. That it needs to go. So
keep that in mind. I will dispense in total with
the left right paradigm, which is a control mechanism that's
actually a kind of a distraction. It's a smoke and
mirrors deflection from a right wrong paradigm, virtue vice paradigm.
That's the true false paradigm, the good evil paradigm, the
virtue vice that's the right one. But instead we always
have to be focused on a dialectical setup, which is
itself a product of the Enlightenment and the revolution. That
power is somehow inherently bad. Now, I know that sounds
odd because you're saying, wait a minute, revolutionary leftists. Yes,
remember going back to the revolutionaries, much of their rhetoric,
much of their writings, are bound up with the notion
that power, somehow itself is a problem and what corrupts people.
Not again, remember not what's in man? For the leftists,
it's not a fallen heart, it's not a wicked heart.
For the early progressive revolutionary era leftists and liberals, perhaps
what corrupts man is not just society, but also things
like possessing power. Power is somehow the source of corruption,
which then corrupts the male leader usually, and then that
corruption is expounded throughout society because of than the the environment,
because of nurture. Right, So power itself has to then
be taken away and supposedly dispersed amongst the many, or
amongst the masses, or amongst the representative republican committees or whatever.
But is it power itself that is the problem. Is
it power itself. I mean, in other words, is it
kind of power unavoidable. So it's not power that's the problem.
It's wicked men in power versus good men in power.
But you understand that because this is already beginning on
the premises that there's not good and evil. There's not
wickedness and virtue virtue advice. There's power and abusive power.
And hence the revolutionaries were themselves setting against all tyrants, supposedly,
but for them tyrant really just equalled anyone who had power,
be it church or state, and by extension, also the
money class, which is ironic the merchant class, because originally,
if you think back to the time of the Enlightenment,
when we get the rise of liberal economics with Locke, Ricardo,
Adam Smith and others, the idea at that time is
that power should be opposed and wrestled from the state,
and it should be in the hands of the merchant
and banking class. So understand that the neoliberal economic theory
of the Smiths and the Ricardos and the John Locke
and others at that time is not really about freedom.
And what I don't know, libertarian party economic theory tells
you today it was about the merchant and banking class
wanting some of that power that the state had, and
so they said, oh, power is a problem. It must
be rustled away from the state and then it'll be fair.
But what ends up happening isn't that power. It just shifts.
Power doesn't actually really get limited. It simply shifts to
new power blocks. And so the very people, the very revolutionaries,
the very before them, the merchant class, they wanted the rest,
some of the power would make holding power or having
power itself the source of tyranny, and then they themselves
take power. And so we find out that the attacks
on power itself are really hypocritical. They're more of a tactic,
a cunning technique to gain power, rather than actually limiting power.
This then becomes, i think, the source of the intentional
disconnect in liberal democratic societies between the actual holding of
power and the belief in who has power. So in
these supposedly democratic and equalitarian free societies in the modern world,
after the revolutions, and right so after the the Masonic revolutions,
to overthrow, throw on an altar, the eighteen hundred seventy hundred,
eighteen hundreds, and then we get into you know, the
late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds, the world has
essentially been changed to reflect revolutionary philosophy in some form.
Most governments in the world, especially the Western world, have
become liberalized, meaning that church and monarchy really have no
more role for the most part. There's a little bit
of that here and there. But whatever monarchs perhaps do
continue to exist, or noble families or whatever, they're really
displaced by the people, know, by the merchant banking class,
you see. And that's that's a fact that even quickly
admits in Tragy and Hope. But this creates a divorce
between in democratic liberal societies, so called, a divorce between
what's professed to be believed in terms of the national myth,
the constitution, the elected leaders, etc. And what really runs
those societies. And so there's a there's a fissure, a
divorce because what ends up happening, as the ancient Greeks
ironically said a long time ago, when you get rid
of hierarchy and you suppose have democracy, what you really
end up with is oligarchy. And that's the difficulty here
is that these democratic liberal societies purport to be governed
by law, purport to be free markets, purport to be
based around freedom of the individual, maximalizing all of that.
Now we're not talking about socialism yet. We're talking about
the Western capitalist, democratic, free market republics that were established
post French Revolution. America, for example, right, is the shining
example of this. But of course most of the Western
world and even beyond has in some way adopted these
liberal forms of governance. They're based around the idea of
power comes from the bottom up, which again is the
reverse of what these guys are because remember, power itself
is supposedly a problem, and I think that corrupts to
the revolutionary mind. So they wanted to limit it. But
that really doesn't address the fact that, well, in this
type of a society that we're setting up, we can
have a rise of a new billionaire class or oligarchical
wealthy class that has power. And so it's just really
stupid and naive to think that there are mechanisms or
machineries that will somehow create fair societies or cause there
to be virtue in society and that there won't be
tyrants or something like that. I mean, it's just really
kind of foolish. And again it's a naive, stupid view
of human nature itself to assume that human nature could
be tweaked by the environment or by the democratic constitution
or whatever, such that it will act virtuously for what
economic gains. I mean, it's kind of just stupid. It's
a really nonsensical divorce from reality, idealize view of what
human nature or humans are. And that makes sense because
the Enlightenment was itself largely based around the universalizing of
what humans are human nature is, but a lot of
those universalized principles based on pure reason and rationalism, and
the Enlightenment ended up being themselves the things that would
deconstruct Enlightenment and that would take the left in the
direction of multicultural eciving postmodernism. So we talked about the
notion that power itself is a problem, but also at
the back in the time of the revolutionaries and whatnot.
What we get then is the idea that because power
is a problem, it must come from the bottom up.
The people are the ones that create and un do
anyone with power, and any legitimacy in any form or fashion,
whether throne or alter, legitimacy is determined by the masses.
And even if you have a republican form of government.
That's still odd because it's like, well, legitimacy will be
determined ultimately by the masses for anything to do with
law and state. It just won't be by all of
those masses. It'll be like out of the five smartest
of the masses. Right, So that's more of the republican idea.
They'll elect a committee that will decide. But it's still
a very bottom up idea as if that's the source
from which power and legitimacy comes, why on what basis
you understand? This is just a dogma. It's just an
assertion that power comes from the people up says, who
how do we know that? I mean, maybe it does,
but these are Enlightenment dogmas that, as I said, those
Enlightenment principles themselves would eventually eat like a self eating
oral borrow snake chewing on its own tail forever or whatever.
And again, you're gonna notice that as we progress through
Enlightenment thought, enlightenment thinking, revolutionary thought and thinking, it always
has within itself the seed to destroy itself. Ironically, and
even though it continues to do that, it doesn't go away.
It merely morphs into a new form and that's I
think the most fascinating thing about leftism, which ultimately means
that it's nihilistic and satanic, is the power that it
has to morph and change and be the opposite of
itself and still continue on. And that lets you know
that it's more than just an idea. It's actually a
spiritual evil. It's actually the demonic. So power is the problem.
Powers inherently evil. Power only comes from the bottom up,
from the people. Supposedly. I don't know why we're supposed
to live, but that's just that's those are the dogmas
of the revolutionaries. The revolutionary liberal, as we said, has
his hatred for mankind and seeks for hatred for people,
but salvation for humankind. And he has this abstracted universal
ideas that he must force reality into and if reality
doesn't conform to his ideals, then reality must be damned.
In other words, off with their heads. They're the problem,
the reason my utopia is and here has to be
my critics and all of the other people that don't
fit into my suppose to utopia. Well, then I guess
they have to offer their heads, he said. But there's
all there's something else going on with the revolutionary that
you probably noticed in the character of Danton. Does Danton
look like he's He's not really a haty, is he?
I mean, he's kind of got like a monkey ish
face going on here, right, He's kind of a goofy
looking dude. Baboof himself Badeuf, guess what he was a journalist. Yes,
they had blue check marks back in the time of
the French Revolution, and Babouf eventually started putting on weight.
And if you don't know the story, the other revolutionaries
tattled on him and said, hey, Baboeuf, he needs to
be put to death because he's obviously eating too much.
If he's chunky, if he's got a bubble gut going on,
if he's got a thick with triple c ass, then
he's eating too much. That's bourgeois and he's not living
in a true revolutionary way, because no revolutionary would be overweight,
even though they're pretty much all fatties. And so famously
a Babooth gets snitched on as being too overweight and
therefore too bourgeoisie and not truly living the asceticism of
the revolutionary faith as it was required for those who
were truly socialists. At that time. But what do we
see in this in these examples of Babouf and Danton
is they're ugly dudes. They're physically repulsive and probably on
a personal level repulsive. So wait a minute, why would
a revolutionary leader. What's the connection between being physically repulsive
being a revolutionary leftist? Well, precisely that being an outsider,
being considered ugly, purple haired freaks, fatties, et cetera. That
alienation from the social order, not having the means by
which to attract a mate, then allows those people to envy,
have resentment, to rise entament towards society and towards the healthy,
functioning members, and then they they thus coalesce in their
victimhood oppressed minority status. You see. And I'm not saying
every minority is ugly. I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm saying that the characterization that we see in a
Babouf or a dantein they embody the malformed, abnormal elements.
