Speaker 1: All right, Thomas, welcome back to the Jay Burden Show.
Speaker 1: How are you doing. I'm well, thank you man.
Speaker 2: It's always a pleasure, and I'm very pleased you invited
Speaker 2: me to participate once again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you so much for coming out.
Speaker 1: I always enjoy our conversations, and this one's I'm I
Speaker 1: guess I'm particularly interested in this topic. So what I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you today is, essentially, you've described
Speaker 1: yourself as a right Hegelian, and so I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people on the right associate Hegel very much
Speaker 1: with kind of like Marxist thought. But before we get
Speaker 1: into that, could you give just a brief description of
Speaker 1: who Hagel was and why he was important.
Speaker 2: I mean, Hegel was if anybody who just got, you know,
Speaker 2: any kind of rude. I don't know what universities basically
Speaker 2: teach in terms of philosophy these days, like what their
Speaker 2: introductory curriculum was, and even twenty thirty years ago. I
Speaker 2: went to a Jesuit college in the big city, which
Speaker 2: might seem weird to people, you know, one to my
Speaker 2: own confessional heritage, but I it's where I went to
Speaker 2: Loyally University, and there they had a peculiar emphasis on
Speaker 2: uh on on political philosophy, you know, and they uh,
Speaker 2: they they're in those days, their philosophy and political science
Speaker 2: department were very theory based and did not have a
Speaker 2: Jesuit or liberal orientation. That maybe different now, but in
Speaker 2: any event, so even then, I didn't I didn't have
Speaker 2: a great grasp of of what they you know, of
Speaker 2: what kind of big ten colleges taught people in terms
Speaker 2: of philosophy. But what I've gleaned just kind of from
Speaker 2: you know, perusing you know, the syllabi of philosophy courses
Speaker 2: and things, and from what people have told me kind
Speaker 2: of young and old, you know, they they they kind
Speaker 2: of present the distinction between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy,
Speaker 2: you know, somewhat derisively, I think. Okay, but that doesn't
Speaker 2: need to be the case. You know, there's no there's
Speaker 2: nothing inherently punitive about describing continental philosophy in contrast, uh
Speaker 2: you know, uh rationalist and puricism and things like that
Speaker 2: and and what have you. And and there's more, there's
Speaker 2: there's more. There's more interrelatedness in terms of intellectual foundation
Speaker 2: than most people will allow. But if if you want
Speaker 2: to know who the true father of philosophy is as
Speaker 2: we perceive it, it's Hegel, okay, and uh, the degree
Speaker 2: of what German idealism kind of created, the basically European
Speaker 2: philosophy is all in all in dialogue with Aristotle and
Speaker 2: German idealism. Okay, that's a little bit outside the scope.
Speaker 2: And I'm not any kind of expert on Aristotle. I
Speaker 2: mean most of what I know of Aristotle, I mean obviously,
Speaker 2: like I've read you know, the Nico Mackey and ethics
Speaker 2: and the politics and things, and I studied that extensively.
Speaker 2: But I don't have fluency in Greek, so that's one barrier.
Speaker 2: But also I mean my my kind of area of
Speaker 2: focus is uh, you know, the modern era, so I
Speaker 2: I mostly I mostly came to the Aristotle in the
Speaker 2: classics as well as the pre Socratics, you know, through uh,
Speaker 2: through thinkers like uh Schopenhauer, Niche to Hegel, Turke Guard,
Speaker 2: you know, people like this. But in any event, to
Speaker 2: bring it back continal philosophy, I mean today it's your
Speaker 2: philosophy is uh, it doesn't need to be this way,
Speaker 2: but traditional philosophy is somewhat dead. Although I'd argue that
Speaker 2: a lot of a lot of a lot of kind
Speaker 2: of neurosciences, you know, like neuroscience and things specifically like
Speaker 2: the you know, the science of of mind versus uh,
Speaker 2: you know, just to study of the physical brain. I
Speaker 2: mean that that very much, that very much spills over
Speaker 2: into in in into the territory of philosophy oka inevitably,
Speaker 2: and it ends up having a philosophical discussion in kind
Speaker 2: of conventional terms, whether the intention or not, some of
Speaker 2: you do find you do find condinal continental philosophy insinuated
Speaker 2: into modern academic discourse. But it's it's in somewhat accidental ways, Okay.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, there's a there's a lot written,
Speaker 2: uh in critical capacities, positively and negatively about philosophy. You know,
Speaker 2: there's a huge amount of stuff published in that and
Speaker 2: which is good. I mean, it's good people are still
Speaker 2: reading these things. It's unfortunate again that there's not a
Speaker 2: lot of original work. That's that's uh, that kind of
Speaker 2: unqualifiably you know, calls of self philosophy. But the but regardless,
Speaker 2: you know, all all all that all that scholarship that
Speaker 2: I just described, it's all, it's all, it's all basically
Speaker 2: in dialogue with Hey, okay, in some and into some
Speaker 2: degree or another. Okay. So I mean that's whether people
Speaker 2: realize it or not. Anybody who's kind of intellectually engaged
Speaker 2: with with these sorts of thought, paradigms and and in
Speaker 2: this kind of this kind of intellectual history and heritage,
Speaker 2: you know, they're they're engaged with Hegel when if they
Speaker 2: if they if they haven't studied, if they haven't studied
Speaker 2: the original uh source documents by the man himself, if
Speaker 2: they were, if they were to do so, they they'd
Speaker 2: come to realize that, oh wow, you know I I
Speaker 2: you know, they they recognize the concepts that they've been
Speaker 2: in dialogue with pretty much for the the entirety of
Speaker 2: their you know, sort of academic career. So that's that's
Speaker 2: something to keep in mind. And more concrete terms, the
Speaker 2: twentieth century was the Hegelian century, you'll gain a very
Speaker 2: real sense. But for peculiar and peculiar capacities. I can't
Speaker 2: remember who it was, and uh, I don't think it's
Speaker 2: early on set dementia. It's just that I my memory
Speaker 2: fails me sometimes with with uh with names, but uh,
Speaker 2: it may have been Louis Fernand Sealin, you know, uh
Speaker 2: the French, uh the the kind of the kind of French, uh,
Speaker 2: transgressive philosophic novelist. It might have been him, but I
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong, I mean some some will correct me
Speaker 2: in the comments or whatever. Said, Uh that the Battle
Speaker 2: of Stalingrad, with where right and left he Gallien's met,
Speaker 2: you know, to settle their differences once and for all.
Speaker 2: And I mean he was there. That was the intended
Speaker 2: That is kind of Gallows humor, but it actually was correct. Okay,
Speaker 2: And uh, the uh there's a peculiar thing in in
Speaker 2: Marxism because you know, dialectical materialism turns Gelienism on its head.
Speaker 2: You know, it's I think of I think of it
Speaker 2: as I think of the relationship of Marx to uh
Speaker 2: to Hegel's kind of like the relationship of Karl Schmidt
Speaker 2: to Hobbes. Okay, and people are familiar with both Len
Speaker 2: of Snammer. I'm going with it. But Marxism really kind
Speaker 2: of rejected the core it kind of presented. It adopted
Speaker 2: a Hegelian methodology in a sense, but that postulated, uh,
Speaker 2: the opposite cause as the as the prime moving force
Speaker 2: of history, which is really strange and it's further complicated
Speaker 2: by the fact that originally the quote left Hegelians were
Speaker 2: guys like David Strauss with these kind of liberal theologians,
Speaker 2: you know, who who were very much concerned with, you know,
Speaker 2: removing a reference to the who. And they they viewed
Speaker 2: kind of the you know, they viewed their opposition, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of the Prussian UH apologies for the Prussian state.
Speaker 2: You know, they viewed them, you know, as as uh
Speaker 2: as basically appealing the to the absolute you know, and
Speaker 2: to the UH and the and the biblical authority and
Speaker 2: you know, and supernatural causes in order to kind of
Speaker 2: shut down arguments that you know, forced them to kind
Speaker 2: of rationalize why they they posited that, you know, the state,
Speaker 2: you know, represented the kind of concrete zenith of an
Speaker 2: ideal that you know, brought about by you know, centuries
Speaker 2: of dialectic. But these the big guys like Strauss, I
Speaker 2: mean he was he was like he was liberal and
Speaker 2: like you know, the kind of the nineteenth century sense, Okay,
Speaker 2: like he wasn't you know, and he had he had
Speaker 2: heterodopts views of Christ and things. But you know, these
Speaker 2: guys had nothing in kind with Marxist or anything. So
Speaker 2: then later they you know, so when Marxism kind of
Speaker 2: came into its own, you know, and became this huge
Speaker 2: animating force and this kind of you know, incredibly powerful movement.
Speaker 2: You know, Marxists became viewed as the quote left to Galiens,
Speaker 2: and these guys extrass became referred to as the quote
Speaker 2: young Hegelians. So I mean, this is all very convoluted,
Speaker 2: but I guess my point is that in a very
Speaker 2: strange way, like like like Marxism is kind of a
Speaker 2: peculiar I mean, a right a Gallian with you, Marxism
Speaker 2: is kind of this like deviant offshoot of the dialectical
Speaker 2: process itself. That's like purposefully that purposefully contrarian. But nevertheless,
Speaker 2: you know, owes its origins to the dialectical process that
Speaker 2: you know is the is the is the prime moving
Speaker 2: agent of history. You know, Marxists themselves, like calling them
Speaker 2: quote left Tagilians is peculiar because again, you know, they
Speaker 2: they cite, uh, you know, they cite you know, dialectal
Speaker 2: materialism and and you know, these these kind of determinative
Speaker 2: you know physical literally like determinative physical processes of labor
Speaker 2: and production and technics. You know, in manage relationship to
Speaker 2: these things as as being what you know shapes man's
Speaker 2: conceptual horizon as well as driving the historical process. So
Speaker 2: I mean it's very it's very very strange. But the
Speaker 2: uh so essentially, if you if you're if you're a
Speaker 2: traditionalist Tagelian, you know, in in terms of UH, you know,
Speaker 2: you're you're you're centered on the absolute. You know it's
Speaker 2: the source of ultimate reality and uh, you know, you
Speaker 2: basically accept like Hegel's postulates about the nature of mind
Speaker 2: versus the nature of concrete reality, and you know, the
Speaker 2: interplay between uh both uh domains and if you you know,
Speaker 2: accept that, uh, you know, if if you accept UH,
Speaker 2: if you accept the perspective that uh, you know, the
Speaker 2: dialogical process ultimately uh you know, ultimately perfects uh perfects
Speaker 2: uh its progress towards uh the ideal that is uh
Speaker 2: inspires it in the first place. You know that that
Speaker 2: if you accept that perspective, by default, you're kind of
Speaker 2: you're considered a right Hegelian. I mean, I can I
Speaker 2: refer to myself that way, because I mean, I'm not
Speaker 2: I think the right left paradigm doesn't hold a whole
Speaker 2: lot of meaning in the twenty first century. But that
Speaker 2: but but just for in the interest of coherence and
Speaker 2: and uh, you know, uh, in clarity, I mean that
Speaker 2: people understand we're talking about in familiar terms when we
Speaker 2: say right versus left, because if nothing else, that describes
Speaker 2: basically a series of you know, a set of values
Speaker 2: and preferences, you know, ethical, aesthetic, and otherwise in a
Speaker 2: certain historical perspective. So I mean, I don't run from
Speaker 2: it when people, you know, say that I'm a right
Speaker 2: wing but you know, it's not I don't have some
Speaker 2: I don't have some discrete kind of take on hegel
Speaker 2: It's that I'm literally a right wing writer and revisionist
Speaker 2: who's also a Hegelian. So and kind of by default
Speaker 2: because I don't ascribe to this, you know, I don't
Speaker 2: describe to this kind of critical theology perspective of people
Speaker 2: like Strauss, not Leo Straus, David Strauss for the clarity,
Speaker 2: you know, and I and obviously I'm not any kind
Speaker 2: of Marxist like by default, you know, I that makes
Speaker 2: me a quote right Hegelian as well. So that's I
Speaker 2: realized I was long winded, But it's it's a dense topic. No,
Speaker 2: not at all.
Speaker 1: So for the sake of clarity, do you think you
Speaker 1: could do kind of like a quick kind of verbal
Speaker 1: ven diagram of right and left wing Hegelians? So for instance,
Speaker 1: like what is what do they share and where do
Speaker 1: they I guess differ? I think I I obviously I
Speaker 1: could tell in the last UH, I guess your your
Speaker 1: your last kind of series of statements, but it might
Speaker 1: be easier to just kind of get it out explicitly
Speaker 1: and kind of quickly so people can follow along.
Speaker 2: If that makes sense. Yeah, well, I mean the left
Speaker 2: he Gaelians if we're talking about Marxist again, you know,
Speaker 2: their their their their view is is that the prime
Speaker 2: the primary move on in history is is UH is
Speaker 2: productive force determinism Okay, literally a material processes and man's
Speaker 2: relationship to these processes, you know, in the ongoing and
Speaker 2: then the ongoing struggle to you know, kind of release
Speaker 2: man from labor and UH the subsequent interplay you know
Speaker 2: between UH owners and wavers and you know, UH and
Speaker 2: and and label and labor and capital itself and how
Speaker 2: technology impacts these things. That that is literally you know
Speaker 2: the what what what what facilitates the historical process? Okay?
Speaker 2: In contrast, you know, right Hegelians or traditional Hegelians, you know,
Speaker 2: again like they they they believe that uh, you know,
Speaker 2: they believe very very fundamentally in the absolute. You know,
Speaker 2: they believe that processes of mind are uh is the
Speaker 2: is you know, is the prime move on in history
Speaker 2: and the dialectical processes intrinsic to mind in uh in
Speaker 2: service of and uh in relationship to the ideal is
Speaker 2: what is? What is what you know, facilitates the historical
Speaker 2: process and and is what allows man to to comprehend
Speaker 2: it conceptually. Okay, so these are these are these are
Speaker 2: radically opposing viewpoints. And again I it's uh, it's a
Speaker 2: peculiar kind of fact of of history and and kind
Speaker 2: of uh of a of the limits of language. Again
Speaker 2: that that that that Marxists uh became identified as you know,
Speaker 2: left Hegelians when reality they basically reject Heyl's paradigm outright.
Speaker 2: And you know, again, like I said, the initial the
Speaker 2: initial kind of descent dissenter Hegelians of the left were
Speaker 2: were people like David Strauss, and you know, people who
Speaker 2: people who were God centric in a way, because most
Speaker 2: of them are theologians, including Strauss himself, that's obviously what
Speaker 2: he's known for. But they they had a very critical
Speaker 2: view of of reference to the to the absolute in
Speaker 2: uh in uh in historical processes because they believe that
Speaker 2: it was you know, just a way again of of
Speaker 2: kind of the way of winning arguments for like, a
Speaker 2: better way to describe it without without having to resort to,
Speaker 2: you know, the rigorous process of uh of uh truly
Speaker 2: rationalizing their perspective. That's not to say they went quite
Speaker 2: as far as these like Charlatan's, like Carl Popper or
Speaker 2: something who you know, invoked the scientific method as some
Speaker 2: kind of as is, some kind of end all process
Speaker 2: by which history can be interpreted and you know, of
Speaker 2: of which like you know, values must be subject if
Speaker 2: they were to be if they were to be accepted
Speaker 2: as correct or valid. I mean it's I was nothing
Speaker 2: like that, nothing crankish, but it it did very much
Speaker 2: owe to you know, kind of the the the bias
Speaker 2: towards materialism of the of the nineteenth century. And I
Speaker 2: mean that can't be that can't be denied. So I
Speaker 2: mean that's in very basic terms, that's the way to
Speaker 2: that's the way to understand it.