Even physically, even the physiognomy of the revolutionary leader often
tells you that he can't get late. He's probably an
insult and he's gonna have He's gonna be at the
whole House essentially is what we're saying, right, and I'm
not you think I'm not actually exaggering there. In fact,
Rousseau famously spent a lot of his time doing philosophizing
at the whole House. And it's not by accident of
Russo is again one of these characters who seems to
have these aberrations in his personality, in his psyche, which
leads them to then say that all society should rather
adopt to my vices. It's not me that's the problem.
It's not my vices and my mental illnesses. And many
of these revolutionary leftist leaders were actually mentally ill. Some
of them were founding communes. Some of them thought they
were new Savior figures. Some of the women commune crazy people,
they thought they were female Jesus. So there's delusions going on,
there's narcissism going on, there's envyan resentment going on, because
many of these people are just damn ugly looking like
Hefa's right, all that's going on, and in their minds
that this was true even back then, which is pretty
amazing comparing to, you know, the exact same modus opera
on it today's leftists is that society must change to
fit me. The greatest example of this, of course is
fat acceptance. And remember when this was being really being
pushed maybe twenty sixteen. Remember Tessa Holiday, the supermodel who
was massively like Ebarra level overweight, right, just massive. Now
that's kind of been normalized because you go to the mall,
you look at magazines, the mannequins, the models, they're all
massive now or they're at least included as part of
the ads or the modeling. So that has been somewhat
successful in terms of getting their agenda through, and fat
acceptance at the I think has been overall successful because
all of these tone policing crusades against shaming have kind
of been successful through the support of censorship and big tech, right,
because it became part of victim's status that you cannot
be shamed and that shaming is equivalent to hate. But
as many of these people knew, really if they could
alter society, it just meant more of a way to
provide for their vices. And that's a big We can't
overlook this basic level and ironically to highlight well I
would say ironically, but highlighting again why this type of
governance and society doesn't work and doesn't function. Is that
democratic societies, liberal open societies, by their very nature, must
have by their leaders the broadest base appeal and the
broadest base appeal when combined with social engineers and revolutionary
elite minded leaders who are very cunning, who know how
to debase the population. It's a never ending cycle of
the political class and the elite controlling class constantly degrading
the population as they require more and more of a
broader base to have power and control. We're talking about
the so called political class that supposed leaders that run things.
I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistencies within so called
democratic governments themselves. This leads to this never ending cycle
of on the one hand, the elite class degrading the
population to control them, and in the political class pandering
to we're more of a common denominator to appease degraded degenerates.
You see how that works. That cycle is precisely where
we are right now. That's why things don't change, is
that nothing will ever change until there's a return to
a notion of a right wrong paradigm, virtue vice paradigm
versus left right because left right is itself based in subjectivist,
liberal relativist ideas. Remember, there's no objective principles of transcendence
and God and whatever in a state that is actually
coronated by the religious power, showing that power comes from
God from the top down, not from the bottom up.
The notion of hierarchy and the coronation of the Church
of the King shows divine sources of authority in these systems,
all of that is wiped away. Well, what other sources
of authority could there be? Supposedly the bottom up. But
what I'm pointing out is that, as even the ancient
Greeks knew, this is really just oligarchy, not power from
the bottom up, but power from the manipulative elite class
that can control the bottom up, you see. And that's
where we get social engineering, we get political chaos, trickery, corruption, sexpionage,
all of this even existing back then, of course. And
so the reason that those democratic equalitarian societies don't function
is because their leaders are themselves dysfunctional and they misdiagnose
individual and social ills, because they themselves can't make sense
of society and have no standards other than themselves, and
thus they become demagogues and tyrants themselves because they have
the supposedly abstract perfect system to stamp into society to
make it conform to their ideals, which is really just
Ultimately this ideal they have is merely a reflection of
their own vice, and so society degenerates. You get more
and more promotion of misfits, the ugly, the miscreant, the scalleywag,
the baoheesca, a cacistocracy, as it's called governance by the worst.
Because this model internally necessitates it and it becomes it
is ultimately just oligarchy. Likewise, we saw as the connection,
for example, between in medieval Europe the notion of the
witch and how the witch blended seamlessly into the feminist
movement at the time of the French Revolution Mary Wollstonecraft,
many of these other socialist revolutionaries after the French revolutionary characters,
we saw many of them being actually women feminists, and
many of these guys were absolute feminists. Many of them,
of course, had no problem totally being hypocritical and contradictory
about that. For example, Rousseau spending his days at the
whorehouse but probably believed in some form of female liberation
and even in today's leftism when we look at and
I remember my one of my best examples of this
internal contradiction within the mind of the leftist was in
one of my philosophy classes in undergrad and I had
this I mean, she's still a leftist, but she was.
She was a big fan of Nietzsche, and she appreciated,
you know, some elements of the so called riote or whatever,
but she was still obviously at heart just a leftist.
I remember in one of her we had this debate
between the feminists in class. Right, so basically there's me,
probably a handful of dudes, and then probably majority seven
or eight, because usually in academia in the humanities is
still a female dominant. And I remember this class. It
was so funny because the debate was over female circumcision.
But the problem is that to the normy liberal, you're
a cultural social relativist. But at the same time, every liberal,
of course liberal today has to vehemently defend feminism. In
women's rights, I suppose what they call women's rights. But
now wait a minute, now I'm stuck gonna dilemma because
how am I supposed to defend women's rights and be
a cultural relativist in idiotic you know Muslim cultures or
whatever in Africa that want to damage women. Ah. You see,
there is no solution. Why is there no solution because
leftism ends up being at this time at least realm
it in what's called negative liberty. And this is because
negative liberty really comes out of their economic predecessors, the capitalists.
Prior to them, the capitalists libertarian minded people when they
thought about the state and they wanted to get the
state out of the domain of the economy. The chief
means to do that was to begin to talk about
and limit the state through what they call negative liberty.
And that just means that we're going to defying the
rights of the individuals by what the state can't do.
But the problem is that negative liberty doesn't really give
you anything as a positive application for how you ought
to act. It's really just a bitching about the state
and it limiting individual economic action. I mean, the American
Founding Documents, you could say, are negative liberty type documents.
They're not so much concerned with telling you what is
the positive of virtue or something the common good right.
It can't do that government can't be involved in that
all government can do is act to in a limiting
way to ensure the freedoms of the individuals in the society. Supposedly,
that's the las a Fair story from the Enlightenment period.
But as we progress out of the Enlightenment, we get
to these people, the revolutionary brothers and sisters of the capitalists,
who then react against capitalism and its excesses with another
form of liberalism, namely liberal socialism. So literally the irony
that you could never have had the French Revolution had
you not already had the capitalist revolution of the Enlightenment thinkers.
And if you read somebody like Locke, what you'll notice
very clearly is that between a. Lock's epistemology and his
two treatises on the State or whatever. I've read these
I remember reading him in undergrad. They're really dry and boring.
But there's a clear connection between Locke's empiricist philosophy Anglo empiricism,
and the democratic liberal Lise Fair principles. They go together
because they all assume a common anti metaphysic, a common
empiricist mode of operating, and the tabula rossa. But those
models are only as good as the theories and the
presuppositions are true. If the theories and the presuppositions are
not true, these are going to be disastrous systems. For example,
if tabula ross is not true, then a lot of
this Enlightenment stuff is gibberish. It's nonsense, and it won't
work as a means of running a society. It doesn't
mean the systems will totally collapse or crack down right away.
It means that there will be internal inconsistencies in the
systems that will play themselves out in time, either for
the better or for the worse. So, in other words,
within the dynamic and the logic of capitalism and its
Enlightenment assumptions, as capitalism begins to tell the state how
it needs to be, how society needs to be, everything
becomes homoeconomicists in some way. That's the assumption here, is
that really the locus of man's operation and actions in life.
They're not God, they're not virtue and vice. It's economic exchange.
Once economic exchange begins to dominate, and I think Spangler
was accurate to call it homoeconomicist in this time period,
the principles that were assumed, if they're false, they will
eat themselves and destroy that existing system and produce a
new form. Perhaps in the worst, perhaps it goes in
a bad direction. And this is the precisely what you
see where monopoly or excuse me, I should say lais
a fair early capitalism literally gives birth to and foments
the socialism that it is its opposition. Why well, because
on the one hand, socialism I excuse me, capitalism itself
has Enlightenment assumption and flaws that it can't justify. And
there's no reason why if you have this atheist, materialist
or even dis presupposition going on, like Locke or something
like that, that people can't critique your position and say, well,
if this, then this. So, if Locke's empiricism is true,
then it doesn't really make sense for them to be
a god. So even though Locke thought there had to
be some kind of god and you know, some sort
of loose kind of Calvinism, whatever weird theology Locke believed in,
if empiricism's true, the next logical phase is atheism. The
god of Locke or these Enlightenment figures is really a worthless, deistic,
pointless god. And so if there's not a god, then
socialism atheism seems to be the next logical conclusion, because
why if there's not a god, not values? Should we
prefer the individual in maximalizing his freedom? Why not the collective?
I mean, you don't be selfish, do you? Why you
being selfish? Bro? You need to help people? And literally,
that low level sort of absurdity is what you have.
There's a dispensing of the idea of God or the
deism that's in these Enlightenment era thinkers. That's dispensed with,
and the preference for the individual. Why the individual? Why
not the collective? Why the collective? Why not the individual? Oh? Exactly,
there's no reason why it ought to be one or
the other. And so these people play on the existing
system as the merchant class, the money class. They must
now be the new power elite. It's not the kings
and queens so much anymore. There's a little bit of that.
But the next phase the revolution is the overthrowing of capital. Oh.
You see, power is what corrupts. Power corrupts through having money,
because money is what gives power. So money must now
be the problem. It's the way that people are exploited.
And what was the state. Remember what Marx said I
forget the exact phraseology. It's kind of a funny statement,
something like, what is the state but the Committee for
the furtherance of capital? Right? It's like, which is kind
of true, right, But I mean in the monopoly system
or the monopoly capitalist system, if you think about it
that way, it's not really the state that runs things.
The state is just kind of a functionary of big capital.
And that's true. Does mean Marxism is true. It just
means that that principle is true. That's true in the
free market democratic system. So if that's the case, well
why not overthrow that and try any of whatever system socialism? Marxism? Okay,
why not? If my opponent is a bunch of deistic
or atheistic capitalists, like, why not? Why not socialism? You see?
You see the point. Now, I'm not saying that justifies socialism,
because these people can't make a justification for anything. But
that's the point. Well, there's not a justification for anything,
then why not collect socialism? Why not limit the power
of the individual capitalist? And the only means to do
that would be the state. Now the anarchists thought, well, no,
we could, we could do that through you know, anarco
actions of the individual, and Mark said, no, no, you've missed
the whole point. It's collective action that has the power,
and only with the collective being awakened could we overthrow this.
It's stupid to think of the individuals being the ones
that could overthrow. And that's where he disagrees with Bakunin
thinks Pacuon is an idiot. That, by the way, plays
into Conrad's Secret Agent, which I apologize I've been late
on that, but when I got super sick, I wasn't
able to read. Really only one night was able to read,
but it was so sick that even reading wasn't really possible,
which made it unbearable almost. But I'm over that for
the most part. I'm still a little bit sick, but
most of it's i'd say eighty to ninety percent now,
so I have only a little bit left in the
book and then we'll be able to do the part
two of Secret Agent for subscribers to conrad novel. But
it plays into this too, because as we saw, Conrad
was discussing, you know, anarchists and Marxists as the part
of the secret Society in that novel, but for leftist
socialists to get back to our notes here, to our
point overall we talked about the the modus operaon Diet. Well,
if it's the case that these systems aren't at or
built around, what's true. We were talking about the economic
models and Marxism sort of overthrowing capital and then capitalism
and Marxism being in a sort of a dialectical necessary struggle.
The other element that many people miss is the Sutton,
Quigley and others thesis, which is that Marxism socialism. Even
Spangler says this. He says, you could never find a
socialist movement without some capitalists behind it. And the point
there is that really the rise of these are not independent,
organic movements. They had themselves, even at this time in
the seventeen hundreds, a lot of money and a lot
of force behind them from foreign nations and governments and
powers and families to be used as operations to overthrow,
in this case, the Friendship monarchy. So there were actually
outside forces who had vested interests in aiding the Baboofs,
the Dunton's, the Mara, the Robespierres, the Jacobins, and the
Governdans to overthrow Louis and not just lou but also
the church as well, and quickly talks about that. Quickly says,
there's ample evidence that certain banking houses in Europe had
a vested interest in the French Revolution, because, for one,
revolutions create debt, they create a new collectivization of wealth
and transference out of the nation. Revolutions serve a lot
of purposes that are far beyond the scope of the
idiot revolutionaries or the normal leftists that think that they're
part of something great. They are actually tools. And as
obvious maybe as that sounds to this audience, this is
still not obvious to people. People still cannot wrap their
heads around this. They cannot fathom the idea of capitalism
and Marxism socialism being a dialectic. It's just to boom.
There's probably no boomer that will ever get that. Very few,
very few, probably because of course they were raised in
the Cold War, and so they see the Cold War
as really defining for those concepts, when really we're going
more into a historian's perspective, bigger bird's eye view, going
back to Enlightenment and French Revolution to really grasp the
big picture about what liberalism is, what liberal economic theory
is what monopoly capitalism is, and then what Marxism socialism represented.
So for me, as you could probably imagine, no, although
I'm sure many members of these movements were sincere about
their beliefs and really did believe in you know, free market,
lais a fair or these people really did truly believe
in their socialism. Oh, I don't doubt that at all,
because these ideas have the power of religious ideology. They
essentially are. That's why Billington is calling this the revolutionary faith.
They literally treat themselves like a church, like a religion
they believe in. For many of these revolutionaries were actually ascetics.
They're not all fat hypocrites. I mean Robespierre literally like
didn't have a new suit for like twenty years. I
mean he was literally committed to the asceticism of a
strict hardcore Marxist socialist. But of course there's no reason
really to be that way. I mean, there is no God,
so there's no reason to not be a hypocrite and
live it up right. So many of the more cunning,
I think, more malicious of the revolutionary leftist types Bolsheviks,
et cetera. I think for them it was a lot
more of a willing just really enjoying evil, getting off
on enjoying, duping people, living in this almost dissociative state
of accepting and furthering contradictions. And you'll notice that a
lot of the Marxist would even speak that way. Right,
everything is contradiction, everything is lie, And to really be
committed to revolutionary action, you live revolutionary action, meaning you
must act, There must be practices, you must embrace the contradiction.
Nothing wrong with lying, in fact, lie to further the cause.
And so the revolutionary, the liberal sees all of his
actions as justified because he is the source of all
good and evil anyways, his own God. So whatever he
determines is what's good. There is no good or evil
out there. Good and evil is what I do and
what I decide, just like the live genesis. Right. But
radical action requires then actions against and to negate anything
that is existing, anything that has being, anything is the now,
because this ultimately becomes a tearing down for the tearing
sake of tearing down. Even today's revolutionary forms, according to
these people, are themselves still oppressive and must be torn down.
This is what so many people don't understand that they
think that true leftist liberals are working for some better world,
not necessarily, the true committed revolutionary liberal must always tear down.
It is always struggle. There is never into the struggle,
because it is eternal, perpetual struggle according to the true
revolutionary And in fact you can read like I think
it's Lenin and maybe even mal they will go speak
of you know Democratus, and you know the philosopher of
the ancient world, you know Heraclitis, that everything is in flux,
and that means everything will always be in flux, and
that means everything is revolutionary dialectic nature, Darwinism, revolutionary dialectic societies,
revolutionary dialectics. Everything is dialectics. Dialectics requires you be against
whatever the existing system is, so there's no longer virtue
and vice. There are tools and techniques that our means
towards an end. You see. Thus, radical action can take
the form of anything to negate, to tear down, and
to destroy the existing system, because all existing systems ultimately
end up being oppressors. Even when the left takes over
the system, the next generation of left must tear down
that system. This is why there is no end to
the what's all the terminology that they use of the
intersectionality of the sis gender, you know, heteronormative, white, patriarchal male,
you know, oppressed. It like it never ends, because it
can never end. There is no end goal. That's why
Huxley tells you what really all of this is about
when he says that the final revolution is the revolution
against man himself. That's what most of the normy liberal
left revolutionary person can never figure out because they don't
know the inner secret of their movement has always been
against man himself. And that's what Huxley explains and reveals
to everyone in the introduction to Brave New World, that
this is the final revolution. The final revolution is the
erection of the total control grid, the Panopticon secret society grid,
because man is the problem. It is the revolution of
man against man. This, you begin to see, is why
leftism aligns with the death cult so well. To accept
that the revolution is against man himself. That is the
innermost secret of secrets of the inner party. And Huxley
told you all that through fiction and then admitted in
the espace s it's not fiction any introduction. That is
why for the true revolutionary here it is a faith
which can then use what formerly were vices for the
end goals of radical action. Nothing wrong with envy. Ironically,
the egalitarian society is premised on envy. Why should you
have more than me? I deserve that I deserve to excavaid. Right, Envy, greed, theft,
and hate no longer become vices. They are the powers
that are utilized to bring about revolutionary action. So the
revolutionary ideologues are smart enough and comming enough to figure
that out. Not all of it necessarily, but they're enough
to figure out how to be demagogues, and how to
be how to have a control a mob mentality. It's all.