Speaker 1: It's odd because I noticed that kind of like that
Speaker 1: thread of left wing Hegelianism and kind of the conversation
Speaker 1: of people you'd even think who were be kind of
Speaker 1: opposed to it.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So, actually, just a few hours before I typed this
Speaker 1: up for you, I was I was coming back from
Speaker 1: you know, the backwoods of northern Maine, you know where
Speaker 1: I I have a friend up there, and I ended
Speaker 1: up you know, taking a variety of you know, planes, trains,
Speaker 1: and then I drove the last few hours with a
Speaker 1: friend and uh, it was interesting because I talked with
Speaker 1: her and she's a you know, a similar confessional history
Speaker 1: to you and I, but it's kind of been absorbed
Speaker 1: into like the the d C laptop class, right, And
Speaker 1: so it's odd because we were talking and the topic
Speaker 1: of historiography came up, and she was, despite being you know,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a kind of a Calvinist tradition, was
Speaker 1: absolutely and totally convinced that essentially the world operated purely
Speaker 1: along the lines of you know, dialectical materialism. And I
Speaker 1: was kind of just I was a little bit shocked
Speaker 1: by that, not because I hadn't heard the ideas before, right,
Speaker 1: but just it was a very odd I guess like
Speaker 1: it was very an odd preconception for someone to have,
Speaker 1: you know, with a certain background and with a certain
Speaker 1: set of ideas. And to me it's it's odd too,
Speaker 1: because on one hand, it's like it's like what you said, right, Like,
Speaker 1: on one hand, Hegel is you know, kind of dense
Speaker 1: and difficult to read, and not many people actually like
Speaker 1: engage with him directly. But at the same time, he
Speaker 1: does kind of form the bedrock of so much of
Speaker 1: kind of second order political discussion.
Speaker 3: I think that it makes any sense.
Speaker 1: And so it's interesting to me because I had been
Speaker 1: and maybe this is being raised by kind of like
Speaker 1: you know, baby Boom or neo con types, you know
Speaker 1: very much. It was like, oh, like Hegel's what marxistory,
Speaker 1: you know, Like you don't you don't like Hegel. You're
Speaker 1: not supposed to read Hegel because Hegelianism is essentially like
Speaker 1: the bedrock of like Pinko comedies, right, and so sorry, carry.
Speaker 2: On, No, it's it's very weird, and I I think
Speaker 2: part of that's a purposeful misunderstanding by some people because
Speaker 2: again they've got content for continental philosophy because they view
Speaker 2: it as they view it as a at worst, like
Speaker 2: a kind of a kind of primitive mysticism. And at best,
Speaker 2: they you know, they view it as kind of intellectual
Speaker 2: gobbly book. I mean, both of which are profoundly ignorant viewpoints.
Speaker 2: But I mean, amer there isn't an an intellectual strain
Speaker 2: in America, like not not in the way that like
Speaker 2: these kinds of like Midwood npr Leans was claim, you
Speaker 2: know who, because like they're they're the most they're the
Speaker 2: most uh kind of pitiable like strivers, like Midwoods of all.
Speaker 2: But you know, they fancy themselves as educated. But I
Speaker 2: mean genuinely if uh, Americans really don't you know, even
Speaker 2: like a lot of like even like a lot of
Speaker 2: churchmen I respect, like in my own confessional heritage. You know,
Speaker 2: they'll read institutes the Christian religion, you know, and uh,
Speaker 2: they'll Readerristotle and they'll read the Scripture obviously, but beyond that,
Speaker 2: they they don't they don't really read philosophy. And you know,
Speaker 2: you get guys to uh, you know, you get guys
Speaker 2: like I are theorists and things, uh and uh and
Speaker 2: kind of political sociologists and things. I realized these days
Speaker 2: those disciplines are like a joke in terms of the
Speaker 2: people they attract, but during the Cold War they were not.
Speaker 2: And you still have some You still have some guys
Speaker 2: who are pretty prominently situated in those disciplines, who are
Speaker 2: serious people, but you know, they they kind of purposely
Speaker 2: avoid uh, reference to Kana philosophy because it's viewed as
Speaker 2: like this full power or like something to be you know,
Speaker 2: some something to be shunned, or at least, you know,
Speaker 2: not not referred to within you know, within uh, within
Speaker 2: the four corners of their of their research. So there's
Speaker 2: that and uh and yeah, but I mean beyond that,
Speaker 2: it's just it's just a strange thing that you know,
Speaker 2: like I said that Hegil became so identified with the
Speaker 2: left because I mean, again it's the I mean, this
Speaker 2: is something that this itself is like a Hegelian process,
Speaker 2: I mean, which just kind of fascinating. But you know, anybody,
Speaker 2: I know that a lot of younger guys read Carl Schmidt,
Speaker 2: and that's great, because Schmid's very important, Okay, and uh,
Speaker 2: I think he's uh, particularly because I mean it's because
Speaker 2: like I was a lawyer, I I've I've got a
Speaker 2: bias for inductive reasoning. So Schmidt I find him kind
Speaker 2: of relatable in conceptual terms. That's kind of the way
Speaker 2: my mind work anyway, and attacking problems. But you know,
Speaker 2: anybody who anybody who's read him extensively, particularly written almost
Speaker 2: of the Earth, and you know, understands his kind of
Speaker 2: scept of political theology and also as a deep understanding
Speaker 2: of lebah than by Hobbes. You know, the relays. Again,
Speaker 2: the relationship of Marx to Hagel was very, very very
Speaker 2: much like the relationship of Schmidt to Hobbs. Okay, Schmidt
Speaker 2: basically rejects all of Hobbes's ontological postulates and uh in
Speaker 2: turns uh it turns it on his head. Yet he
Speaker 2: retains uh. He he retains and is totally in agreement
Speaker 2: with you know, Hobbes's view of uh, of whatsoever and
Speaker 2: authority represents, particularly in symbolic psychological terms. It's really kind
Speaker 2: of fascinating. Like obviously, Schmidt was a far more he
Speaker 2: was a far more rigorous thing than Karl Marx and
Speaker 2: Mars marsh is a weird thinker. That's part of it.
Speaker 2: And so the angles, I think angles is a bit
Speaker 2: more discipline. But these guys weren't They were not economists,
Speaker 2: and Marxism is not economics. That's why, I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: don't really find them anymore other than these some some
Speaker 2: like weird fossils. It probably Berkeley or whatever. But you know,
Speaker 2: throughout the entirety of the Cold War, you know, you
Speaker 2: had in economics departments at big universities, you had like
Speaker 2: and Marxist economists, Like Marxism is not economics. It's this
Speaker 2: weird theory of uh. It's it's this weird sociological theory,
Speaker 2: and it's this uh and this kind of brand theory
Speaker 2: of reductionist theory of history. You know that that that
Speaker 2: that that relies upon postulates that that are kind of
Speaker 2: self referencing and uh, a kind of a kind of
Speaker 2: speculative deduction, you know, about the human condition and the
Speaker 2: modern age. But it's just the claim that it's the
Speaker 2: claim that it's some kind of like economic methodology is
Speaker 2: absurd because it's not at all.
Speaker 1: Well, I very much agree with you. And it's interesting,
Speaker 1: right because being a younger guy kind of interested in
Speaker 1: these things, you're kind of drinking from a fire hose,
Speaker 1: right Like, in order to kind of catch up to
Speaker 1: the conversation, you have to read quite a lot pretty quickly,
Speaker 1: and It's interesting because Marxists describe themselves as kind of,
Speaker 1: like you said, like economic and scientific, and look like
Speaker 1: I have a certain amount of econ background. I don't
Speaker 1: stay up at night thinking about econ, but you know,
Speaker 1: I've read a decent amount of it, sure and fair enough.
Speaker 1: Maybe econ isn't a true hard science. That's a separate conversation.
Speaker 1: But you read Marx and it's it's very much like
Speaker 1: you said. You know, it's kind of this like self referential,
Speaker 1: like I guess, like not like logic puzzle, but kind
Speaker 1: of like thought experiment. You know, that seems to be
Speaker 1: particularly attractive to a certain type of person. And that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there's nothing in Marx that Marx was like,
Speaker 1: you know, a mouth breathing moron, you know, but it
Speaker 1: is nowhere near as I guess like scientific or I
Speaker 1: guess like not rationalistic, but I guess like uh, experimental,
Speaker 1: as it kind of presents itself.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and then itself is an conceptual bias. It's
Speaker 2: like it's like Carrie Molis said, and I think about
Speaker 2: carry Malis a lot, owing of course to the COVID
Speaker 2: situation and other things, But you know, like Molas pointed
Speaker 2: out like it's you know, the one of the big
Speaker 2: uh of the big lies or big blind spots rather
Speaker 2: uh in some people's cases, of the nint than twentieth
Speaker 2: centuries with this idea that like that that quote unquote
Speaker 2: science is something you believe in or that or that
Speaker 2: it's like or that it's this uh or there's this
Speaker 2: value leading perspective, or that you know, it's it's some
Speaker 2: kind of like absolute means of revealing some some sort
Speaker 2: of higher truth, like all sciences is a methodology. It's
Speaker 2: not something you believe in, you know, like you don't.
Speaker 2: It's like saying you like believe in metallurgy or something,
Speaker 2: you know, like it all it's this idea. That's one
Speaker 2: of the things. That's one of the reasons why like
Speaker 2: when I hear these people, whether it's these bizarre freaks
Speaker 2: in public life or whether it's kind of Midwain and
Speaker 2: Foltament consumers, you're talking about quote trust the science, It's like,
Speaker 2: that's that's kind of that, that's kind of that, that's
Speaker 2: kind of cranked nineteenth century thinking, like you won't think
Speaker 2: that way anymore, you know, you're not really part of
Speaker 2: the conversation if as it were if you think in
Speaker 2: those terms, And that's that's one of the reasons. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that that's one of the reason is Marxism, uh and
Speaker 2: and Leninism later on, even until the nineteen eighties, it
Speaker 2: was senreally obsessed with talking about you know how it's
Speaker 2: postulates are quote scientific, I mean, like even if that
Speaker 2: was the case, Like, so what I mean, like I
Speaker 2: you know, I that that means nothing, you know, like
Speaker 2: unless unless your goal is like build a bridge or
Speaker 2: to like you know, fire a you know, or invent gunpowder,
Speaker 2: or like make an automobile run, or like launch a
Speaker 2: rocket into space. Like it means it means nothing to
Speaker 2: me if you're quote involking a science, you know, like,
Speaker 2: I mean, what does that even mean? Like in a
Speaker 2: political in political ethical capacity, you know, like nobody, nobody
Speaker 2: can explain that.
Speaker 1: Well, it's actually it's part of the reason that I
Speaker 1: have a and I realized this doesn't mean much coming
Speaker 1: from a you know, an anonymous twenty three year old
Speaker 1: on the internet, but I kind of have an objection
Speaker 1: with the idea of political science for that reason. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: the ruling men is not necessarily scientific in the same
Speaker 1: way that ruling a bridge is right, Like, Okay, there
Speaker 1: are some societies that are better than.
Speaker 3: Others on certain objective factors.
Speaker 1: But the idea that like, oh well, if we just
Speaker 1: add you know, three percent of this or three percent
Speaker 1: of that, we will increase kind of like happiness by
Speaker 1: a factor of five. Something done like that. And the
Speaker 1: reason I say this is because I have a somewhat
Speaker 1: strained relationship with a with a friend of mine who
Speaker 1: is kind of a like a CIA or not a CIA.
Speaker 1: He's a State Department spook, essentially political scientist, and it's
Speaker 1: always interesting talking to him because he will quite often
Speaker 1: and I say this as someone like this is not
Speaker 1: a moral claim on his personal character. It's just kind
Speaker 1: of a claim on how he talks, right, but if
Speaker 1: it will oftentimes like refer to things like human rights
Speaker 1: and kind of objective terms like the idea that you
Speaker 1: can kind of measure something is is like odd and
Speaker 1: subjective as that. And don't get me wrong, like if
Speaker 1: you gave me a choice between living in America and
Speaker 1: you know, North Korea, that's a pretty easy choice and
Speaker 1: maybe you can say, okay, that's human rights.
Speaker 3: So I'm not trying to be.
Speaker 1: Some as reductive as that, but it is odd this
Speaker 1: idea that like, well we can kind of use subjective
Speaker 1: measurements and kind of turn these into numbers and plug
Speaker 1: them into spreadsheets.
Speaker 2: Well, it's also you can't have it both ways, like
Speaker 2: quote human rights only. Yes, it's a natural law claim.
Speaker 2: But the people who advance, who invoke it and aimed
Speaker 2: to advance it, reject natural law postulates, you know. So
Speaker 2: it's like, yeah, so it's like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: You know, like what what does it quote?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Then? You know, like it doesn't it doesn't make any sense,
Speaker 2: you know, and it and yeah, this idea that uh,
Speaker 2: I agree with Douglas McGregor that the and other I mean,
Speaker 2: I I agree with friend is Yagi frankly, but I
Speaker 2: mean in terms of in terms of people who are uh,
Speaker 2: in terms of contemporary polemicists, you know, who have been
Speaker 2: insinuated into the regime and now are critical of it.
Speaker 2: It's not it's not some crank idea or conspiratorial to
Speaker 2: point out that the regime today, it's it always more
Speaker 2: to people like Trotzky, and then it does John Locke
Speaker 2: or Thomas Payne. Yeah, and especially the state the state
Speaker 2: of art is positively deranged. You know, like there really
Speaker 2: is these kind of it's it's these people who who
Speaker 2: come off like these kinds of diluted, disengaged at baratrics
Speaker 2: in the final days of the Soviet Union, who are
Speaker 2: just like invoking this kind of gobbled book language that
Speaker 2: didn't move anybody anymore, and that seemed like outdated even
Speaker 2: even as they were uttering it, you know, like uh
Speaker 2: like sitting down and saying like, you know, you're gonna
Speaker 2: slate this society for annihilation and you're gonna sanction these people,
Speaker 2: and you're gonna do this, and you're gonna move this
Speaker 2: population around. And it's like, you know, because quote unquote,
Speaker 2: you know, human rights demand it, and you know, we're
Speaker 2: progressing towards some towards some telluric utopia that is gonna
Speaker 2: be you know, facilitated once we make men more governable
Speaker 2: and suited to government like that. That's a bizarre idea
Speaker 2: in all kinds of ways and doesn't really make any sense,
Speaker 2: But it's also that's that's that's that's an idea that
Speaker 2: belongs to nineteen twenty. You know, it's a century out
Speaker 2: of date, you know, and that's what the reasons this
Speaker 2: people sound so weird and like I pointed out to
Speaker 2: these types before I spend some time in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: You know, around like two thousand and five, and that
Speaker 2: was kind of at the zenith of the second sort
Speaker 2: of neocon renaissance. I point this out to people like
Speaker 2: over cocktails, so we're very insinuating in that culture. And
Speaker 2: it's like it didn't compute, Like it give me some
Speaker 2: kind of like moronic look, pause, and then like keep going.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like you can't. It's like in cool
Speaker 2: and look, but some men you just can't reach. Like
Speaker 2: I'm not just sing your friend is like this. I mean,
Speaker 2: I speculate the's a lot more as a lot more depth.
Speaker 2: Otherwise somebody like you wouldn't associate with them. But but yeah,
Speaker 2: it's true. It's bit's bizarre. It's like there's not it's uh,
Speaker 2: it's like these people have been kind of trained. They're
Speaker 2: kind of like trained seal they're kind of like trained parrots,
Speaker 2: but they're not they don't have any they don't have
Speaker 2: any meaningful understanding of the words that they utter. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like these things aren't even platitudes, you know, it's
Speaker 2: like they don't they couldn't. They couldn't. They're not capable
Speaker 2: of unpacking what the actual meaning is of these things.
Speaker 2: You know. It's just they've kind of committed it to
Speaker 2: memory and and by repeating it over and over, you know,
Speaker 2: like a script like that's that's kinda helped them get
Speaker 2: insinuated into whatever sort of career role they want. And
Speaker 2: it's really that simple and that simple minded, I think.
Speaker 1: Well, and to me, I feel like there's few better,
Speaker 1: like crystallized versions of this. This is one of those famous,
Speaker 1: at least I think, like kind of famous moment in
Speaker 1: American politics, right, And it's that interview of Madison Albright
Speaker 1: and what five six or the reporter says, well, okay,
Speaker 1: is it true that you know, half a million Iraqi
Speaker 1: children died. She's like, oh, yeah, well it is.
Speaker 3: And the reporter asks was it worth it?
Speaker 1: And she just stone cold looks in the care and says, yes,
Speaker 1: it was worth it, you know, And that's that's kind
Speaker 1: of psychotic, right. The idea that you're in the pursuit
Speaker 1: of human rights, which is, you know, like we've said before,
Speaker 1: is kind of ill defined, but you would assume that
Speaker 1: child murder is probably something a human rights centric regime
Speaker 1: would not continence, right.
Speaker 2: No, it's also yeah, and it's also too. I mean
Speaker 2: what I will say about the Soviet Union was strange
Speaker 2: in all kinds of ways. But one of the reasons
Speaker 2: it was dangerous. Like I'm not some I was I'm
Speaker 2: not some arch cold warrior type, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of my historical respective I'm not sitting here something like
Speaker 2: oh you know, Ivan was so dangerous. But I mean
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union was. It was quite. It was a
Speaker 2: highly lethal superpower and the tremendous power projects and capability.
Speaker 2: But even it's it's the apparatriics who are situated in
Speaker 2: in in in in powerful roles. They were fundamentally serious guys,
Speaker 2: and there was a remarkable consistency to them. I mean, yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: they're Marcist. Leninism is nonsense and it's characterized by gobbledy
Speaker 2: doesn't really mean anything. But they had a very very
Speaker 2: deep understanding of their own perspective. Like in addition to
Speaker 2: it being just like a very bad person. To your point,
Speaker 2: Madelan Albright was was like an she was like a
Speaker 2: fucking moron, you know, Like these people are like they
Speaker 2: it's incredible. They're the kind of obtuse, ignorance of these people,
Speaker 2: you know, like somebody like her, like like to your point,
Speaker 2: Like she didn't even she didn't even realize like what's
Speaker 2: wrong with that statement? Like I don't I don't even
Speaker 2: mean like an ethical moral terms. I mean, she didn't
Speaker 2: even realize like what the inconsistency is. It's like, you know,
Speaker 2: it's like you said, it's like so you so you
Speaker 2: annihilated half a million people, you know, many of whom
Speaker 2: were minor children and the elderly to advance you know,
Speaker 2: human rights and we beat suffering. They're like not and
Speaker 2: be like oh yes, of course, like doesn't compute, like
Speaker 2: what's wrong with that? You know? That's and you know,
Speaker 2: I've made the point before. I'm sure people get tired
Speaker 2: of it because it seems like I'm just like some
Speaker 2: like angry old guy like beating it at a horse.
Speaker 2: But the agree to with the government became totally bizarre, crazy,
Speaker 2: freakish and clownish, like very suddenly, and like in nine
Speaker 2: ninety three, it was jarring, you know, and it's like I,
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess I was always waiting in the wings,
Speaker 2: and it was just necessity that dictated that you know
Speaker 2: you have, uh, you have a serious regime in place,
Speaker 2: because when when there was when there truly was a
Speaker 2: possibility of armageddon that was kind of always uh in
Speaker 2: in the wings, and about every decade, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: strategic conditions kind of broke dout or the the uh
Speaker 2: kind of the the balance of uh the kind of
Speaker 2: containing balance broke down, and about every decade you know,
Speaker 2: uh like fifty three, sixty two, seventy three, and eighty three,
Speaker 2: you know, and uh and the world really did come
Speaker 2: close uh to nuclear war. I mean you can't, you can't.
Speaker 2: You can't have literal clowns like battling Ober eight and
Speaker 2: like you know, these piggy kind of the perverts like
Speaker 2: like Bill Clinton and in executive roles if if you know,
Speaker 2: you're if at any moment, uh, you know, the civilization
Speaker 2: might be under threat owing to nuclear in new general
Speaker 2: nuclear war. So I I I it makes sense that
Speaker 2: that happened, because you know, the the regime is that
Speaker 2: it existed since nineteen thirty three essentially put itself out
Speaker 2: of business. Okay, But the rapidity with which these fools
Speaker 2: were were kind of catapulted into into prominent roles like
Speaker 2: I found it shocking then, and I still kind of
Speaker 2: find it surprising. But yeah, the uh it's particularly and
Speaker 2: that's what's weird, I mean, especially with the State Department.
Speaker 2: Is is the worst of I mean, the because the
Speaker 2: kind of the most the most abjectly cretinus of all
Speaker 2: the of any kind of branch of the regime as
Speaker 2: far as I can tell. But uh, it's the weird disconnect,
Speaker 2: is that. I mean, like, like I pointed out, if
Speaker 2: people uh you know, for better or worse, and people's
Speaker 2: motivations certainly not pure and arguing on neither side of
Speaker 2: this issue. But until uh, until the Clinton administration, there
Speaker 2: was there there was a real tension between uh you know,
Speaker 2: people uh in the established may to oppose military action
Speaker 2: kind of categorically you know, and people at like a
Speaker 2: hoggish perspective after the Cold War. I mean, part of
Speaker 2: this was because the military establishment like had to find
Speaker 2: a reason to continue to exist, you know, so they
Speaker 2: kind of they kind of availed themselves under Clinton. Is
Speaker 2: like the the kind of the kind of corpse the
Speaker 2: kind of corpse menu facts, your division of woke capital
Speaker 2: as at were. But the degree to which these people,
Speaker 2: the degree of which uh, there the degree to these
Speaker 2: like regime oyal people think nothing of the fact, just
Speaker 2: kind of like endless, unprovoked military violence against the world's populations.
Speaker 2: It's totally insane and said to your point, it's sociopathic,
Speaker 2: you know, like uh, these people, uh, they'll they'll they'll
Speaker 2: fly in like trembling rages if you suggest that, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe like man on man, sodomy is not you know,
Speaker 2: like a sacrament, but uh they think nothing of yeah,
Speaker 2: like killing half a million kids or like you know,
Speaker 2: uh they're slating you know, the Russian Federation and as people
Speaker 2: for destruction or uh you know, or are waging is
Speaker 2: like a perennial war on on darhl Islam, you know,
Speaker 2: owing to some uh owing to some u uncraditional fealty
Speaker 2: to uh a Zionist apartheid state. Like it's is totally insane.
Speaker 2: And but I mean again, it's like you Michael Jones
Speaker 2: is always saying, you know, it's moralities and all or
Speaker 2: nothing proposition. You can't like abandon reason and say like, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, like abortion is great, like you know, sodomy's
Speaker 2: a sacrament, you know, and and embrace kind all these
Speaker 2: like sociopathic h perspectives. But then retain some kind of
Speaker 2: like you know, respect for human life or or some
Speaker 2: sort of h or some sort of aversion to you know,
Speaker 2: murdering your fellow man for you know, no good reason.
Speaker 2: So I didn't mean to turn that into a polemical rant.
Speaker 3: But no, no, not at all.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting to me because and this kind of
Speaker 1: neatly ties back in with our discussion like why I
Speaker 1: kind of reject like the the hyper materialist view of history.
Speaker 1: And you see this coming both from kind of traditional
Speaker 1: left wingers and also from a lot of people and
Speaker 1: kind of like the libertarian sphere, you know, where a
Speaker 1: lot of guys on our side of things kind of
Speaker 1: pass through it. Yeah, but it's this idea that you
Speaker 1: kind of look around at. Let's just say them, you know.
Speaker 3: Whoever them is.
Speaker 1: You can kind of plug in your own to them,
Speaker 1: and you're like, well, okay, like why are they doing this?
Speaker 1: You know, cause there's certain things that just don't make sense.
Speaker 1: And if your perspective is limited to pure materialism, right,
Speaker 1: like people in power do what they do to increase
Speaker 1: their own I guess, like monetary gain, you kind of
Speaker 1: come up a little bit short. You're like, well, okay, why,
Speaker 1: you know, because like people like Bill Gates, right, like
Speaker 1: he gives away a lot of money, and he has
Speaker 1: more money than he can really spend, but why does
Speaker 1: he keep doing things? It's probably not to make more money,
Speaker 1: you know. And you kind of come around to, well,
Speaker 1: they must be possessed, either ideologically or maybe like on
Speaker 1: some other level. Right, But there really is this kind
Speaker 1: of like I don't know what to describe it, but
Speaker 1: this like kind of disturbing ideological like genocidal surety, right,
Speaker 1: this idea that like I know exactly how to remake man,
Speaker 1: you know, to create a new, a new time type
Speaker 1: of person who can be kind of governed better. And
Speaker 1: if it's five hundred thousand children, if it's you know,
Speaker 1: the destruction of the world economy, it's, well it doesn't matter, right,
Speaker 1: We'll get there eventually. And to me, I don't know
Speaker 1: what you call that, but I see it in I
Speaker 1: guess a lot of kind of like the the upper
Speaker 1: class and like the striving class now and maybe it's
Speaker 1: a human constant. I'm not sure, but it does seem
Speaker 1: very odd. And the way you describe the like, I guess,
Speaker 1: like the the reorganizing of kind of like the US
Speaker 1: government along very like non serious lines. To me, it
Speaker 1: just at a certain level. I still have a hard
Speaker 1: time believing that you can be kind of ahead of
Speaker 1: state and so disconnected from reality. But maybe that's a
Speaker 1: little bit naive.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, there's there, There is even the deep state,
Speaker 2: isn't isn't just a you know, a kind of crazy
Speaker 2: Donald Trump concept or some talking point. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: like a real thing, and it's and it's not even
Speaker 2: it's not even necessarily always insidious. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 2: it's just a function of the managerial regime. You know,
Speaker 2: you can't you can't have any modern government, you know,
Speaker 2: from I mean from the twentieth century onward. Really you
Speaker 2: know that you can't, like government can't function without without
Speaker 2: without discrete cadres of experts. And there's also choke points
Speaker 2: where the means the road in terms of functional policy,
Speaker 2: wherein you know, there's not it's just not possible for
Speaker 2: one man to be, you know, at the helm of
Speaker 2: these things, or or for some you know, or for
Speaker 2: some quorum of elected official dumb you know, to you know,
Speaker 2: to be to be directly to be directly managing these
Speaker 2: these functions. I mean that that's just the way it is.
Speaker 2: You know that it's a sociological and structural reality. So
Speaker 2: I mean there's that, but it's also the uh, you know,
Speaker 2: if you're gonna have a if you're gonna have a
Speaker 2: media driven culture, and if you're gonna if you're gonna
Speaker 2: be committed to this kind of bizarre social engineering project,
Speaker 2: you know, you're gonna you're gonna basically have like a
Speaker 2: two tiered kind of kind of elite You're gonna have
Speaker 2: like the you know, you're gonna have kind of like
Speaker 2: the public relations department, you know, which is uh you know,
Speaker 2: which is the people who hold formal office, and you're
Speaker 2: gonna have like the actual function areas you know who
Speaker 2: uh who uh who run the government. Yeah, I made
Speaker 2: the point before that. I mean places like the Russian
Speaker 2: Federation and be able to look at China, they're not
Speaker 2: particularly free societies, they're not particularly well run societies in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, but they are transparent. Like the
Speaker 2: Russian Federation, there's not guys like Medvedev and mister Putin,
Speaker 2: uh you know, behind the scenes kind of running the
Speaker 2: government while you have these like bizarre actors and and
Speaker 2: kind of like career pr guys like you know who
Speaker 2: they pretend or like, you know, running the country, you know,
Speaker 2: like only America and the uko's that and you know
Speaker 2: and kind of like some of the some of the
Speaker 2: some of them were prominent use states. But even that
Speaker 2: even uh, I mean, the Estalia Buonize Republic has no
Speaker 2: sovereignty because I mean, it's it's under proan occupation. But
Speaker 2: the German Chancellor is basically the head of government. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not it's not that's not a fake or something,
Speaker 2: but so yeah, I mean it's it's there's that you're
Speaker 2: I mean that that's how things can continue to function.
Speaker 2: It's but it's also the uh, you know. A key
Speaker 2: thing to understand too, is I mean, like I said,
Speaker 2: there's a the uh, the Westphalian state is going to
Speaker 2: continue to exist for some time, although I believe it's
Speaker 2: on its way out. But the government is structured since
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty three. I mean again, it's not it's not
Speaker 2: really tailored to do anything. I mean, it's tailor to
Speaker 2: do two things. I mean, it's it's tailored to take
Speaker 2: on these kinds of mass social engineering projects, which in
Speaker 2: the case of of this country, it's it's an incredibly
Speaker 2: destructive uh prospects considering what its goals are, you know,
Speaker 2: which is basically to eradicate any organic uh sources of
Speaker 2: identity and and and communitarian association and all of that.
Speaker 2: But uh, you know, the other thing is it's it's
Speaker 2: basically tailored to fight the Cold War and not much else,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean. That's that's uh, this touches
Speaker 2: and concerns everything, including this, the kind of recent COVID foolishness.
Speaker 2: You know. Uh, it's you you've got this, You've got
Speaker 2: you've got this, You've got this regime that no longer
Speaker 2: has a raise on debt for us. So it's it's
Speaker 2: just perpetually kind of seeking out, you know, confabulating you know,
Speaker 2: quote unquote emergencies to manage you know, because uh, it's
Speaker 2: not uh it's not really structured to do anything else,
Speaker 2: you know. I mean, so that that's an important thing
Speaker 2: to consider too, in terms of the in terms of
Speaker 2: the kind of peculiar dysfunction of uh, of our regime
Speaker 2: or not ours, but the regime you know, within the
Speaker 2: the country in which we live. It's just uh, you know,
Speaker 2: and it's I think, uh, there is a U in
Speaker 2: terms of why people abide it's it's it's violence figurative
Speaker 2: and literal. I think, uh, you know, considering that Americans
Speaker 2: aren't particularly intellectually inclined, and they don't, uh, they don't
Speaker 2: seek out answers the historical uh questions in quagmires in
Speaker 2: any meaningful way. I mean, well most people don't. But
Speaker 2: what they do is, uh, you know one of the
Speaker 2: reasons this but the people like bizarre about the Supreme Court. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I made the point before that. Uh, it's it's bizarre
Speaker 2: that that Americans view as this kind of like rabbinic council,
Speaker 2: you know, like I people really do, I mean in
Speaker 2: will Carl Schmidt Agan, you know, they really do view government,
Speaker 2: particularly you know in America where you know, you're in
Speaker 2: this kind of where where the people are regime loyal
Speaker 2: or are these kind of you know, a historical dirastinated
Speaker 2: people who we don't really understand, uh, you know, the
Speaker 2: source of morals and authority and things they really do
Speaker 2: vi the government, you know, is that it is their
Speaker 2: standing for God, you know, in the Supreme Court. Really
Speaker 2: is this kind of like high pre this kind of
Speaker 2: like you know, high Council of rabbis or priests or something,
Speaker 2: and you know it's declaratory judgments. You know, really are
Speaker 2: really do have the really give the force of like
Speaker 2: a hadith or something, and you know, they really do
Speaker 2: view you know, government like government actions as as a
Speaker 2: literally miraculous occurrence. And they really do view you know,
Speaker 2: like official to them as as uh as some there's
Speaker 2: some kind of entity like that the warrants you're you're
Speaker 2: kind kind of like, uh like you're kind of like
Speaker 2: odd Fieldy. I mean, I that guy that's complete. It's
Speaker 2: a completely alien concept to me, like because I'm so
Speaker 2: great or so smart, but because I the idea that anybody,
Speaker 2: even I mean I realized, like human psychology is highly symbolic.