Then you see, ironically about what power. Now. Originally I
remember these guys were fussing that power is what corrupts.
And then what happens, Well, the revolutionaries come to power
and they are ten times the tyrant that their monarch
forbears were. You thought weird King Louis was bad, Oh no,
you're gonna get Robespierre with a committee of public safety
chopping off twenty thousand heads a day, right, way worse
than what Louis was up to. Louis a little King
Louis was a little weird, kind of a sperg literally,
like they can't get him to be with a woman.
He's too busy making clocks and shit, he's over there
like tinkering with his grandfather clock, which nothing wrong with that,
is liked, you gotta be at your king. You got
to produce an air man. You can't just be over
there sperging out on clocks all day with you know,
you know the sun came more like an insel king. Right,
I'm pretty sure that's Louis right. It was nothing story
and they made a funny movie. It wasn't funny, but
it was funny to me. It's that freaking is it.
Sophia Coppola's movie with with Kirsten Daunts playing Marie Antoinette,
and they're they're they're trying to get Louie to like
do his business, and literally Louie is like obsessed with
like clockmaking is like the spurgiest thing evers, Like I
really want to go to bed right now, I gotta
work on that clock. And he just loves like tinkering.
I think that's right, and maybe I remember remembering wrong,
but it's a good analogy. Well this is about one
hundred times worse, right, so anyway, radical action then makes
use of the vices and wickedness, and it does so
to make itself ironically align very well with death cult.
And so by the time of the modern Inner Party,
again explicitly Huxley tells you that the revolution is ultimately
about fighting man himself. And that's because these revolutionaries had
created an idea system that was out there and it
kind of eventually gives way to the scientism, royal society
of Malthusian idea. That's really where we end up. It
doesn't really matter about economic systems at that level. They're
more so okay, it's just man himself. And they actually
kind of spilled the beans on this when they put
out the Club of Rome document First Global, First Globe Revolution.
Now you'll notice that that's not accidental that they're using
revolutionary terminology. Yeah, this is that Alexander King First Global Revolution.
This is a production of the Club of Rome, which
was a Rockefeller deepop think tank, very well known. This
was published in This is a sequel to the nineteen
seventy two book Limits to Growth, and this really kicks
off the globalizing of the green movement. Now, the green
movement and the you know this kind of stuff existed
prior to the publication of this, because again you go
back to the nineteen seventies and whatnot. But also key
things happening in the seventies, if they saw, was the
Kissinger Global two thousand report, and that was what was
really the government's formal acceptance of Malthusian ideas under Kissinger
working the best of the Rockfeller Foundation, especially in the Carter government,
but that continued on to the Knicks, past Carter into
Reagan as well. It's not like this ever went away.
It began actually under Nixon and then Carter because Kissinger
wasn't able to really get this through until Carter and Carter,
if you remember, was a I'm pretty sure Bilderberg chose
Carter as there he was a Bilderberg chosen candidate one
percent by a mission. Now you get this Club of
Rome document here as a sequel to the nineteen seventy
two Limits to Growth, And what you've noticed here is
that the revolution has progressed to be aligned with the
idea of climate, the idea of pollution, and in fact
that is this book which has the famous statement that
the real problem in the world is man himself. Then
the pollution on earth is man. Man is the pollutant.
And so this is an explicitly Malthusian dogmatic document admitting,
in continuity with prior revolutionary ideology that the continuation of
Marxism socialism would now go under the guise of green.
And if you didn't know this, let's see if we
can find it used to be at Marxist dot org.
Let's see if you can find it. But some of
the first modern environmental works were from Ingles, and this
is one of the key ways that we can connect Ingles.
I wonder if I can find that it used to
be on let's try environmentalism and then the Marxist dot
org website. It might be from here, Yes, marx and
Ingles on the environment. And of course you can imagine
why there would be a very close connection between Marxism
or even when Ingles talked about and environmentalism, because the
idea is that well, man is part of a collective,
part of the whole, and that would include nature from
which he's alienated. Right, big part of Marxism is borrowing
Hegel's idea of alienation and that we are alienated from
nature as a being of nature by the capitalist structure
and whatever. And so it was very easy for Marxism
to be aligned with a kind of transition into what
we now think of as the environmentalist green agenda. And
of course today's Marxists, you know, are very proud of this.
Marx said, man's nature is inorganic, that is, he is
an inorganic body. Nature is in that it is itself.
A human is not wit nature, that is, insofar as
as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature,
meaning that his nature is body, and he must continuously
interchange if he is not to die. Thus, man is
linked to nature. In most advanced countries, the following measures
will be generally applicable. The combination of agriculture and manufacturing
industries and the gradual abolition to distinction between town and
country is necessary. So Marx wanted to erase town and country.
These are environmental you see, components of Marxism. Capital We'll see,
he goes on, I'm looking for competition, compels, the complacement,
the replacement of old instruments by new one before the
expiration of their natural life. They even made this page green,
which is funny. So again there's a very close affinity.
And this is why, For example, James Dellingpole, if you
guys don't remember, we've done multiple podcasts with the at
least two on the Delling Poole Podcast. But some of
his early books were precisely about this relationship, and James
Dellingpoole wrote wrote several texts pointing out the connection between Marxism, socialism,
and so called environmentalism. He wrote a book in twenty
twelve called Watermelons, How environmentalists are killing the planet, is
run the economy, stealing your children's future, and he's arguing
that they're green on the outside and red and pink
on the inside, hence watermelon. So this is pretty well known.
I think a lot of people probably have assumed without
maybe knowing the necessary components. But the actual power elite
component connections are precisely what I'm talking about in terms
of things like Rockefeller Foundation, Club of Rome, World Wildlife Foundation,
and Enburg Trust. You know, these are huge, powerful entities
that are self consciously Malthusian, Aspen Institute, all those things
connected to the climate agenda, the green agenda, they're all Malthusian,
and they'll they're all coming out of the same Builderberg
Rockefeller ethos explicitly on record, and what that tells us
is again, Marxism socialism is not ultimately the enemy of capital.
It is, in fact, as the Rakowsky interrogation says, the
dialectical necessary opposition and support of capital. And in fact,
Marxism socialism has always had big money capital behind it. Literally,
and many think, well, that's a that would never work
because they would know. Have you ever spent much time
with Marxist socialists do you think they really know their ideologues.
They don't care ultimately about what's truth? And why is that? Well,
truth is not a part of these systems the way
that you and I think of truth. This is why,
for example, if you guys remember when Hawes that lunatic
Haes came on to debate me a few times and
it didn't last more than five or ten minutes, is
because you understand that for Marxist truth is not what
you and I think of truth. We think of truth
and falsehood, epistemic justification, objectivity. That's not what truth is.
Truth is depending upon how committed or how determined the
Marxist is, truth is really a tool, a technique. Truth
is part of ultimately power dynamics, and keep in mind,
although not true perhaps of the Marxist of the days
of Marx or the socialists of the French Revolution, I
think they probably believed more so in the Enlightenment ideas
of objectivity in terms of truth, Today's left has been
has progressed beyond anything associated with classical Marxism or even
it's monopoly capitalist roots. Today's leftism liberalism has morphed into
something intimately bound up with postmodernism. And this is a
fascinating kind of unexpected turn that the left would take
as we move into the twentieth century to discuss liberalism.
So although we had at the time of Marx, this
is you know, Marx dedicates doscopital to Darwin. You've got
Darwinism on the scene, getting popular, and so this is
in many ways helping to finish bulldoze the ethos and
the mindset of the previous Western European civilization. What's left
of it. These new forms of mind virus, you could say, Freud, Marx, Darwin,
these helped to really bulldoze anything else left in tradition,
be it church and monarchy. We have now the erection
of the essentially the worship of democratic, egalitarian and quality
and forms of government constitutions, et cetera, even whether capitalists
or socialist governments that are created. I'm talking about the
eighteen hundreds and the nineteen hundreds. Now we have still,
excuse me, we have what after the First and Second
World War, a demoralization of the progressive it's always going
to get better, utopian ideas. World War one and World
War two, and this is really well known in history
and academia pretty much damaged and destroyed the classical progressivism
because it was so contrary to what they were believing
and embracing in terms of their liberal institutions. Remember the
ideas going back to cont said, oh, if we just
have free trade, this will bring world peace because nobody
will want to upset the trade because they're making so
much money. About they making so much bank dog, nobody
will go to war if you get paid. That's literally
the level of what CONT's arguing. And yet do we
have that, No, we have continued war. In fact, the
so called progress of the liberal civilization ends up with
World War One, the greatest world war the war had
seen the world had seen to that date. So how
does this fit with the never ending supposed progression. And
by the way, the assumption was also that man was
evolving in some upward descent positive way. Well, we don't
actually know that. I mean, I don't believe in macro
evolution to begin with, which is a magical trad mutation
thinking and theory. But even if it were true, how
do we know that it's evolving in a better way.
Maybe it's devolving into things being worse. There were again,
there were these assumptions even still built into Darwinism, socialism
and progressivism at these times, all of which hopes were
dashed by World War One and World War Two. Now
in the background, the real power behind the throne in
liberalism and socialism, as you know my view, it's the
Milner astor Rothschild circles. At this time we're talking, you know,
eighteen nineties with Cecil Roads, We're talking into the nineteen
tens and twenties, and their thinking was League of Nations.
This liberal order will be the seed form of the
world Federation of Liberalism that will set up. Really, this
is where you get Lionel Curtis Commonwealth of God, John
Ruskin's idea of the socialist world Federation, all of these
you know, Rhodes Milner Fabian thinkers who are very much
advocates of Malthusianism. They're very into the socialists, They're very
into panopticism of the French revolutionary theorists, the Saint Just's
and these kind of these wackos. So they're very influenced
by socialism and they have the the impetus to convert
what's left of the British Empire into a future world
socialist order. And they agree with the tenets of Marxism
in part. They agree with and eventually completely own the
environmentalist movement, which morphs into and becomes what we call
nowadays as it goes under the guise of World Wildlife Foundation,
Adenburg Trust, Aspen Institute, all of these entities that are
usually associated with climate and engineering the climate and fixing
the climate. Again clever of Roam. At the heart of that,
all of these really are externalizations of the revolutionary socialist
technocrat model, which is not antithetical to monopoly capitalists. In fact,
the monopoly capitalists are the ones who have been the
chief architects and funders of this, and so leftism is
not ultimately antithetical to capitalism or monopoly capital or the
merchant class or the money class, even though that sounds
perhaps hard to believe or strange if you think about
it in terms of the recent periods of chaos that
we've endeared, say Kouf, the last four years, the supposedly
socialist communists unified mind control techniques and tactics were actually
put into place by the fortune one fortune five hundred.
The socialist policies that we keep gradually adopting in America
are not actually being proposed and brought into play by
idiot Marxist professors with ponytails protesting at a BLM gathering.
These policies are being passed by the lawmakers who submit
to the power elite oligarch class, the wealthy class. Hence,
while as quickly shows, the whole history of leftist movements
and socialist movements in America are bound up with willful,
intentional support from the wealthiest foundations in America, and until
that is figured out, nothing will change because progressivism has
behind it at all times and always will the money class,
and that includes the power elite ceo industrial class. The
money class and the industrial class have a vested interest
in the promotion of the leftist values and destructive, toxic gibberish,
precisely because it creates a society as we said that
appeals to the lowest common denominator is based around base desires.
What better way if you're an oligarch to control the
population by turning them into beasts and animals who are
completely run by their basis drives food and sects and security. Thus,
the more you debase the society, the easier there are
to control and to collectivize into a glob that you
can turn at will. And so the money class and
the corporate class will always have a vested interests. I'm
not talking about the local business owner. I'm talking about
the point zero one percent the power, the real power,
lead the fortune one hundred, the private federal reserve banks,
the real power, and all of the goons that serve that.
They will always have a vested interest in the promotion
of vice to degrade the society, to create the controllable,
base desire controlled society. And then they are given forms
which aren't really real to make the people feel like
and think that they're part of the process. Part of
the power structure. Power comes from the bottom up. When
power is never really come from the bottom up, and
it has always been accorded to people on the basis
of the actual power elite, who are guess what the
people with the money senators average Joe, They don't have power.
Senators have a degree of power. But who do you
think has more power? Senator Joe Schmo who leaves Congress
even in the best case, or leaves the Senate excuse me,
even in the best case of insider trading with five
to ten million dollars after his or a guy with
seventy billion dollars who has more power? Ron Paul or
Jeff Bezos? Now who has more power one senator or
a couple senators or a conglomeration of a cartel of
military industrial complex companies that have say the collective wealth
of Loo okay, who's got more power? Ran Paul or
black Rock? And Who's so stupid is to think that
the power really resides in the democratically elected officials, That
power is very limited, but as part of the myth
that liberal societies collectively believe and are raised the propaganda's
to believe, or else they would realize that none of
that's actually true, and they're controlled by a small oligarchical elite,
as Burnet's brags and laughs at in the first chapter
of Propaganda. In other words, Edward Burne's gives this whole
thing away. He says, you live in a democratic society
where you think that you're run by the public elected institutions. No no, no, no,
You're run by the oligarchical elite who are social engineers
and technocrats and zillionaires that know you like they know
a pet. That's how you run. But you don't even
know that because you believe in the myth the religion
of democracy. So my view is that because people who
are leftist, revolutionary minded, narcissistic, damaged, not well individuals, as
they progress in leftism liberalism, as they are more and
more divorced from reality, this is why you see them
acting and manifesting in such bizarre meltdown ways. This is
why they're losing their mind, why they get crazier and crazier.
There is no bottom to this until they're basically nihilistically
negating themselves, if you catch my meaning. I mean some
of the most radical leftists have actually said there is
no other ultimate revolutionary action but unliving yourself. You realize
some of them have actually said that. I mean, I
think it doesn't even Sartras. Sartra has a play or no,
a short story called The Wall, if I remember, and
I think that's the point of the story is like, look,
I mean, if you're a real, true, committed revolutionary Marxist socialists,
then you need to unalive yourself, because it's the ultimate
way of saying. So the argument goes, I am a
master of whatever I want, and no one oppresses me.
I'm not going to be oppressed by the identity that
I'm told to have. And guess what. That's exactly what
happens to. Then the next postmodern phase of all of this,
which is identity as oppressor victim status right goes along
with the oppressor oppressed mythology, which may not be true.
But if reality then is power politics, as we're beginning
to realize. Even though originally the revolutionaries were saying that
the source of man's problems were in power, now we're
getting to the point where there's a postmodern turn, especially
after World War Two, when the left began to realize
that most of their hopes and dreams for a humanistic,
you know, future society humanist manifesto type bullshit that, like
Matt Dilla Honey preaches, right, this kind of stuff, well,
it doesn't fit with the realities of another world war
after World War One. So something must be off such
that maybe man himself is the problem again exactly the
thing Hupsley tells you, Right, I'm gonna play that. The
reason I have this up is that it's the clip
that I found of collective. I thought he was going
to play leftists having breakdowns, but he's just gonna play one.
There's another little clip I have with that too. So again,
why all of these women who are so committed to
their sacrament of abration, Well, because they're part of this
death cult, which adopted after World War Two, totally aligned
itself with the Malthusian environmental movement and totally aligned itself
with the anti natalist idea of the Malthusians. And so
what is that but a death cult. Man is the
source of all the problems man himself. This must be
gotten rid of. There must be a revolution against man himself.
Man must exist in lesser and lesser numbers. Deep hop
Malthusian and combined with postmodernism, the idea that in terms
of identity, there is no identity. It is purely caused
and socially created by the individual or the social So
identity becomes social construct. Well, this goes all the way
back to the rejection of essences in the Enlightenment. Things
don't have natures or essences. Everything is evolving and influx,
and so if there's everything in flux, then there's no
essence or nature that has a steady existence over time.
There's just matter in motion. And then the words that
we make up to call that matter emotion, something explicable,
something pradicable, something meaningful. So it sheds the Enlightenment baggage
of the universalized ideas because there is no there's nothing universal. Eventually,
by the time of the twentieth century, leftism is a
combination of its capitalist principles of the beginning of individual revolution,
elements of socialism and collectivism, and now elements of postmodernism
and power dynamics and politics and Nietzscheanism. Actually, Nietzsche had
an effect on the left liver right. In fact, the
Frankfurt School took its nietzsche in turn in the Wrkimer
and Adorno Dialectic of Enlightenment book, where they pointed out
that World War Two killed the progressive ideas of leftism
and destroyed the enlightenment liberal utopian ideas. World War two
endo that and the Nietzschean turn, meaning the anti human
term of the elite power. The power elite left became dominant.