Speaker 2: But you know the fact that anybody could uh anybody
Speaker 2: could look at the at that that the current regime
Speaker 2: is anything other than this kind of bizarre failing, you know,
Speaker 2: entirely worldly apparatus is kind of incredible to me. But
Speaker 2: I you know, then again, I'm not really I'm not
Speaker 2: really I'm not really a normal kind of citizen, you know,
Speaker 2: and I'm not really insinuated into things like that. You know,
Speaker 2: It's not like I work a ninety five job or something,
Speaker 2: or like I got kids in public school. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not you know, it's not like I. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not like I, uh, I've got you know, some
Speaker 2: sort of steak in in in the in the system,
Speaker 2: because I really know, you know.
Speaker 1: But it's to me, it reminds me of that I
Speaker 1: can't remember if this is in the first or the
Speaker 1: second conversation we had. Maybe it was the first one
Speaker 1: what about Protestantism, But it reminds me very much of
Speaker 1: kind of the idea.
Speaker 3: That, you know, your relationship with.
Speaker 1: God is your kind of template for your relationship with
Speaker 1: with authority. Right, And so I I realized when talking
Speaker 1: about a rabbinic council, this is somewhat a delicate conversation
Speaker 1: for you two. Yeah, right, But I think that we
Speaker 1: can track the difference in kind of theological I guess,
Speaker 1: like persuasion, and also like relationship with government, you know.
Speaker 1: And I say this even as like someone who realizes
Speaker 1: that the vast majority of people probably don't think very
Speaker 1: much about theology at all, you know, even if they
Speaker 1: kind of don't necessarily have an explicit relationship with God.
Speaker 1: I think that there is kind of like a concept
Speaker 1: of your highest authority, they integrate with.
Speaker 2: No, that's what I That's what I meant. And when
Speaker 2: I when I say that, like when I said, all
Speaker 2: political authorities conceptually theological, Like I don't mean that you're
Speaker 2: average man or a woman in the street. You know,
Speaker 2: is is thinking about this and in heavy terms like
Speaker 2: I mean, in symbolic psychological terms, instinctively that's you know what,
Speaker 2: that's where their mind goes, and that that's why they
Speaker 2: respond to official them the way that they do. That's
Speaker 2: a constant and that's uh, you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: that's kind of what Schmid took from Hobbs while turning
Speaker 2: his is ontological while turning his ontology like on his head.
Speaker 2: But yeah, you're you're you're right. It's just uh, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just weird to It's just but I mean, I guess,
Speaker 2: you know, in some ways, uh, in some the people
Speaker 2: are pretty mailable. And you know, I think the kind
Speaker 2: of the kind of uh, the kind of mediocre middle
Speaker 2: you know, kind of as it were, they at least
Speaker 2: in this country is frankly, I only I don't what
Speaker 2: the Germans would call mentioned material is not particularly quality here.
Speaker 2: You know, though those people can be those people can
Speaker 2: be molded pretty pretty effectively, you know. But at the
Speaker 2: same time, you know, uh, in my lifetime and in
Speaker 2: earnest in the last you know, ten years, you know,
Speaker 2: people the people who are not susceptible to that uh
Speaker 2: sort of social engineering. You know, the people who are
Speaker 2: capable of of of of a sovereign existence, you know,
Speaker 2: the terms around younger talking about such things. You know,
Speaker 2: a sovereign person. You know, people like us and like
Speaker 2: you and myself included, Like you know, people have become
Speaker 2: you know, radicalized, and they've you know, been motivated to
Speaker 2: seceed as much as possible from the regime and do
Speaker 2: whatever they can within the law, because we don't advocate
Speaker 2: breaking the law, you know, to expedite its demise. And
Speaker 2: uh that means that that mean is that the kind
Speaker 2: of uh, the kind of racial immune system, if you will,
Speaker 2: is like still intact, okay, because in America you're never
Speaker 2: gonna you're never gonna get some raw majority of people
Speaker 2: who you know, who who who respond in in in
Speaker 2: healthy terms like spiritually and ethically, I mean to uh,
Speaker 2: you know, to uh two to uh you know, evil
Speaker 2: and overreached by official them. You're just not you know it. Uh,
Speaker 2: you've got uh, you've got mostly a nation you're not. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you got mostly the country natural slaves and you know,
Speaker 2: people who in spiritual terms are a bunch of frightened
Speaker 2: old women. I mean but and I mean again, like
Speaker 2: in in pretty much every society, Like like I said,
Speaker 2: there's kind of like a mediocre middle But I think
Speaker 2: it's characteristic of the late modern age more than and
Speaker 2: it's not it's not some universal constant, like I don't
Speaker 2: believe that. I don't believe in Boric Athens like that
Speaker 2: was the case. I know in I know that in Uh,
Speaker 2: I know that in the Kingdom of Prussia, things weren't
Speaker 2: like that. And I don't believe that. You know, like
Speaker 2: Napoleon and Cromwell and Muhammad, they you know, they they
Speaker 2: certainly had quality human material to draw upon in relative terms.
Speaker 1: So it's interesting you bring up you bring up natural slaves, right,
Speaker 1: which there there's a certain amount of Aristotle in that, right,
Speaker 1: But yeah, to me, it's there's kind of one of
Speaker 1: the core lies of modernity, right, is essentially that the
Speaker 1: liberation will make men great, right, they know, if we
Speaker 1: could just you know, cast off the social bonds, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of like cast off what you owe and what
Speaker 1: you're owed, you know, like we will, we will essentially
Speaker 1: transcend kind.
Speaker 3: Of like the limits of humanity, right.
Speaker 1: And I feel like what we've seen, especially in the
Speaker 1: twenty first century and likely you know just as well
Speaker 1: in the twentieth, right, is that that's it. That is
Speaker 1: funn mentally a lie. Right, Like from a certain perspective,
Speaker 1: you know, you and I have have more options than
Speaker 1: almost any other person on the planet, right, Like you
Speaker 1: could from a certain level, you could consume as much
Speaker 1: as you want. You know, you could do things that
Speaker 1: you would have been thrown in jail for, you know,
Speaker 1: even thirty five years ago, right with that next to
Speaker 1: no consequences, you know, at least legal consequences.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: But at the same we've we've we've created this this
Speaker 1: population that's essentially stuck in this like bizarre public ritual
Speaker 1: of essentially having some like horrible figure dangled in front
Speaker 1: of your face, you know, like Trump putin you know,
Speaker 1: Kyle Rittenhouse and then being assured like, oh, but you're safe,
Speaker 1: We've got you, you know, like the Master essentially will
Speaker 1: protect you from the bad thing, you know, And it's
Speaker 1: this weird bizarre like slavish ritual that you see just
Speaker 1: every three months, repeat over and over again.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and that's why, like that's that's one of
Speaker 2: the things that's there's all kinds of dishonest. First of all,
Speaker 2: it makes makes a no sense in this country house
Speaker 2: just just just arbitrarily, like slavery is declared to be
Speaker 2: the most evil thing ever to exist. Yeah, that's like
Speaker 2: a totally random thing to focus on, you know, Like, uh,
Speaker 2: they'd be like they'd be like a five hundred years
Speaker 2: from now. Uh, you know, like some government and the
Speaker 2: orient just like declaring that, you know, abortion on demand
Speaker 2: with the most evil thing ever to exist. Like don't
Speaker 2: get me wrong, it isn't moral evil, but it's like
Speaker 2: how random would it be? Is just like focus on that,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, slavery precedes a written language in
Speaker 2: the fossil record. It's like, oh, okay, that's that's kind
Speaker 2: of a few like universal constants and human societies. You know.
Speaker 2: It's but it's like, you know, the reason the reason
Speaker 2: it endured is because again it is a natural state
Speaker 2: for a great many people. You know, this wasn't slavery
Speaker 2: was not this case. So these kinds of like robust,
Speaker 2: uh specimens like Spartacus, like being like shackled against their
Speaker 2: will and like at every opportunity them trying to you know,
Speaker 2: like uh you know, like break free of bondage. It
Speaker 2: was people where that was like there natural lot in part,
Speaker 2: you know, not just owning the social conditions and accident
Speaker 2: the fate like that's they weren't capable of much else,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean like it uh one plus two,
Speaker 2: It's like, what what does America do with? Uh? One
Speaker 2: of the most protesque things about this country is that
Speaker 2: it's like obsessed with prison and like it what what
Speaker 2: what does America do with a huge number of the
Speaker 2: of of of its population assented from channel slave? It
Speaker 2: like locks them in prison. So it's like, so these
Speaker 2: guys are better off in prison than then than they
Speaker 2: were slaves. Like really like that. So it's not even
Speaker 2: as if the regime doesn't even live up to its
Speaker 2: own purported uh you know values in terms of what
Speaker 2: are the attempts to what are the attempts to take
Speaker 2: on in terms of a medial measures, I mean not
Speaker 2: not that it should not not that such measures are
Speaker 2: necessary as in ethical terms obviously, but you understand what
Speaker 2: I mean it's uh.
Speaker 1: That reminds me so a mentor of mine who you
Speaker 1: two would have an interesting conversation because he's down his
Speaker 1: own revision this rabbit hole.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: But I went to go visit him, and at the
Speaker 1: time he was living in a small town in Louisiana,
Speaker 1: and there's a place called Donaldville, Louisiana, which is in
Speaker 1: no way notable whatsoever. We were driving through Donaldville and
Speaker 1: we look around and he's talking and it's it's very
Speaker 1: much kind of like the descendants of chattel slaves, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: me saying like, legitimately, look at how these people live, right.
Speaker 1: The nice houses in town are old sharecropper houses, right,
Speaker 1: those are the nicest places in town. And he's like,
Speaker 1: look like, materially are these people bet are off? And
Speaker 1: so my point is not like if you gave me
Speaker 1: a you know, said like, all right, well, would you
Speaker 1: sign on as a chattel slave? As ridiculous as that
Speaker 1: is a concept, I wouldn't write. So I'm not saying
Speaker 1: like I'd be the first in line. But you look
Speaker 1: at it and you're like, well, okay, like from material perspectives,
Speaker 1: like is this better? And I'm not even getting into
Speaker 1: the moral conditions, you know, because I would argue that
Speaker 1: those are sick like unarguably worse. But you look at
Speaker 1: that and like maybe maybe Aristotle is right, know, maybe
Speaker 1: there is just like a type of person who that
Speaker 1: is what they're kind of destined for.
Speaker 2: I guess, well, yeah, and that's why that's why the ideal.
Speaker 2: What I mean, that's a big contribution. I mean it's
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not a big I'm not in it
Speaker 2: Chian at all, but and I think most of I
Speaker 2: think most of what's valuable in him was what a was,
Speaker 2: you know, stuff that was stated better by Chopenhauer, but
Speaker 2: Ernest Younger uh kind of perfected you know, uh, Nietzsche's
Speaker 2: idea of the sovereign individual who's neither master nor slave.
Speaker 2: I mean that conceptually that's really important, you know, especially
Speaker 2: especially for the for the white race. That should be
Speaker 2: that should be the ideal in Hegelian terms, I mean,
Speaker 2: like that that should be viewed as what what we're
Speaker 2: doing is a is a is uh? You know that
Speaker 2: that that that's the ambition of our of our dialectic
Speaker 2: as well as of our concrete activity, you know, and uh,
Speaker 2: in everything we do and make that point of people
Speaker 2: again and again, and obviously we won't we won't be
Speaker 2: here to witness that. But you know what we do,
Speaker 2: what we do get word of sentence, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: includes our in in a very real sense, our our,
Speaker 2: our memory and you know, uh, our racial memory. I
Speaker 2: mean this, this, this pop I don't want to get
Speaker 2: too esoteric and metaphysical, but that's why this pops up
Speaker 2: again and again in my science fiction series, okay, because
Speaker 2: I very much believe in this, and for the record,
Speaker 2: I believe this will be increasingly substantiated by by by
Speaker 2: the scientific method as well too. But so my point
Speaker 2: is that even people who don't particularly have a strong
Speaker 2: story sense and nonetheless realize the correctness of our position.
Speaker 2: You know, you you do perennially participate in history, you know,
Speaker 2: before and after you're dead, Okay, and in basic terms,
Speaker 2: and that's one of the reasons why you know, uh,
Speaker 2: historical existence is so fundamentally important, okay, if you want
Speaker 2: to look at it that way. So in the preservation
Speaker 2: of historical existence.
Speaker 1: So interesting you bring that up because I think it
Speaker 1: was episode sixteen of my show. I talked with the
Speaker 1: guy named Heroic Well, and he's he's a really interesting guy.
Speaker 1: He's an extremely uh, extremely knowledgeable kinesiologist.
Speaker 3: I believe so exercise science.
Speaker 1: And he was basically saying that science has effectively got
Speaker 1: to that point with something as simple as kind of
Speaker 1: like your your your weight in your like physical capacity,
Speaker 1: that that is both directly genetically linked in the sense
Speaker 1: that like, okay, well, if if your dad's athletic, you're
Speaker 1: you're more likely to be athletic. But it's also linked
Speaker 1: on the level of essentially like the actions you particularly take.
Speaker 1: So for instance, right doesn't matter if you have the
Speaker 1: greatest genetics in the world, if you're a fat slob,
Speaker 1: your children are more likely to be a fat slob,
Speaker 1: even if they don't know you. So essentially kind of
Speaker 1: like the actions you take. And obviously, like I'm not
Speaker 1: a materialist. I think science and a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of situations just kind of like fake and boring.
Speaker 1: But the point is that's a very kind of like
Speaker 1: technical I guess, like a technical proof of what you
Speaker 1: just said that is like materially true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, epigenetic memory that yeah, And I want to
Speaker 2: I want to write more about that and a dedicated capacity,
Speaker 2: but it you know, I I I came with you.
Speaker 2: I think it was like Carl Jung and Jaspers. I'm
Speaker 2: not any kind of Youngian, but there's some things that
Speaker 2: he was onto that people once dismissed as is crankish
Speaker 2: or crazy what that they've been revealed to have real merit.
Speaker 3: All right, Thomas, welcome back to the Jay Burdens Show.
Speaker 3: How are you doing.
Speaker 2: I'm okay, how are you? Thanks for hosting me.
Speaker 3: I'm doing well. I'm glad to have you back.
Speaker 1: So specifically, I brought you on the show for a reason,
Speaker 1: and that's because I wanted to talk with you about
Speaker 1: South Africa. I again, like I've said before, you know
Speaker 1: you have a wealth of knowledge, but I always like
Speaker 1: to talk to you about the things I haven't heard
Speaker 1: you talk to other people about, at least you know,
Speaker 1: not in depth. So if you could kind of explain
Speaker 1: why South Africa is, you know, a topic worthy of conversation.