So we live in this era when the left is
a very bizarre mix of confluences and factors that on
the one hand, for example, the atomized individual of the
Adam Smith las a fair period is still there. It
still underlies the West. In terms of liberal thought, I
am an individual. Nothing tells me what I am. I
determine my destiny. I am a libertine individual. All this
gibberish right which is premised on the exact same basis
as the collectivist socialist and is still the basis of
today's woke person that they will determine what they are
by their own divine fiat. If I am a feel
like a woman right now, then by golly, I'm a bitch.
And by the way, now I feel like I'm a man.
By golly, I'm a dude. And who are you to
tell me that I'm wrong? You're oppressing me if you
tell me that I can't do that or if that's wrong,
those are your standards, and you are oppressing me right now. Brooa,
whoa dude, step back social distance because you're you're oppressing
me right now. Thus, the logic, the ill logic, I
should say of the left that you've probably you guys
have probably heard this right. Math is racist, logic is
oppressive and racist education big words are appressed microgra I'm serious.
This is there's a reason for all of this because
it's no longer truth or falsehood. Remember, it's power dynamics,
power oppressor for the left. Today's left is especially every
thing is power dynamic, which is so ironic given the
origins of the left against power corrupting. This is why
when you try to engage with people of these of
this manifestation, you should say they're not logical irrational, just
like the Marxist is not logical irrational like a hase.
Because logic and rationality serve the revolution. Logic and rationality
are the tools and the means by which you express power.
You see how it's not what we believe we think.
We're arguing and debating to get to truth. No, no, no,
the Marxist is arguing in debating to further the revolution.
There's no truth here. It's really irrelevant here, and so
it's all display and power dynamic. Do you remember when
Hawes came on to debate, screaming, cussing, talking over all
his nonsense. That's because he's acting in practice, he's doing
radical action to further the revolution, because that's all there is.
There's not truth versus falsehood. And if we just debate
this out in a rational way, perhaps both of us will,
in humbleness, achieve a greater likelihood to know the truth.
None of that, it's all power dynamics. In fact, there
was a great quote from a feminist. I can't remember
who it was. No, no, no, I'm sorry, I remember what
it was. It was in a book on leftism and postmodernism,
and they were making the point. Oh, I remember what
it was. There was a so called scholar woman who
had been this was some decades a couple of decades ago.
She was promoting a like a fake gospel. That's what
it was. There was a there was a forged fake
gospel and like maybe it didn't even exist right for
the sake of argument, it was something like you know
this this female women's studies scholar from Harvard was working on,
you know, exposing the I don't know, the gospel of
Mary Magdalen or something, I mean, just come up with whatever, right,
And it turned out that that didn't another. She was
gonna publish on it to prove right that the church
was patriarchal and had oppressed and stamped out the true
you know, feminine, divine Christianity or some crap like this, right, Well,
it turned out that her scholarship was all false. It
was like made up, fake, forged right, faken gay. And
when she was kind of being you know, dealt with
by the university or whoever, people suit or whatever, and
this is this is an amazing insight here, she said, well,
but it didn't matter whether it was true or not,
because I was opposing the hierarchy and the patriarchy, and
so that made it okay. She literally argued this, And
what an amazing window into the thought process not just
of the Marxist everybody knows Marxists operate in this really disingenuous,
raucous way for agit prop, but even the just normy
leftist scholar at Harvard thought it was completely justified to wholesale,
fabricate gnostic gospels that would supposedly disprove Christianity and patriarchal
but she was doing it to tear down the patriarchy man.
The same kind of logic that for example, a woman
might say, concoct a lie about a man a great story.
Oh well, but he deserved it because he's part of
the patriarchy. I mean, you see how silly this would be.
But that's the thought process of many leftists who are
aligned with wickedness, lies, deception, because there's nothing wrong with
those things. Those are just actions to further the agenda.
In the days of the Marxist socialists, it was radical
action to further the revolution. To today's leftists, there's not
really ideology. And I think that's the interesting element of
today's left, which is that in the past, it seems
like the left was almost always, even in the period
of the Enlightenment, even if it was negative liberty, it
had a lot of these very lofty intellectual components and
ideas and books and treatises. And what's amazing about today's
left is that it really has no principles at all.
There's perhaps this idea of negative liberty in the sense
of opposing something, but there's no need for any consistency
and what's opposed. For example, you can be opposed to
war and government one year, and then and you're opposed
to corporations, and within a few years your pro corporation
and war and government. I mean, there's no logic to
it at all. It's more so whatever you're told to do,
and so ironically it morphs into this almost totalitarian cult
with absolutely no ideology, which from an oligarch perspective is
kind of amazing. Like I mean, if you're an oligarch,
that's that's perfect. A giant mob of idiots who will
believe and do anything you tell them. That's power, and
that's I think perhaps the worst scariest part, as I said,
is there are and people are arguing about the number
of It doesn't matter the number of the real whether
it's actually sixty million. I know that Hara's gone unpop
I actually I want to seventy million that you got
because I'm illegals. It doesn't matter. Any amount of votes
for her in the tens of millions. Is just a
shocking insight into how many people in this country are
mentally unstable. Mentally ill and are just totally gone or
out to lunch. It's just wild. And so that I mean,
is that not an attestation too the absurdity of the left,
which in its beginnings is about freedom, is about limiting
the state, is about lofty ideals, universal principles, morals, limiting
power to the left essentially being an absolute worship of power,
a complete disregard for critical thinking, an absolute top down
control mechanism and mindset. Not the limiting of power, but
the destruction of limits of power to give to the
corporate state God power is now the essence of the left.
That's pretty wild, but it actually makes perfect sense if
the left was always the tool of the money power
and the corporate power. If that's the case, then there's
actually a really consistent, coherent logic to the left. And
that's what you're never going to get from a Matt
Walsh or anybody else in the normy sphere. They can
never tell you or connect the dots between the money
power and the left, and even the corporate industrial power left.
They must always abide by the acceptable false dialectic of
big government versus libertarian economic freedom, and they're operating at
such a low, uneducated normy sphere that they can't even
understand it. And so because leftism leads towards nihilism, leads
towards atheism, leads towards death cult, it must of necessity
become a death cult. Every cult must have a high
priest hierarchical system of some kind. It must have sacrificed,
it must have the components that make up a religious cult.
What do you know? It manifests as a feminist goddess,
male cut, magical thinking, postmodern death goult.
Speaker 2: The most auspicious of days, my friends, I give you
a collection of coat and c because you deserve it,
because you have suffered through I gas prices, high rent,
a bad economy in general. Jobs report that just came
out was miserable and open border. But either way, there
needs to be a hard lesson to the people watching
the videos, which I've already played in an earlier segment.
But I have much much more, my friends, because Reddit
is a glorious cess pit of winging sis with historic
personality disorder. Saying I just woke up in saw the results.
I swear to God, I'm done with yourself. Would sooner
put the cope.
Speaker 1: I was saying that when you play the meltdowns over
each other like this, it sounds like the screams of hell.
It's like you're hearing it to eighties or all right,
let's try it this way. Trump Trump one. Yeah, he's
got painted nails. He's a real liberal. How did we
get here? What in the altis in wonderland? Nightmares is
going on right now?
Speaker 3: All I can say is, how fucking dare you? If
he voted for that man, if he voted for anybody
other than Kamala and you live and you live in
one of the Saints that it was you know close,
or if he didn't vote, fuck you go.
Speaker 4: I love you?
Speaker 3: How the fuck is this still happening? All I've ever
known politically is hatred.
Speaker 4: I'm done.
Speaker 1: I'm done.
Speaker 2: I'm done.
Speaker 1: I'm done with you.
Speaker 2: I'm done with you and your mother.
Speaker 1: And your sister. I'm just done with all of this.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry to my friend.
Speaker 3: Kid.
Speaker 5: I'm scared of this man.
Speaker 3: I am If this guy does end up winning again,
all of the people who voted for him will be
like happy and they'll just be celebrating, and everyone else,
everyone who feels driven by him, is fucking scared. Like,
we're scared for our lives, We're scared for our friends.
Speaker 2: How dare you put this man into office for another
four years knowing?
Speaker 3: Damn well?
Speaker 1: What m m.
Speaker 5: M hmmmm, what are they actually afraid of?