Speaker 2: There's a few reasons. I mean, obviously it it featured
Speaker 2: kind of front and center in terms of people civic
Speaker 2: consciousness in the nineteen eighties for a few reasons. So
Speaker 2: if aver became a lightning rod of for mobilization by
Speaker 2: hostile elements, you know, people on the left, I mean, oh,
Speaker 2: in Sundry, because it was viewed as kind of the
Speaker 2: distilled less and so of of you know, of an
Speaker 2: evil government owing to the fact that it's its internal
Speaker 2: situation was singularly characterized by race, you know, quite literally,
Speaker 2: and uh, it was a rare example of a post
Speaker 2: Nuremberg regime other than Israel. But Israel is a complicated
Speaker 2: case for reasons that are kind of outside the scope
Speaker 2: that we're talking about here. But other than Israel, South
Speaker 2: Abrica was really the only kind of openly racialized society
Speaker 2: as a matter of law, I mean, okay. South Ambrica
Speaker 2: literally had a legal regime that defined that define what
Speaker 2: we'd consider to be equal protection and do process rights
Speaker 2: according to racial uh criteria, And there was this whole
Speaker 2: byzantine geography of of you know that dealt with race
Speaker 2: and how and how race was categorized and you know,
Speaker 2: how it was done. So it was a combination and
Speaker 2: of a biological criteria and physical morphology as well as
Speaker 2: social criteria that we're uh that that relied upon, you know,
Speaker 2: the testimony of people who knew the person any question,
Speaker 2: which sounds really really strange, Okay, but we're getting a
Speaker 2: little bit ahead of ourselves. But just what I'm talking
Speaker 2: about is quite literally. In South Africa, there's like mixed
Speaker 2: race people whose racial status as in terms of the
Speaker 2: jury categories like could be changed. They could be changed
Speaker 2: a matter of law from a black person to a
Speaker 2: white person. You know, if you're if you, if you
Speaker 2: if you quote acted white, you know, if you if
Speaker 2: you were accepted in a white community like things like this. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is this was very strange. And I'm not putting
Speaker 2: shade on the on the Boor regime because I in
Speaker 2: the epoch, uh, they were they were trying to they
Speaker 2: were they were trying to craft a system that was
Speaker 2: workable and that at least, you know, approach objectivity. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a very strange way to approach race. Okay, by
Speaker 2: like contemporary metrics, I don't mean, you know, like woke metrics,
Speaker 2: I mean that you know, like you can just release
Speaker 2: race and things like morphology and stuff. Okay, Like it's
Speaker 2: it's far more deep in that, it's far more nuanced.
Speaker 2: There's a metaphysical aspect I don't mean and I don't
Speaker 2: I don't I don't mean that in like an area
Speaker 2: kind of you know, mystical way. But it's just not
Speaker 2: it's not something that lends itself to that kind of
Speaker 2: inflexible categorization to JR. Because there's there's there's limitations still
Speaker 2: a law. The law is not this. It's not this
Speaker 2: tool that you know, has this kind of wide number
Speaker 2: of it that that can just kind of identify and
Speaker 2: solve social problems O cases not and so every it's
Speaker 2: kind of a prime example of that. So they ever
Speaker 2: go also, I mean, obviously, uh, you know the uh
Speaker 2: as as uh Marxist as Marxist Leninism a traditional sort
Speaker 2: in Europe, like lost momentum. The Third World, uh, you
Speaker 2: know the quote colored world is it was called in
Speaker 2: less delicate times became more important. I mean not just
Speaker 2: because that was the primary battleground between uh, you know,
Speaker 2: NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Politically, you know, who would
Speaker 2: come to dominate the Third World, because you know, the uh,
Speaker 2: the one of the things that ended the Cold War was, uh,
Speaker 2: was that it came to be clear that, you know,
Speaker 2: the the Third World was gonna model itself after the
Speaker 2: after the West. Okay, but it took until the end
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century from that process to fully develop.
Speaker 2: You know, people the world lay in literal ruins after
Speaker 2: the Second World War, but also politically it wasn't clear
Speaker 2: like what kind of form you know, the huge there's
Speaker 2: about a third of the planet had been under uh
Speaker 2: you know, direct European dominion, okay, and even that which
Speaker 2: wasn't was still emulating those states that were so a
Speaker 2: huge aspect of the Cold War. You know, once the
Speaker 2: once kind of nuclear parody set in, especially was okay,
Speaker 2: like you know, with which way is the Third World
Speaker 2: going to go? So, you know, decolonization and you know
Speaker 2: the quote anti imperialist movement, you know this this became
Speaker 2: that this kind of aside from the geostrategic imperatives there
Speaker 2: in it kind of it kind of insinuated new life
Speaker 2: in into the in into the into the in the
Speaker 2: revolutionary communism. But South Africa was a unique state because
Speaker 2: South Africa had been a colonial state of the UK.
Speaker 2: But before that it was it was settled by free Protestants.
Speaker 2: Like quite literally, there's a reason why the Orange Free
Speaker 2: State was the Orange Free State. You know, it was
Speaker 2: you know, it's not that the boors are are and
Speaker 2: we're a population where where you know, Uh, Netherlands culture,
Speaker 2: Dutch culture is the dominant like linguistic and cultural modality.
Speaker 2: But uh, you know that there's English, there's Scots, there's Huguenots.
Speaker 2: You know, there's all kinds of dissenter Protestants, uh who
Speaker 2: found their way to South Africa because they wouldn't be persecuted.
Speaker 2: You know, it was and it was a place that
Speaker 2: you know until the until the end of the nineteenth century,
Speaker 2: you know, no no European power had claimed you know.
Speaker 2: So if you were too, if you were a Calvinist,
Speaker 2: you know, the centered Protestant, you know, and and you
Speaker 2: wanted to you wanted to find a place we could
Speaker 2: live among white people who shared your faith, you know,
Speaker 2: and you you wanted to make sure you weren't going
Speaker 2: to be availed. You know a French king or a
Speaker 2: who would you know, who would who would who would
Speaker 2: just assume, you know, massacre you for being heretics or
Speaker 2: you know, a British monarch that would you know kind
Speaker 2: of uh, you know, try and try and turn the
Speaker 2: territory you settle into a commercial colony. You know that
Speaker 2: that that's that's what you unique about South Araba too.
Speaker 2: And you know there's a. There's there's two terrible wars
Speaker 2: fought between the Boors and and and and the British Crown.
Speaker 2: You know, when the British Crown developed designs on it
Speaker 2: owing the you know, various things like mining rights and
Speaker 2: you know, access to access to territory and the cape.
Speaker 2: Obviously it's always as views forded significance, but point being,
Speaker 2: ultimately when uh, you know, the the South Africa was
Speaker 2: not like Angola, not even like Rhodesia. It was its
Speaker 2: own thing, you know. You have you had a population
Speaker 2: of white people. Who's one of the reasons I think
Speaker 2: their cause is important to people like us is because
Speaker 2: they are they are white Calvinists and and who hailed
Speaker 2: from you know, diverse backgrounds in northern Europe, you know,
Speaker 2: and they they arrived in Africa for a lot of
Speaker 2: the same reasons our our ancestors arrived here, you know,
Speaker 2: and their experience was very different than that of you know,
Speaker 2: that Portuguese and Golands or you know, the Anglo Saxon
Speaker 2: people in Rhodesia, and those people found common cause later on,
Speaker 2: you know, and Ian Smith talked about that and his
Speaker 2: his autobiography. For those that don't know, Ian Smith was
Speaker 2: the last Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and he was h
Speaker 2: He was not a particularly exciting guy. He wasn't some
Speaker 2: firebrand order, but he was. He was. He was. He
Speaker 2: was a great leader in his own right in my opinion, okay,
Speaker 2: but he was. He was kind of a typically pragmatic,
Speaker 2: you know, like Anglo type. But I don't want to
Speaker 2: digress too much. But that's that's why South Africa is complicated.
Speaker 2: And also what we'll get into is we deep dive too.
Speaker 2: You know, South Africa is mischaracterized that it continues to
Speaker 2: be kind of today because people talked about it in
Speaker 2: the in in America and unless in Europe like it
Speaker 2: was the American South or something like. There was just
Speaker 2: quote you know, these black people and these white people,
Speaker 2: you know, like Clive Derby Lewis, And we'll get a
Speaker 2: little bit into him too, who in my opinion as
Speaker 2: a real hero. I think using Tera Blanche is a
Speaker 2: real clown, okay, and a very negative person. And it's
Speaker 2: unfortunate that people identify identify, you know, white resistance with
Speaker 2: him and not men like Lewis. But like Lewis said,
Speaker 2: you know, there's not there's not there's not quote black
Speaker 2: South Africa. You know, there's dozens of tribes in South
Speaker 2: Africa who don't pretticularly get along, speak different languages, you know,
Speaker 2: who even have different morphological characteristics, to the point you
Speaker 2: could say they're not even the same, you know race.
Speaker 2: So this idea that like Nelson Mandela is the leader,
Speaker 2: was the leader of the black people, and there was
Speaker 2: these millions of black people who are you know, being
Speaker 2: being oppressed. That's not the case, you know, go ahead.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you bring that up because there are a
Speaker 1: few guys in our circles from South Africa. Right, There's
Speaker 1: Marl Bane, there's Conscious Caricle, and they're good guys, right,
Speaker 1: they're really they're involved with afri Forum and a couple
Speaker 1: other like boor advocacy groups. But it's interesting because they
Speaker 1: they bring that up. Actually, mister Patriarch, another guy on
Speaker 1: this side of things, he's been quiet for a while,
Speaker 1: but he's he's also lives in South Africa, and they
Speaker 1: bring that up. They're like, look like the idea that
Speaker 1: Americans come in and kind of view this through the
Speaker 1: lens of nineteen fifty eight Mississippi stupid, you know, look
Speaker 1: like the primary violence in the last in the last
Speaker 1: like you know, big round of of you know, semi
Speaker 1: regular race riots that sweeps through that sweeps through South Africa.
Speaker 1: It was primarily, you know, essentially a couple of different
Speaker 1: tribes I think it was the Zulus and one of
Speaker 1: the others against Indians, you know, brought in under the
Speaker 1: crown and against colors. And colors is not a slur
Speaker 1: in this context to specific group of essentially like and
Speaker 1: I don't remember correctly, it's like mixed white black and
Speaker 1: then also as yes, yeah.
Speaker 2: Gape colored or mainly in a large part, but yeah,
Speaker 2: and it's periodically the Zulus and the Boards have found
Speaker 2: themselves not just you know, allied in government, but basically
Speaker 2: pursuing common objectives. And you know, one of one of
Speaker 2: the one of the one of the one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why Mandela you know, sat out a political courses.
Speaker 2: He was as much trying he was as much trying
Speaker 2: to rook tribes hostle to his own traditionally as he
Speaker 2: was the white power structure. Okay. And you know the
Speaker 2: way to look at uh, you know, it's like it's
Speaker 2: like it's like Derby Lewis said, you know, like we
Speaker 2: we he's speaking of himself and his own people. He's like,
Speaker 2: we're the white tribe here, you know, and that's uh,
Speaker 2: that's not just that purballe. That's very true and.
Speaker 1: Well and it's interesting too because even and that was
Speaker 1: actually one of the things that I noticed in uh
Speaker 1: so we're we're both referencing, uh, at least I'm referenced
Speaker 1: and interview Thomas sent me which i'll i'll include in
Speaker 1: the show notes to this where essentially, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Clyde Daviles Lewis uh gave a talk for to I'm
Speaker 1: trying to summarize him while being you know, you too friendly. Essentially,
Speaker 1: he was a he was a political He committed or
Speaker 1: was involved in a in a political assassination. Uh that
Speaker 1: we can get into later. But it's interesting because he said,
Speaker 1: you know, in his perspective, you know, you were a
Speaker 1: South African essentially, if South Africa was your first priority.
Speaker 3: It's an ationalist in that sentence.
Speaker 1: And that's interesting because that's kind of contrary to a
Speaker 1: lot of the at least from what I what I
Speaker 1: read as like internacene fighting between essentially like Anglo South African.
Speaker 1: So and then the bores, you know, they're a different stock.
Speaker 1: They're different people, different language, different school system, and obviously
Speaker 1: you can see how that would create you know, certain
Speaker 1: levels of you know, discord between the two communities.
Speaker 2: There was efforts and Lewis is an interesting guy, I'm
Speaker 2: one of the things because his background was Anglo like
Speaker 2: he was Catholic, he converted to UH, he converted to
Speaker 2: UH prost andism, but he his background was Anglo and
Speaker 2: he he he, he had obviously he identified very much
Speaker 2: with the Borer Cause and the National Party, particularly as
Speaker 2: the internal situation became uh more critical. They they very
Speaker 2: much tried to you know, generate a kind of bigger
Speaker 2: tense sensibility among whites, you know, Anglo descended whites as
Speaker 2: well as the Bores, and to some degree that was successful,
Speaker 2: but never as much as they wanted to be. But
Speaker 2: there were two individuals like Lewis, who you know was
Speaker 2: was Anglo by background. Who who uh you know, who
Speaker 2: identified one hundred percent with the Borer Cause, like on
Speaker 2: David Irving's website in nineteen eighty seven or so, he
Speaker 2: when he visited South Africa, like he he was pelling
Speaker 2: around with Clive Derby Lewis and he It's really interesting
Speaker 2: because he like in that moment, you know, Uh, that
Speaker 2: was just a few years before uh, you know, real
Speaker 2: the real kind of crisis uh set in. But they
Speaker 2: you know, obviously they're both guys I have a lot
Speaker 2: of esteem for and I had no idea until really
Speaker 2: recently they were even acquainted. But but yeah, the uh,
Speaker 2: it's it's a complex issue how different white populations related.
Speaker 2: But the uh, you know in the Rhodesians, the and Goland,
Speaker 2: it became very tight at the Portuguese and Goland it's
Speaker 2: being very tight out as part of that oh, the O,
Speaker 2: the ODA, the Bush War wherein the those that don't
Speaker 2: know the fifty thousand Cuban Army troops ended up on
Speaker 2: the ground and Gola and post Vietnam, Uh, that was
Speaker 2: that was a major coldor battle theater for reasons it
Speaker 2: should be fairly obvious. But the uh, the South African whites,
Speaker 2: the Boars, they were never quite able to capture that
Speaker 2: that same sort of amicability as existed between the Rhodesians
Speaker 2: and and the Portuguese. But you know, some guys who
Speaker 2: live there, you know, within our within our faction, could
Speaker 2: describe that better than I could. But it's important, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, the main point I was trying to drive
Speaker 2: home about ethnos versus a biological race is you know,
Speaker 2: just what you said in a reference to Derby Lewis's interview,
Speaker 2: and that, you know, being the fact that there's not
Speaker 2: South Africa is not like America. There's not it. There's
Speaker 2: not it. There's not a basically homogenous black population. And
Speaker 2: black black folk in America are actually quite homogenous. You know,
Speaker 2: they're they they their ancestry generally. Uh, it can can
Speaker 2: be traced to you know, a handful of places. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not it's it's not there. They're not They're not
Speaker 2: just super diverse population. Okay, Uh, South Africa, however, I
Speaker 2: mean again, there's there's there's there's literally dozens of tribes
Speaker 2: that have you know, that have discrete cultural practices, speak
Speaker 2: different languages, you know, do not see eye to eye
Speaker 2: on basic matters of of pritical concern and things. So
Speaker 2: it's you know, I mean, you can you can argue
Speaker 2: against apartheid for various reasons. But yeah, this trying to
Speaker 2: trying to try to pretend as if it's like the
Speaker 2: American situation is off base. However, again, like I did
Speaker 2: say a minute ago though the Bores are more like
Speaker 2: us than most people on this planet. Okay, I mean
Speaker 2: I they they're they're even more like us, I would
Speaker 2: argue than than than Ulster Protestants who are also like us.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I I find it kind of weird articularly and I'm
Speaker 2: not trashing like white nationalists, but when I when I
Speaker 2: do'n to white nationalists who you know, they identify with
Speaker 2: like Russia or something or like Orthodoxy, and it's like, look, man,
Speaker 2: like if you're if you're at the center and you're
Speaker 2: white and uh, you know you speak English because you
Speaker 2: know your forebears did like your people kind of in
Speaker 2: terms of diaspora are in places like Ulster and in
Speaker 2: places like South Africa. You know, they're not They're not
Speaker 2: Romanian and Russian guys, you know, like you know who
Speaker 2: get into like orthodox aso Terraica. Just nothing wrong with
Speaker 2: that or that's your culture, but it's it's it is
Speaker 2: weird for Anglo uh dissenters to identify with that kind
Speaker 2: of thing. I mean, I guess people do because they
Speaker 2: think it's like exotic and cool or something. But I
Speaker 2: you know, so I always I was considered to South
Speaker 2: they ever got to be important. And you know, again
Speaker 2: during the UH, during the Cold War, particular the final phase,
Speaker 2: it became a critical ally, you know. And that's why
Speaker 2: one of the reasons I don't want to get into
Speaker 2: a big Reagan debate because I always find myself, I mean,
Speaker 2: people really like Reagan to this day and I don't
Speaker 2: particularly however, I I I I I do stand by
Speaker 2: my statements that his his national security cabinet was second
Speaker 2: to none in terms of the talent they're in and uh,
Speaker 2: within the boundary rationality of the Cold War they were doing,
Speaker 2: they had a remarkable grand strategy, Okay, and uh that's
Speaker 2: uh Reagan Reygan refused to uh, I mean, Congress you know,
Speaker 2: sanctioned South Africa and all kinds of ways. But you know, Reagan,
Speaker 2: Ray Reigan refused to allow that to bleed into the
Speaker 2: executive branch. And you know, he always he always, he
Speaker 2: and his cabinet, particularly during his first term, you know,
Speaker 2: viewed South Africa as an essential hedge, which it was,
Speaker 2: and they were. They were in active combat against Warsaw
Speaker 2: Pact and Cuban elements. Okay, So obviously, uh, if Africa
Speaker 2: had if Africa had gone communists, that would have tipped
Speaker 2: the balance in basic ways geostrategically. And I've made the
Speaker 2: point before and again I don't want to go too
Speaker 2: far on such a tangent, but in military terms, America, uh,
Speaker 2: in during the detal era was losing the Cold War. Okay,
Speaker 2: politically it was not. But uh, the military, the political
Speaker 2: and the military. Uh the aspect of of of of
Speaker 2: power political affairs converge, but they're not synonymous, okay. And
Speaker 2: America would have had a very serious problem on its
Speaker 2: hands if if uh, you know, if if if Marcus
Speaker 2: leninisn't had swept to Africa, you know, it's swept Latin
Speaker 2: America south of Mexico, and you know, and this would
Speaker 2: have America would have found itself basically a garrison state, okay,
Speaker 2: amidst an essentially hostile world. And that that's that's the
Speaker 2: way to understand the Radi administration, especially the first term.
Speaker 2: That's why I understand why, uh, there was a lot
Speaker 2: of support for South Africa, even in even even in
Speaker 2: basically neo conservative circles. Okay, yeah, you know this, it
Speaker 2: was just kind of across the board understood that this
Speaker 2: was necessary. So that's why South Africa has you know, well,
Speaker 2: you know has uh like loomed large in the public consiousness.
Speaker 2: There's even like a stupid like one of those like
Speaker 2: lethal weapon movies like it. I mean they came out
Speaker 2: in eighty eight already nine. Like the bad guys in
Speaker 2: it are literally the South Africans who like run around
Speaker 2: like doing all these evil things. I move, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I mean, Hollywood's always been propagana the oriented, but it
Speaker 2: was very on the nose, and you know, that kind
Speaker 2: of garbage was was ubiquitous. But you know the reason
Speaker 2: why the reason why I like mainstream Republicans, uh supported
Speaker 2: the Board Republic it was not because I for the
Speaker 2: reasons why I like people like you and I like
Speaker 2: find common clause with Africanners. Okay, it was it was
Speaker 2: very it was very much. It was very much. You know,
Speaker 2: it was it was an extremely related to Grant strategy
Speaker 2: in the final phase of the Cold War. But and
Speaker 2: plus two, I will say Africanners are remarkable people and
Speaker 2: for a population as small as they are, they've had
Speaker 2: a huge impact and I mean they continue to today.
Speaker 2: Like whether you will ever hate Elon Musk, he's an
Speaker 2: incredibly accomplished guy, and they're they're just remarkable people, you know,
Speaker 2: and uh they like like our like our ancestors did
Speaker 2: they they they carved civilization out of a hostile wilderness,
Speaker 2: you know, truly hostile wilderness, you know, I mean even
Speaker 2: in some ways, even more so than America.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I uh, you know, the aside in the
Speaker 2: political uh intrigues and things and aside in the world
Speaker 2: situation making South Africa more important than a small country
Speaker 2: like that might be. You know, they have like like
Speaker 2: you know, the African or people uh are have made
Speaker 2: had an outside impact and again they continue to you know,
Speaker 2: so they really are, uh, they really are a remarkable
Speaker 2: a remarkable population.
Speaker 3: So that's that's well said.
Speaker 1: So to me, if we're talking about you know, South
Speaker 1: Africa and kind of their importance over over the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: the first thing that kind of I guess springs to
Speaker 1: my mind is kind of leading up to the start
Speaker 1: of you know, the twentieth century and kind of the
Speaker 1: machinations that played between ah between Germany and the UK
Speaker 1: as it relates to South afric So, can you explain
Speaker 1: how that kind of diplomatic situation, like what happened there
Speaker 1: and why that matters.
Speaker 2: Well, the city strangely, and this this actually is important.
Speaker 2: It's not just some stupid thing that some court of
Speaker 2: Storian came up with. The collision course of uh of
Speaker 2: the kaiser Reich and the United Kingdom. A lot of
Speaker 2: that ohed to basic enmity between the Kaiser and between
Speaker 2: King George that became more and more intense. You know,
Speaker 2: they were these guys King George and the Kaiser like
Speaker 2: they looked almost identical. You know, they had you know,
Speaker 2: they had uh they were related, you know, but they
Speaker 2: they were cousins, but they look like they could be brothers. Okay,
Speaker 2: And so there's just kind of this there's kind of
Speaker 2: like this manikey and weirdness to the fact that they
Speaker 2: came to hate one another. That's not I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: there was there was complex reasons why the relationship between
Speaker 2: London and Berlin, like WINSTI South not, most of which
Speaker 2: are not particularly rational, Okay, but uh, wil Helm felt
Speaker 2: constantly slighted by London and will Elm was actually a
Speaker 2: pretty ugly character. There's a reason why Adolf Hitler denied
Speaker 2: him a state funeral when he died. Okay, he just
Speaker 2: was not he was not a good man and any
Speaker 2: in any sense to the term. Okay, but neither was
Speaker 2: King George. But there was this this kind of in
Speaker 2: those days, particularly because uh, you know, uh the Kaiser
Speaker 2: was was the head of state as well as uh
Speaker 2: you know, the the chance was the head of government,
Speaker 2: but he was accountable to the Kayser and uh, the
Speaker 2: UK to this day like the royals holds sway in
Speaker 2: a way that's weird in the in the in the
Speaker 2: modern era, you know. So the kind of the kind
Speaker 2: of preferences and animosities of of the Kaiser and the
Speaker 2: King respectively had like loomed large over politics in a
Speaker 2: way that can't be said for other states. And when
Speaker 2: uh in the course of uh, in the course of
Speaker 2: the Second Boer War, Paul Krueger, who's this kind of
Speaker 2: dashing uh a boor uh partisan he uh he pulled
Speaker 2: off h a major operation against uh British forces, and
Speaker 2: uh Wilhelm uh Wilhelm sentiment telegram congratulating him, you know,
Speaker 2: essentially on on on defeating the British Empire, you know,
Speaker 2: in his own small way, and uh, some people at
Speaker 2: Christopher Clark, he's a guy he writes primarily about you know,
Speaker 2: the history of Germany. But uh he's he's written pretty
Speaker 2: extensively on the Great War, and he cites that is
Speaker 2: is being kind of the straw that broke the camel's back.
Speaker 2: And in terms of you know, uh relations between Berlin
Speaker 2: and London deteriorating into conditions of genuine animal wherein you know,
Speaker 2: war became somewhat inevitable when it had it with catalysts emerged.
Speaker 2: So there's that. And despite what people, you know, people
Speaker 2: never people don't think of Germany as an imperial power
Speaker 2: in the nineteenth century sense, but it was to some degree.
Speaker 2: And in what's now Namibia that was German Africa, okay,
Speaker 2: and uh so, I mean Germany did have a toe
Speaker 2: hold in in Subzhan Africa, and uh like Herman Gerring's
Speaker 2: family actually made part of their fortune in Africa, all right,
Speaker 2: But uh so there was uh you know, Germany had
Speaker 2: had Germany's uh cultural sphere of influence touched and concerned
Speaker 2: white people in Africa too. Okay, it was not it
Speaker 2: was not just the French and uh and and and
Speaker 2: and in the Anglo Saxons and the the Portuguese, so
Speaker 2: the the the African can to identified very strong with Germany.
Speaker 2: I mean not just because they're culturally Dutch and large part,
Speaker 2: you know, but they they had uh you know, German
Speaker 2: Protestants and and and Dutch calvin ITTs are different, but
Speaker 2: uh they are both you know, dissenters. Okay, and uh
Speaker 2: there was a basic uh you know, there was a
Speaker 2: basic Uh there's a basic affinity between uh Protestant Germany
Speaker 2: and uh and the Afrikaners. So I mean that there's
Speaker 2: that too when uh the uh, the German uh view
Speaker 2: of the British is kind of this bully power that
Speaker 2: you know, insisted on that it had a mandate to dominate,
Speaker 2: you know, the dominate the planet, as you know in
Speaker 2: in key theaters. Yeah, it was it was unwilling to
Speaker 2: allow Uh, it was.
Speaker 3: It was.
Speaker 2: It was unwilling to allow any other power, any other
Speaker 2: any other European power, to pursue the same course. And
Speaker 2: not only they didn't even and and and addians all
Speaker 2: the injury, like the British says this kind of obnoxious world.
Speaker 2: Can't you know, they didn't just characterize this in terms
Speaker 2: of a realistic policy course wherein they you know, they
Speaker 2: had to look out for their own best interests and
Speaker 2: that other people, so it you know, as opposed to uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the Germans always had a you know, political
Speaker 2: identity as well as uh, you know, cultural ethics and
Speaker 2: you know what they viewed as uh as the role
Speaker 2: of loyalty they're in. I mean always had always had
Speaker 2: an ethno racial characteristic that was prominent, which is correct,
Speaker 2: you know, and and and the British too, and I'm
Speaker 2: not talking about English people and talking about their regime.
Speaker 2: You know, always always disdained that, you know, and and
Speaker 2: kind of stupid and and condescending ways. And you know,
Speaker 2: just this there was something of a Velton Shawn's Creek
Speaker 2: did come to exist somewhat between the UK and Germany.
Speaker 2: I mean different from obviously you know uh that uh
Speaker 2: of a you know between Christians and Jews, or between
Speaker 2: you know German uh National Socialists and and in Russell Bolsheviks.
Speaker 2: But nevertheless, there was a there was an aspect of
Speaker 2: of of of open political warfare that came to characterize
Speaker 2: angle German relations. And I will add and I mean
Speaker 2: people can sellings is a conceptual bias that basically was
Speaker 2: the UK's fault. Okay, because I don't think I can
Speaker 2: be denied pretty much at every turn in the modern era,
Speaker 2: the Germans tried to cultivate the British and they the
Speaker 2: British always sued for war, you know. I mean if
Speaker 2: it's if you sue for war one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: the time, I mean that you're you're not You're not
Speaker 2: you're not you're not a reasonable Uh, you're not a
Speaker 2: reasonable act Okay. I mean that that's that's got a
Speaker 2: parallel today. And you know the way America behaves in
Speaker 2: places like Ukraine. You know, if you're if if your
Speaker 2: end game is to find a way to go to
Speaker 2: war and people can't reason with you, okay, and you're
Speaker 2: not you're not acting in good faith, you know. So
Speaker 2: there's that but that.
Speaker 1: You know that.
Speaker 2: That's kind of the that's kind of the relationship between
Speaker 2: uh what became the Boar Republic, you know, and and
Speaker 2: and and prior to that, you know, the the kind
Speaker 2: of the Afrikaner population and and the German Empire and
Speaker 2: leaving the German Reich. And as you'll notice, even though
Speaker 2: I've got something I say about Turret Blanche the a
Speaker 2: w B, I I've got a lot of respect for
Speaker 2: and uh and and and those people they you know,
Speaker 2: they still they they openly, uh they openly you know,
Speaker 2: fly the swastika and stuff.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: They then they've they've got no qualmas about that or
Speaker 2: or anything, you know, so they and and that's good,
Speaker 2: you know, they that's what they should do. But so
Speaker 2: that yeah, they such that the such that the Boors
Speaker 2: identify with anybody, you know, that they identify with Germany
Speaker 2: very strongly. All right.
Speaker 1: So, uh, if we're talking about kind of my interaction
Speaker 1: with South Africa, it's kind of this and you kind
Speaker 1: of hinted at it. It seemed like for a lot
Speaker 1: of people who kind of came of age during the eighties,
Speaker 1: so you know, kind of my parents' generation, South Africa
Speaker 1: was kind of one of the like laundry list of
Speaker 1: kind of just like social ills that all good people
Speaker 1: felt a certain way on. You know, it was like well,
Speaker 1: nuclear disarmament, peace in Ireland, you know, and South Africa.
Speaker 1: You know, it's kind of like rattled off in a
Speaker 1: list like that. So can you maybe like go into
Speaker 1: that a little bit? Just like your experience growing up
Speaker 1: during the time was very much kind of one of
Speaker 1: the the like I guess, like unadulterated goods in heavy
Speaker 1: scare quotes of kind of like polite society.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and like I said, it was it it Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, the Cold War became very fixated on narratives. Okay,
Speaker 2: so it's a combination of you know, and back in
Speaker 2: those days. I always make the point again and again,
Speaker 2: how bizarre it is that the military I'm not talking
Speaker 2: about Gronston enlisted people. I'm talking about the brass. I
Speaker 2: can't ecess how bizarre it is in the twenty that
Speaker 2: as of today, like the military is like woke incorporated,
Speaker 2: like homicide division, you know, like it uh, because the
Speaker 2: Pentagon and uh and and the precursors to the Woke
Speaker 2: were totally at odds in the past, like intractably so
Speaker 2: and then and uh, they endured until the Clinton administration. Okay,
Speaker 2: and there was there was there was something of a
Speaker 2: verial culter comp against the Pentagon by by the Clinton regime,
Speaker 2: which is why you know, people like these these you know,
Speaker 2: these these these these clowns and these lunatics like Wesley Clark,
Speaker 2: you know, the kind of the first woke general emerged.