Speaker 1: I don't understand what they're afraid of. They're acting like
they're going to die because of Trump getting elected. I mean,
it's just so divorced from reality. I can't and I
can't understand what they're actually afraid of. It's bizarre.
Speaker 3: It means for our country, What it means for us
as a people to know that there's that much ignorance
and that much hate in this country. It's so terrifying.
It's so terrifying.
Speaker 1: How the fuck are we back in this same situation again?
Who the fuck is voting for him?
Speaker 3: Genuinely, fuck you, I don't want to hear about how
shitty your life gets under his policies. Live with that decision,
sit with it.
Speaker 1: Did they think that there's there's like actual hit squads
that are gonna be going out like merks marks, like
like mercenaries, got so they they think that, I guess
Crystal knocked tomorrow that when Trump gets inaugurated, as Crystal knocked.
Uh wow. I mean it's like they're having they're having
like their own fantasies, like they're they're they're pretending that
they're Anne Frank in some kind of weird fantasy and
like tiny mustache man Merk squad, orange orange jumps it.
It won't be the brown shirts, it'll be the orange shirts.
Like Trump's gonna send the orange shirt squad in. And
you know, by the way, these funky leftist chicks are
having fantasies too. I just wish a brown shirt would
come bust in here and try to murk me. I'd
be I would show him what it is to be
a man, because he thinks he's a man. I would
make him a man, you know what I mean? Like,
you know, they're having like just these weird because these
people are all weirdos. Dude, these people are crazy. They're
all over there pretending that their damn other kN you know,
chicks identifying as squirrels, and shit right, I'm a squirrel.
Speaker 6: You can't tell me what to do. I If I
as a squirrel, I'll lead nuts. If I want to
on a tree limb, you can't stop me. You can't
judge me. I identify as what I want. I'm a squirrel, bitch,
except not peanut.
Speaker 1: You don't want If you identify as a squirrel, the
government come get your ass. It wasn't Trump that marked Peanut.
I hate to tell y'all, it wasn't Trump. It was
that New York Democrat regime that merked on Peanut and
that Rocky of the Raccoon or whatever his name was. Anyway,
and it makes you uncomfortable. Fuck you look at these ladies,
beautiful ladies, most important. Well, her problem is she can't
say her rs right, that's her problem. That's cybermorchastical will determine.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm okay.
Speaker 1: How make you're thinking?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: Until proud of her?
Speaker 5: I don't think people realize.
Speaker 1: How hard is it?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: By the way, I had another note, I forgot to
mention the demo. What was it? Oh? Because the power
dynamics dictate everything and there's nothing to do with truth.
It's just power dynamics. The left is fully powered by emo,
thus more conducive. Too weak feminized men who are controlled
by their emotions, women who are oftentimes pretty much controlled
by their emotions, gravitate towards this leftist cult group, even
though they're death cults. Everything in it is about emotion
and feeling. The ads are about how the policies or
trump makes you feel. Everything is about whether a person
makes you feel good. The feely society is actually the
society premised around the dark Triad traits, as that paper
shows the dark triad traits and the narcissistic personality. We've
referenced this paper many times. It's a very insightful paper.
Everybody should read it if you haven't read it. Narcissic
personality disorders and the dark Triad traits and how very
cunning psychopathic narcissistic individuals thrive in societies based around victimhood
status because they can play on the oppressed victims and
thus gain more points in the society, gain more power
in the society through the oppression matrix. The more oppressed,
the more victimized, the more attention, money, and power one
can potentially gain in these so called democratic societies based
around leftism and liberalism. But remember they're not the old
progressive liberalism anymore. They're postmodern power dynamic liberalism based around
pure power politics, and so everything is subjected to and
subordinate to ironically, power truth underneath power, there is no truth.
But who has the power, and if the left can enact,
if the left can attain enough power, what they say
is true. That's their belief. Power is not power is
what determines truth. For the left, there is no truth
that those in power are subjected to. That's objective truth,
that doesn't exist. It is always purely power relations. Once
you understand that, and that the person that you're interacting with,
who's they committed leftists, is not working on the principles
of reason and logic, but on pure power dynamics, you
begin to understand the real logic of the left and
how they act the way they do. But remember, to
control a large base. The easiest way to do that,
as we said, right by the oligarch or the oligarchy,
is how to make them run on their base passions.
The more base and the more controlled by their desires
they are, the easier they are to control, the more
predictable they are. And remember that's also tied to their emotions,
manipulating them on the basis their emotions are also kind
of based desires in a way, or the manifestation of
kind of based desires. They're not bad but you can't
be controlled by your emotions. You can't run a society
based around emotional sentiment or how things make people feel.
But this is precisely where today's left is is that
as society based around feelies and good and evil, then
are power relations. And if you said something to hurt someone,
that's a power dynamic. You see, you shouldn't have the
power to hurt me. And your words are hate speech
precisely because they might be true. But remember this position
is all about discarding and opposing what is actually true,
and making truth the product and determined being determined by power. Now,
what I'm telling you is not what the average It's
somewhat the manifestation of the psyche of the average street leftist,
your family leftist. But the real cunning is the technocrat,
social engineer, elite above these people that really run things,
who are really malicious, and they know and understand the
kind of dynamic that I'm talking about. They know, as
Burne says, that they're manipulating a giant glob hive minded idiots,
and they have a vested interest in keeping them idiots.
How do you keep people idiots? You don't teach them
logic and critical thinking, I mean, obviously, and you promote
the passions and the vices, right, obviously, all of that.
But the last thing that a cult leader wants is
a bunch of cult members utilize critical thinking and critique
the cult leader. What better way to control people than
to bypass their reasoning faculty to get them to act
and react on the basis of emotion. You got it.
And that's what most propaganda is. Emotion based, very simple,
basic type stuff. Oh you want you voted for the
Big Dawn, You must be a fascist and you hate women.
That's an irrational, bizarre, emotional type of appeal. I mean,
it's an ad hominem obviously, but you know, you know,
you see this in political ads all the time, right.
A vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for women.
In other words, Kamala Harris because she's a woman, must
therefore care about women and women's rights and what's best
for women. And Donald Trump, being a man, can't and
doesn't care about women. It must be a rapist, even
though that's never been proven. There's no law or she mean,
there's no case that proves that. It's just what works.
That's how you fight the system. Even if it's not true.
Speaker 5: Have race tomorrow.
Speaker 3: I start to go to bed. Yeah, none of us
are stressed about the election, right, it's all if we
all are gonna just go have.
Speaker 1: The best night, the best night sleep of our lives. Sorry,
we it's gonna dg the copyright. Go home. I don't have.
Speaker 2: To fucking like.
Speaker 5: We don't want to frek out.
Speaker 1: We don't ever bring out because it's not even real.
Because bitch, break out the boats and I choose and
this rain and tear.
Speaker 4: Now I chose family, I chose with it.
Speaker 1: I chose America.
Speaker 4: Ram sir, I'm gonna like I'm getting rapped up here
on a significant rant. So because Kamala Harris is not winning,
and the people who thought that Kanmala Harris was gonna
win the Last Side are totally wrong.
Speaker 1: This black chick really was really angry. Now some of
these people are hammered up for their stupid ass TikTok audience,
but still it's just wow, all these have songs that
are gonna deem the copyright. Here's a dude, h he's
not even talking, he's just crying. Seven minutes of crying.
Oh it's TikTok songs are the worst. Dude. Oh hell,
you will.
Speaker 3: Ever realize.
Speaker 4: You have zero point zero and they're going.
Speaker 2: To continue to do it.
Speaker 1: You're gonna continue. That's annoying. Yeah, here we go right
like like we're just gonna wake up tomorrow morning.
Speaker 3: Everything's gonna go back to the way.
Speaker 1: It's all like white chicks too, that are all in
these videos, in black chicks and gay dudes. Right, anyway,
you get the idea. Enough of that stuff. We got
some super chats. No, I haven't five dollars. Saw Trump
gave a shout out to monopha sites. Do you think
his presidency will have any impact on Orthodoxy? I mean
he's better for Orthodoxy than Kamala. I don't re expect
a lot more than that. I don't know what the
Monophasite thing was. Guala Christ ten dollars, Jay Big Guala doinks.
In the chat, Don Johnson looked like a vapor wearful
lust for king. That's right, baby, Bring out those Christ warriors.
Bring up Tom Skanks. Who's Tom Skanks? Maverick Jones three dollars.
Why don't you like the British royal family? Well, I
mean there are big proponents of the Malthusian and socialist
ideologies that we're talking about. Will you debate Valsch or
Hassan Piker. I don't think those guys are interested in
debate with me. I think it was discussed of trying to.