Speaker 2: But there's a few different layers to it. In the eighties.
Speaker 2: You know, like I said, you know it uh the
Speaker 2: uh the uh the social justice types. Uh they're they're
Speaker 2: they're always looking for some kind of like bumper sticker,
Speaker 2: cause the uh the truly uh you know, the kind
Speaker 2: of radical uh uh post sixty eight uh communists in America,
Speaker 2: you know, who would become very anti Stalinist but claimed
Speaker 2: that you know, that's why they all identified with MAO
Speaker 2: and you know they identified strongly with uh, with North
Speaker 2: Vietnam when the war was raging. You know, they their
Speaker 2: whole thing you know was uh, they're you know, they
Speaker 2: were Trotsky and through co were kind of their patron saints.
Speaker 2: So they were constantly making the claim that like see
Speaker 2: like South Africa's that's still essence in capitalism and capitalism
Speaker 2: has been intrinsically patriarchal and racist, but also the traditional
Speaker 2: Marxist Leninists you know, uh who uh who had fallen
Speaker 2: very much out of favor. But you know, I'm talking
Speaker 2: about the CP Communist Party USA guys, you know, and
Speaker 2: they're like Gus Hall, they they they South Africa was
Speaker 2: in their gun sites too, because their their troops, you know,
Speaker 2: well where they're talking about, you know, D D r
Speaker 2: and Soviet advisors on the ground, the actual Cuban army,
Speaker 2: you know, they were they were they were in active
Speaker 2: combat with the South African Defense Forces and yeah, that
Speaker 2: was they they they emphasized it for the reasons. But
Speaker 2: you know, of course they were saying like you know, well,
Speaker 2: you know this is you know, South Africa was racialized
Speaker 2: because you know that that's the best way of oppressing
Speaker 2: the proletariat there, like white and black. You know, but uh,
Speaker 2: you know that, and yeah, it's important. They it's it's
Speaker 2: it's it's insightful that you raise the issue in Northern
Speaker 2: Ireland too, because yeah, that was part of the that
Speaker 2: was part of the package. You know, like you you
Speaker 2: you you were a bad person if you didn't support
Speaker 2: the Fenians and in Northern Ireland, you know, you were
Speaker 2: a bad person if if you sympathize with with white
Speaker 2: South Africa. You know, just there was a kind of
Speaker 2: like virtue signaling really large by people who weren't particularly thoughtful.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it on top of that, there was the
Speaker 2: you know, the like I said, the Cold War, dynamic
Speaker 2: and diverse factions of the left. You know, it had
Speaker 2: something for all of them in order to kind of
Speaker 2: argue their case. And in the eighties I was getting
Speaker 2: increasingly difficult for them. Okay, however, like the eighties is
Speaker 2: what I'm the eighties and nineties or nothing like today.
Speaker 2: But I mean, the social engineering regime was well under way.
Speaker 2: And the idea that quote racism is you know, the
Speaker 2: worst thing is is is you know this grave moral
Speaker 2: defect you know, uh that that that that always to
Speaker 2: you know, uh, a moral deformity in the Western minding character.
Speaker 2: You know this this loomed really large, and this was
Speaker 2: kind of like Danny about Okay, so if you could
Speaker 2: find you know, if you could point, if you could
Speaker 2: point to a real world example of you know, apartheid
Speaker 2: quote racism, that became your kind of exhibited a like
Speaker 2: indict the West. Okay. And obviously doesn't mean like a
Speaker 2: thinking person be like that. That's that's ridiculous, that's trash.
Speaker 2: But we're not talking about thinking people, you know, we're
Speaker 2: talking about we're talking about we're talking about basically middle
Speaker 2: class people who are chasing cloud. So they just take
Speaker 2: on ideas because they want to feel good about themselves
Speaker 2: and they think that that's what you know, sophisticated people
Speaker 2: do it really is that simple. But in the case,
Speaker 2: like I said, in the case of guys who the
Speaker 2: minority of the the American left, guys like Hobsbaum was,
Speaker 2: and guys like Sartro was frankly you know when he
Speaker 2: was alive, who were still pro Soviet And I mean
Speaker 2: they they were very much a minority on the last,
Speaker 2: but they were a vocal minority, you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: they they they held out South Africa. I think, you know,
Speaker 2: like see this is the future of America, you know,
Speaker 2: like you have an increasingly colored America on this like
Speaker 2: white oppressor class that racializes everybody's conceptual horizon, you know,
Speaker 2: in order to in order to oppress the proletariat and
Speaker 2: prevent you know, the the advent of socialism, you know.
Speaker 2: And then you just had like a typical like you
Speaker 2: had a typical like you know new Left uh crazies
Speaker 2: who were kind of the dominant voice in in uh
Speaker 2: in academic uh Marxism. But then you also had just
Speaker 2: like you know, you had you had just you had
Speaker 2: just kind of like them, the like the Midwood slabs
Speaker 2: who just like Bandwagon. So I mean that's why it, uh,
Speaker 2: I mean, I had kind of a weird experience growing
Speaker 2: up because like I, I grew up in what I
Speaker 2: hate this term, and I'm not because it's something I'm
Speaker 2: cloud chasing or something absolutely not. I'm just being honest.
Speaker 2: I grew up in what people call it super zip. Okay,
Speaker 2: but it was a bunch. It was a bunch of
Speaker 2: it was. It was a bunch of Jewish people, like
Speaker 2: rich Catholic people and like ten or fifty percent like rich,
Speaker 2: like Asian and like Hindu immigrants. So it's like I
Speaker 2: didn't I me and my family like didn't fit in
Speaker 2: with these people. Okay. We went to the Pirespe church,
Speaker 2: like the next town over. My dad was an okie
Speaker 2: guy who ended up going to Harvard and made it,
Speaker 2: you know, very much in life. But you know he
Speaker 2: he was a cold warrior, like literally that was his job.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: My mom was a My mom was like a doctor's
Speaker 2: daughter from La you know, like and she was she'd
Speaker 2: been a rich kid. So my folks are people who
Speaker 2: whatever their faults, they were many My folks were not
Speaker 2: you know, proto woke and like my folks basically looked
Speaker 2: down on their neighbors. Would tell me like these people
Speaker 2: are idious, you know, So like I I wasn't kind
Speaker 2: of a different environment. It's not like folks like hard
Speaker 2: right people, because by today's standard they might be viewed
Speaker 2: that way, but for the time they weren't, you know,
Speaker 2: but they were just kind of like regular like presby Republicans.
Speaker 2: But they basically simulated to me, like, look, you're gonna
Speaker 2: hear fucked up things in school, like our neighbors are
Speaker 2: like goofy immigrants and people who you know have agendas,
Speaker 2: so just like be aware of it, you know. I
Speaker 2: mean they said that without saying it if you follow me,
Speaker 2: So I mean I was kind of like a critical
Speaker 2: eye about this. So that's why I don't totally relate
Speaker 2: with people like oh but you know, growing up you
Speaker 2: have no choice, you have to think this way. And
Speaker 2: I'm like, what do you mean? Then I realized, like
Speaker 2: most people would kind of like random America. They're they're
Speaker 2: they live around people like them, at least in basic terms,
Speaker 2: like I did not. Okay, So I maybe that's why
Speaker 2: it was like easier for me to get over those things.
Speaker 2: It's not as I'm smarter than anybody, you're have like
Speaker 2: better insight or something. But yeah, point being, I even
Speaker 2: before I was you know, before I was mature enough,
Speaker 2: you know, as like a later teenager to think you know,
Speaker 2: in more developed conceptual terms, even as like a kid.
Speaker 2: When I was like twelve years old, I realized, like,
Speaker 2: what's being said about sale area, It doesn't really make
Speaker 2: any sense, you know what I mean? Like so, but yeah,
Speaker 2: it was ubiquitous.
Speaker 1: So again speaking in the language of kind of the
Speaker 1: like the you know, the the like I'm sure I
Speaker 1: don't know if the correct term is is but the
Speaker 1: kind of like the fuzzy you know, like never explicitly
Speaker 1: stated a kind of version of events. What kind of
Speaker 1: happened with you know again heavy scare quotes is essentially
Speaker 1: like all right, uh, apartheid was ended, you know, the
Speaker 1: Truth and Reconciliation Committee set out to make everything fair
Speaker 1: and correct and deal with everyone, you know, honestly. And
Speaker 1: then South Africa magically became you know, essentially a European democracy.
Speaker 1: And it's odd to me because obviously that's fundamentally untrue.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting is to me, at least one of
Speaker 1: the first areas, it became very apparent that whatever, if
Speaker 1: you want to say, the Nuremberg regime, the managerial regime,
Speaker 1: that they were kind of failing, and not in the
Speaker 1: sense that like, oh, they're losing their power immediately, but
Speaker 1: just like the things that they want to do they
Speaker 1: do not have the power to do. To me, seems
Speaker 1: to be South Africa, like it kind of seemed relatively
Speaker 1: quickly that things were not going well, you know, and
Speaker 1: now we've got to the point where it's very very
Speaker 1: apparently not going well well. And so it's kind of
Speaker 1: like the promises of you know, nineties liberalism. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: we we beat the Ruskies, we achieved you know, reconciliation
Speaker 1: in South Africa, and now we've done it. We did everything,
Speaker 1: you know, and very quickly both of those promises kind
Speaker 1: of started to ring hollow.
Speaker 3: Do you see what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I've got to insinuate something. And most people
Speaker 2: don't know about this In America, what really people are like,
Speaker 2: how do sell? They ever fall? And our shopping fired?
Speaker 2: Shots were fired, and there was a there was this
Speaker 2: horrible footage and it aired on CNN at the time.
Speaker 2: What are the Bantu stands for? People that don't know?
Speaker 2: From about the Botha regime onward in the seventies, the
Speaker 2: idea was that South Africa was what what they're gonna
Speaker 2: do is they were basically gonna they were gonna transfer
Speaker 2: populations to tribal areas called Bantu stands, where within these
Speaker 2: territories they would be basically homogeneous. Okay. So this is
Speaker 2: a way of like affording sovereignty and you know, uh
Speaker 2: management of their own affairs to the indigenous element. Okay.
Speaker 2: And there's a number of these quotes quote unlet Bantu stands,
Speaker 2: one of which was uh. Both with that Swanna okay.
Speaker 2: And both with that Swanna had a president that Now
Speaker 2: these these band new stands were recognized as sovereign states
Speaker 2: by South Africa, but the rest of the world claimed
Speaker 2: that they were illegitimate, okay, and then they were just
Speaker 2: contrivances of of of of pretoria. That was not entirely true.
Speaker 2: And and both with that Swanna specifically, the regime there
Speaker 2: did not want to join the Union of South Africa.
Speaker 2: They wanted to remain sovereign. There's an element on the
Speaker 2: ground that was highly radicalized and Marxist Leninist symb of
Speaker 2: these something of a civil unrest developed between the government
Speaker 2: there and this element on the ground and the AWB
Speaker 2: under Terra Blanche. They invaded quite literally to support that
Speaker 2: both with that Swanna regime, and they acted like real cowboys,
Speaker 2: and they started throwing shots at a bunch of these
Speaker 2: protesters and stuff. They ended up trading fire with the
Speaker 2: police there, and this car was pulled over where these
Speaker 2: awb Africaner dudes who'd been wounded, and they put their
Speaker 2: hands of the surrender and a black cop went over
Speaker 2: one by one he shot each of them in the
Speaker 2: head and just killed them like you executed them on
Speaker 2: the spot. So Tera Blanche then said basically like this
Speaker 2: is a race war, like we're at war. And uh,
Speaker 2: kudos to the South African Defense Forces because a guy
Speaker 2: in their general staff. Uh he is the founder of
Speaker 2: what was called the africaner volks Front, you know. So,
Speaker 2: I mean he was very much like for his people.
Speaker 2: He wasn't some liberal, but he basically was able to
Speaker 2: defuse the situation and prevent like open slaughter between whites
Speaker 2: and blacks from you know, jumping off from both with
Speaker 2: that Swanna like across you know, the entire republic. But
Speaker 2: you know, South America was very much like on the
Speaker 2: cost of a bloody race war. Okay, I mean it
Speaker 2: wasn't like it wasn't the case where like a bunch
Speaker 2: of dopey fucking idiots like uh, you know, like at
Speaker 2: the EU today, like they just say, you know, we're
Speaker 2: like just like, oh, let's have a reinbonation because we're
Speaker 2: being told to vote that way. It's like, what are
Speaker 2: we gonna do. We're gonna werena, We're gonna go all
Speaker 2: in and like you know fight some and those race
Speaker 2: war you know in in in on the Cape. I
Speaker 2: mean that that uh, but so they average better war.
Speaker 2: Literally for twenty years they've been fighting the Cuban fucking army, Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean it's like it's at some point like war
Speaker 2: weariness sets in. They were states that was totally mobilized,
Speaker 2: you know, like even like every man uh served in
Speaker 2: the SADF and then he was you know I active
Speaker 2: reserve status for decades after, you know. I mean it's
Speaker 2: like they something had to give, you know, and it's
Speaker 2: some So I mean that's what uh that that's babsy
Speaker 2: what happened. But like I said, that footage of uh,
Speaker 2: that footage of those that footage of those those guys
Speaker 2: being executed in the street, like literally that's like been
Speaker 2: very quickly memory hold. I'm sure you could find it now,
Speaker 2: but it's like that story ran you know, uh there
Speaker 2: was you know, uh like ninety three, ninety four, like
Speaker 2: the nightly news was. You know, they were relaying like
Speaker 2: at any moment, you know, South there is going to
Speaker 2: develop into race war, but then very quickly, uh you
Speaker 2: know that was that was a memory hole. It was
Speaker 2: just like never talked about again. I mean to your
Speaker 2: point because the narratives like, oh, this is the end
Speaker 2: of history and like now there's just no more quote
Speaker 2: racism in South Afgo, but very very disastrous situation, you know,
Speaker 2: and obviously later on too, boors have been uh availed
Speaker 2: a tremendous amount of violence. You know, everybody knows about
Speaker 2: the farm killings and stuff. I don't want to I
Speaker 2: don't want to go down like a just like a
Speaker 2: list of atrocities or something. Okay. I not not because
Speaker 2: I'm like afraid to talk about upsetting things or because
Speaker 2: i want to like hide that stuff obviously, but people
Speaker 2: can see that on their own, and I it's frankly,
Speaker 2: it's it's oppressing to delve into it. But every everybody,
Speaker 2: everybody thinks critically it knows the history, like knows the
Speaker 2: reality these things. But that's bit. See what happened and
Speaker 2: what was keeping what was keeping South the Africa alive? Uh?
Speaker 2: What was the Cold War? Okay, I mean that's what
Speaker 2: That's what it was. I did agree to which I
Speaker 2: November ninth, nineteen eighty nine. Everything changed. They can't be overstated,
Speaker 2: okay it uh I can't emphasize that enough to people
Speaker 2: like it. It changed, It changed everything you know in
Speaker 2: the it's you know different, not just in terms of
Speaker 2: relations between states and power, political affairs between you know
Speaker 2: states and between a like like blocks, and but I
Speaker 2: mean the internal situation of states, including the United States,
Speaker 2: like changed totally. I mean it so that there's it's
Speaker 2: all of those things. But I you know, I uh I,
Speaker 2: I'll go back to you in a minute to resonant
Speaker 2: speaking for a long time, but if uh we we
Speaker 2: we've got we've got a big tent in our in
Speaker 2: our fiction and you know, in our in our kind
Speaker 2: of resistance community. And that's and that's great. Okay, However,
Speaker 2: if if you're like us, when I says like you
Speaker 2: and myself, you know, people, there's a reason I emphasize,
Speaker 2: you know, pros and Ulster as well as you know,
Speaker 2: uh the uh, the uh, the boar, uh, the white
Speaker 2: tribe in South Amerga because you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: the experience is peculiar in ways that are about good
Speaker 2: and bad, but you know, it's paralleled in places like
Speaker 2: Northern Ireland and to an even greater degree in South Africa.