I think Andrew was trying to get me a debate
with Valsch at one time, and I said yes, and
then I never heard back. So I guess Vousch wasn't interested.
Hassan Piker id out he would be interested, But I
would debate those dudes. Sure, basic expert five dollars on tariffs?
How would you respond to Hazlit or Bossiat that cheaper
foreign products may ruin some local businesses, but the consumer
has more money in his pocket to support businesses. Working
this out of my head, I don't know that there
is some easy answer, but I know that there's probably
got to be some balance here. Because obviously you can
have an over restrictive state, we all know that, but
at the same time it becomes an becomes that an
impetus for the ruler to enrich himself through deals that
are made to allow for foreign entities to come in
and put everybody out of business. So I mean, let's
look at Walmart and small towns. I don't know what
the answer is to to that. There may not be
an easy answer. Jess Jerald twenty six seventy six From
all of us at the Crucible, thank you for all
that you do. I thank you so much. Appreciate that
roll sticks five dollars. I love to see someone break
down holding Caulfield from Catcher and the Rye his psychological
and ideological analyses. That probably should be when we do next.
I mean, we're having a lot of fun. I'm having
a lot of fun doing the literature streams. Nobody watches them.
I mean they get seven thousand views. They're still fun
to do. But I just like people don't want to
be educated. They want to be idiots. They want to
watch TikTok videos all day, and they don't want to
watch and read a book. I guess they can't read books.
So but maybe we should do Catcher in the Rhye next.
Eugene five dollars. I just got Ester Hollywood too, Thanks
bro Hey, thank you appreciate that. Guys. If you want
to get, of course, signed copies of my books, if
you head on over to the shop at Jaysanalysis dot com.
All of the books there are of course signed, so
you don't have to request. A lot of people send
messages and say, hey, can you sign the book, and
there is a place to leave a note if you
want to sign it some specific way. I usually just
make it out to the name of the person that
order the book. But every book is signed, so you
don't have to worry. If you order Esoter Hollywood Meta
Narratives or the Red Book, they're going to be signed.
Every book from the website. Website is signed, and here
is the shop if you're interested in getting those books.
And hopefully, as I've said, Esoter Hollywood three will be
ready in the next couple months. I've got three hundred
pages and I need to get to about three fifty
to four hundred, so hopefully we'll be there pretty soon.
And it's going to be a lot of fun. It's
taking longer than the other ones are, but that's okay.
What am I looking for? Chalk Also remember to have
render to chalk dot com the show sponsor, and you're
not going to be paying hundred and seventy four dollars.
You're going to be paying forty four percent off of
that with the promo code J forty four life. That's
Jay four four l I f E over at Chalk
dot com. Yes, Chalk really does work. It is an
excellent adaptagen and supplement company that really puts everything into
the product. I mean they they don't spare any expense
when it comes to the purity when it comes to
finding the best source sources for their supplementation, like the rainforest.
Actually the ton Catale for example. All their products are
one percent pure at purer than so called organic. They're
very strict about that and the products actually work. You
can read the peer reviewed studies, particularly about the Tonkataly
showing that it does boost testosterone. But there's a lot
of other great products who like the Action two point zero,
the chad Mode pre workout. You can get that performance
stacked there for half almost half off of that with
the promo coote j A y four four l A
f E. You can unsubscribe at any time, but I
think you're gonna want that. Coming on the regular makes
it really easy. You don't have to keep you you forget,
oh I forgot the order more Chalk. It'll come on
the regular, But if you don't with a description model,
you can use a promo cod j y four zero
to just get forty percent off a single order. No,
it is not. Everybody who uses it will tell you
that they're great products. I don't push crappy stuff here,
dation five dollars. I appreciate this level headed king, Well,
thank you so much. I would prefer to call myself
levelheaded quaint, but you call me what you baby? Anonymous
five dollars. I read Hoffman an SS the beginning of
talks the PBS Frontline episode. I don't know what that
is Hoffman SS talking about PBS Frontline organ Farm discussing
organ farm, PBS Frontline episode on an organ farm discussing
xeno transplantation, and it's wiped off the web. I'm not
familiar with that, man. I don't know a lot of
stuff has been wiped off the web though. Aaron Wine
zero ten dollars. Here's a little more from my bitcoin
profits today. It was a trumpet dunk, as you said,
Oh yeah, by the way, yeah, I mean pretty much
everything we said last night came true. And I think
what to we expect now? As we said, I think
they're gonna pull out all the stops. We're gonna have
some new form of law fair Russia Gay three point zero.
It may not be Russia, maybe something else. They're going
to continue to try some kind of crazy narrative. They
would probably really like to have our Ace type provocations,
and so I think people need to be very leery
of anything like that, stay away from anything like that. Obviously,
probably some of these fake cutout militia or front groups
could be used for something. This is the type type
of time when something like OKAC right, or perhaps World
War three. But it's hard to say. Because things haven't worked.
They might go for the economic collapse because they're handing
Trump you know this terrible uh you know, money printer,
zillion dollar inflation economy, and so, you know, maybe it's
time for cyber polygon. Maybe it's time for you know,
something like that. It's hard to know what they're gonna throw.
What do you guys think the system will throw up next?
Could be any of that or all the bove but
I think that's what we need to be watching for.
Dead by Sunu five dollars. Thank you so much, Alula,
five dollars. Let's go. We won. I'm an Ethiopian, I
love you, I love white people. Best day ever glory
to God, Jesus our kiding and God. Well, thank you
appreciate that Rachel was some fifty dollars thank of us.
That's a big, fat super I appreciate that a piece
called spoon in forty eight sorry, spoon soon in forty
eight years time, by the Bolshevik propagandist Alexandra Colin Taie.
We've mentioned her, of course many times, because Rachel hit
me to her in her book. We actually covered that
documentary too that covers the Bolsheviks sexual revolution, and Rachel's
book is a cult feminism, so be sure and check
that out. She's a great it's a great example of
what you're talking about. In a future young revolutionaries say
to the older Bolsheviks, you subdued the social forces, we
will subdue nature. Yeah, So the revolution is to always
be progressing, even if there's no such thing as progress,
because it must always tear down the existing A glitchy rhythm,
five dollars Happy Trump Day, playing praying that Trump will
pardon people from the jan event and in the Ukran. Yeah,
I think Zelenski was already like all right, ready for peace,
so he may be sensing that that will continue on
nas zero zero ten dollars ticket so much. Yeah. I mean, look,
you know, we already covered all the reality of Trump
stuff last night, so I'm not going to rehearse all that,
but you know, hope for the about real Jay dire
dollars sixty nine. Trump was elected. Do you think he will?
Will he release Area fifty one and as we formally requested,
will those aliens be twerking? Yes? I can guarantee you.
I have spoken to Roger Stone and he has told
me that probably highest up on Trump's priority is releasing
the aliens that are housed Area fifty one and the
government's not letting them work. It's actually a part of
their culture, alien culture to twerk, and the government is
oppressing them by having them strapped down they can't even work.
So yes, Zach, Zach McConnell five dollars. Do you feel
like these Enlightenment Masonic figures plan for their ideology to
devolve into what it has now become. No. I think
probably most of them were men of their time and
they thought that they were really expressing positions that would
create new societies. I think many of them really believed it. Uh,
if anybody was like completely malicious. I mean they would
probably that would be more like a Marquis de Sad
or something like that who just didn't care and you know,
miss anthrop type person or grusso maybe, but I even
those guys were so narcissistic and huffing their own toots
that they believed that they were going to like change
the world. Remember, these are these are delusional people. A
lot of these revolutionaries from this time, like they think
that they think they're like God people, like they're gonna
save the world, and they're they're female Jesuses, like they're
crazy gardame twenty dollars. Have you ever thought of doing
a philosophy of history series? H It's an interesting thought.
I'm just concerned about. I mean, I think doing the
philosophy course that I did worked out well because there's
a no of an interest in people the people having
philosophy that they would buy a philosophy course. I do
have a concern, though, of putting so much time and
effort into creating a philosophy of history course that there's
not enough people that would buy that. So the thing
about doing a whole philosophy series or something like I
did with Richard is like that took a lot of time.
It took many, many weeks. You know, Kai is figuring
this out. Now, Kai is essentially doing with the oriental position.
You know, if we're going to do ten twelve talks,
that's basically what I was doing for the lecture series,
the Philosophy lectures. So you have to think about what
I really wanted to do was like an espionage the
like history of modern espionage or something like that, or
British intelligence history. But I don't think enough people buy that.
That was just like probably you know ten people that
care enough about that to even listen to it in Odo.
But you know what surprised me today, I would have
never guessed, and I'm