Speaker 2: So not not only should we sympathize with these people
Speaker 2: and and hold them in our hearts and in our
Speaker 2: thoughts and prayers, but uh, there's also things that we
Speaker 2: can extrap away from the situations respectively, you know. So
Speaker 2: that's that's why I said that AFG is important, you know,
Speaker 2: and not but STU Africaners generally a run apologetic people.
Speaker 2: You know, they're probably who they are, and they don't like,
Speaker 2: they don't care. They don't care if losers want to
Speaker 2: put shade on them, because like why why would they?
Speaker 2: You know what I mean? That's that's I want people
Speaker 2: to adopt that attitude. You know, you people gotta people
Speaker 2: gotta get over this, like social pressure like this, what
Speaker 2: will the neighbors think? Bullshit? Okay, Like I'm not saying
Speaker 2: everyone needs to live a life like me or something,
Speaker 2: but you know, you people have to stop, you know,
Speaker 2: this stuff like apologizing for being a right wing or
Speaker 2: like thinking there's something like weird or wrong with it.
Speaker 2: It's like the the people who hate you, we are
Speaker 2: in the weirdos and the devians, you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: like that's so that you know aver cons, you know,
Speaker 2: they're they're admirable in a lot of ways, you know,
Speaker 2: And that's that's that's kind of why I guess I
Speaker 2: emphasize them and their situation a lot more than some
Speaker 2: people might think it.
Speaker 1: Well, I definitely share your admiration. And actually, uh and
Speaker 1: I can. I will link this because this is one
Speaker 1: of the I'm sure this may be different generation to generation,
Speaker 1: but for me, they're kind of things on the Internet
Speaker 1: that I can remember changing my life. You know, Like
Speaker 1: some people like, oh, I remember where I was when,
Speaker 1: you know, when when Kennedy was shot or something like that,
Speaker 1: and that that's kind of a universal experience to one
Speaker 1: degree or another. But to me, I remember, And this
Speaker 1: is a conscious caricle. I'll link the episode I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: I can't remember off the top of my head, but
Speaker 1: he was talking with another guy in AFRO for him,
Speaker 1: and they're basically saying like Okay, why don't you leave
Speaker 1: because it's a bore. Not only are you legally discriminated against,
Speaker 1: not just are people are rude to you, but it
Speaker 1: is materially harder for you to get into college, to
Speaker 1: get a job, to own a business for a variety
Speaker 1: of reasons. You know that someone who's more educated can
Speaker 1: explain to you, and not to mention that, but there
Speaker 1: is a there is a active campaign to murder bores, right,
Speaker 1: especially literally farmers, right, which is what bore means. But
Speaker 1: essentially why South African farmers are being killed? Now, do
Speaker 1: I mean that that it's like a full on you know,
Speaker 1: like Soviet style genocide. No, but there is ethnic cleansing going.
Speaker 2: On, yeah, definitely.
Speaker 1: And what he basically said is he's like, look like,
Speaker 1: what do you get if you run away? Like really, like,
Speaker 1: what do you get? You go to somewhere else? It's
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit better, but whatever, the thing, the entropy,
Speaker 1: you know, the evil force in the world that is
Speaker 1: making your home worse is going.
Speaker 3: To find you there.
Speaker 1: And so what he basically said is and he used
Speaker 1: an analogy from the Boer War, right, which is, okay, well,
Speaker 1: why do you dig a trench when you dig a trench,
Speaker 1: and sometimes you have to fall back to dig a trench,
Speaker 1: but you dig a trench, you have some more to fight.
Speaker 1: And he basically said, look like this this place is
Speaker 1: my home, you know, are my ancestors have been here
Speaker 1: for you know, essentially as long as the US has
Speaker 1: been settled, right, And he's like, look, look, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to throw that away from my own personal comfort
Speaker 1: because the things that I like about the place that
Speaker 1: I lived, things that make it worth defending, are there
Speaker 1: because someone essentially put in the blood, sweat and tears
Speaker 1: to put it there. And so he basically said, he's like, look, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give up my home. And to me,
Speaker 1: this was particularly impactful because I was kind of in
Speaker 1: a situation where I was I had just moved away
Speaker 1: from my small town to a bigger city to essentially
Speaker 1: make more money. I was kind of looking around her
Speaker 1: like what the hell am I doing? You know, like,
Speaker 1: really like, if I have these beliefs, if I have
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call them, you know, right wing
Speaker 1: or normal, as I have kind of you know, prefer
Speaker 1: to call them like that kind of requires a certain
Speaker 1: amount of personal sacrifice, and to me, I've always admired
Speaker 1: the africaners for that because they are they are not living.
Speaker 3: An easy life.
Speaker 1: You know, they could very easily move to the Netherlands,
Speaker 1: you know, most sympathetic culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's also something I want to point out, and
Speaker 2: I mean sinding like this in my fiction a lot,
Speaker 2: because it seems to be a better platform for it
Speaker 2: because it is somewhat abstract. But you know, in addition
Speaker 2: to the ethical issue, like, yeah, you don't just like
Speaker 2: up and run away from your home. Like one of
Speaker 2: the points I always make to people. One of the
Speaker 2: reasons America has problems this idea that if there's a
Speaker 2: war or a depression, you just up and run away
Speaker 2: to America from your home. Like people who just drop
Speaker 2: everything and turn their back on their family, their culture,
Speaker 2: their language, their heritage. Those are weird people, and often
Speaker 2: they've got something really wrong with them. Okay, So I
Speaker 2: mean this idea that like, oh, there's a war in Syria,
Speaker 2: everybody should empty out of the country and move to
Speaker 2: America as you know, refugees or as a people who
Speaker 2: need asylum. Like, yeah, that's a coward's move and a
Speaker 2: fool's errand, and it means you don't actually stand for anything.
Speaker 2: You don't care about what counts. But also you know,
Speaker 2: maybe it's because maybe maybe you have to be older
Speaker 2: to recognize this, or maybe it's just you know, like
Speaker 2: like Heideger pointed out when he when he dealt with consciousness,
Speaker 2: and this is becoming more and more of the four
Speaker 2: is having you know, a scientific basis, you know, epigenetic
Speaker 2: epigenetic memory and things like you really are kind of
Speaker 2: the progeny of generations before, okay, and there's this kind
Speaker 2: of shared consciousness that you know, it's not heritable like
Speaker 2: your eye color, your hair color, but it is heritable. Okay.
Speaker 2: So I mean that's what endures after you die. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's what's perennial. You know, that's what it is to
Speaker 2: live historically just saying like, yeah, I'm just gonna like
Speaker 2: cut off my culture and you know, alienate myself from
Speaker 2: history and just become you know, this kind of anonymous
Speaker 2: person in this geography of nowhere. Like it's kind of
Speaker 2: a way of like committing homicide against yourself metaphysically, Okay,
Speaker 2: I mean, like it's and against like your entire lineage.
Speaker 2: I mean it uh, if it was just you would
Speaker 2: be a suicide. But it you know, there's something there's
Speaker 2: something wrong with people who think that way. And also
Speaker 2: it's just more pragmatically just getting this point will turn
Speaker 2: over you. People tell me that, like because they say
Speaker 2: they you like, Chicago's in a hell hole. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: I'm from here, man, and like to your point, what
Speaker 2: am I gonna do. I'm just gonna like run to
Speaker 2: some random town or like I don't know anybody, I
Speaker 2: don't fit in with people. I'm not really familiar with
Speaker 2: the customs, you know, like like why would I do that?
Speaker 2: Like why would that be better? So it could be
Speaker 2: some weird old guy who's like, yeah, there's no you know,
Speaker 2: there's there's no you know, there's no stupid immigrants around
Speaker 2: and no black people. It's like, Okay, that's dope. But
Speaker 2: like I sit in my house and be happy that
Speaker 2: there's not like you know, like like like like these
Speaker 2: problem populations around whatever, Like that's not That's like an
Speaker 2: autistic way figuratively and literally of like looking at life
Speaker 2: and and and the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, Well and to me, look, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: no catholic, but I think that you know, you don't
Speaker 1: have to be to kind of recognize the genius in
Speaker 1: Dante and his circle for userers and sodomites, you know,
Speaker 1: people who essentially produce money, you know, out of money
Speaker 1: for its sake, and people who essentially you know, have
Speaker 1: sex for sex's sake, you know, in the Catholic understanding.
Speaker 1: But what he basically describes them as doing is kind
Speaker 1: of like endlessly tilling a desert, right, like doing the
Speaker 1: work without reaping anything. And to me, there's this kind
Speaker 1: of analogy between that and this like weird listless cosmopolitan
Speaker 1: you know kind of I will go to anywhere as
Speaker 1: long as they have a Starbucks, right, which is like
Speaker 1: these people are just so odd and disconnected from kind
Speaker 1: of like the things that make you, the things that
Speaker 1: make you human, you know. And part of that is
Speaker 1: like a place in a community, and you can't just
Speaker 1: move that and have it be the same, you know,
Speaker 1: it is tied to a place, and to me, it
Speaker 1: all goes back to this big distinction.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: There there's a you know, some British conservative wrote a
Speaker 1: you know, a typically tepid article about this, right, but
Speaker 1: he essentially broke it down to like, well, are you
Speaker 1: as somewhere or in anywhere type of person, you know,
Speaker 1: and that's that's a fundamental difference. And to me, these
Speaker 1: people are like and I'm sure you may you may
Speaker 1: have met these people, but there's there's like a growing
Speaker 1: tide of you know, millennials and gen z who are
Speaker 1: you know, actively anti natalist, you know, the idea that like,
Speaker 1: oh my my bloodline dies with me. And to me,
Speaker 1: it's this weird, odd, like radically selfish way of living
Speaker 1: where the ultimate goal of your life is essentially to
Speaker 1: like increase your like u tols of pleasure, you know,
Speaker 1: and the idea that you could be called called to
Speaker 1: give anything of yourself, you know, to a people, to
Speaker 1: a place, you know, to even your own lineage. It's
Speaker 1: just incomprehensible and.
Speaker 2: I think it speaks to Yeah, it's also weirdly self defeating,
Speaker 2: like it's kind of like, yeah, in addition to it
Speaker 2: being like kind of you know, it's it's like it's
Speaker 2: a you know, it's like sociopathic in in in the
Speaker 2: way that dullards off and are. But I mean, even
Speaker 2: if you're basically a shitty person, it's like an own goal,
Speaker 2: you know, Like it's like Okay, so you're gonna you're
Speaker 2: just gonna remove yourself from history. It's like that means
Speaker 2: you like don't matter, you know what I mean. It's
Speaker 2: like that means like you have to speaking anything, and
Speaker 2: it's a it means you're basically like you're you're kind
Speaker 2: of like a punk, you know. It's like you're you're
Speaker 2: you're one of the expendables, You're one of the nobody's
Speaker 2: because it's like, you know, other lineages are gonna exist perennially,
Speaker 2: and yeah, pretty much everybody, Well I think this, you know,
Speaker 2: I don't want to go too far a field, but
Speaker 2: some of I think that's what some of what understood,
Speaker 2: like the COVID nonsense, Like people have some idea in
Speaker 2: this country, like they're not gonna die, like they really do,
Speaker 2: like subconstantly, they can't come to terms with dying and
Speaker 2: so they just like for ten they're never it's never
Speaker 2: gonna happen. So it's like, so I think some of
Speaker 2: these people they are like they figure like they can't
Speaker 2: accept that so that they just can't they can't envision
Speaker 2: a future without them, So it doesn't register that like, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna be here very long, you know, and
Speaker 2: I'm a part of something that's perennial, you know, and
Speaker 2: I've got to make sure that that's in place before
Speaker 2: i go. They're just like, oh, I'm never gonna get die,
Speaker 2: So why wouldn't want kids? They cost money? And then
Speaker 2: I can't go out and do fun things. Like it
Speaker 2: doesn't it doesn't compute that, like they're gonna die soon,
Speaker 2: because nobody lives very long, you know, like like eighty
Speaker 2: or ninety years actually is not a long time. There's
Speaker 2: freaking parrots that live longer than that nine average, you know,
Speaker 2: like humans. That's what I'm not a big fan of
Speaker 2: toll kind I'm like a Frank Kerbert guy, you know,
Speaker 2: in toll Kinds books, like the races, you know, like
Speaker 2: the elves and like the and the the dwarfs and stuff,
Speaker 2: like all these races live like thousands of years. But man, like,
Speaker 2: is this incredibly short lived being? Like that's actually true,
Speaker 2: Like for it's it's weird that humans basically are or
Speaker 2: like you know, they they they've got everything on the
Speaker 2: animal kingdom in every sense, but like but as a species,
Speaker 2: like people are only here for like the blink of
Speaker 2: an eye, you know, So it's you're in some basic way,
Speaker 2: you're you're like unable to live life as an adult
Speaker 2: man or an adult lady. If your notion is I
Speaker 2: never want kids, It's like, well, okay, man, but before
Speaker 2: you know it, you're gonna be an old person and
Speaker 2: you're gonna die. You're not gonna stay some like perpetual
Speaker 2: adolessent forever, you know, like it, you know, and it's
Speaker 2: like they can't handle it, you know, so it's uh,
Speaker 2: you know I I I really believe that, And that's
Speaker 2: why this that's why I like when the government claims
Speaker 2: the seasonal few the seasonal flu is like a global emergency.
Speaker 2: Like people like freak out because on some level, but
Speaker 2: it forces them to confront reality. They're like, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: you could die at any time.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's I mean, yeah, you're absolutely right, but it's also
Speaker 2: too like yeah, I but it's also too there is
Speaker 2: an upshot to that. I mean, I realize people like
Speaker 2: I'm gonna lead this. I'm kind of like a mean person,
Speaker 2: but like like these like these like like these these
Speaker 2: freak to talk about. You know, they're like ugly people
Speaker 2: inside and out. And I don't sit around hating people
Speaker 2: or want bad things, damnited people. But if these people
Speaker 2: want to remove themselves from history, I've got no problem
Speaker 2: with that. I don't want these people around in five
Speaker 2: hundred years, you know what I mean. So it's like,
Speaker 2: go ahead, you know. I mean, it's unfortunate that they're
Speaker 2: able to poison the culture well the way they are,
Speaker 2: but it's you know, we they're they're not our people, man,
Speaker 2: They're they're they're they're really really damaged people, and we
Speaker 2: don't we don't want them, we don't need them. So
Speaker 2: li' like that right?
Speaker 1: To me? It it reminds me of and I've only
Speaker 1: read the intro to the book, but it's, uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's unkilling.
Speaker 3: I think it's David Mark, David.
Speaker 2: Gross that gu's a big fraud.
Speaker 1: But yeah, go ahead, so fair enough, right, And I
Speaker 1: haven't actually read the book because I wasn't really interested
Speaker 1: in the book, but his intro to it is he
Speaker 1: makes a compelling argument, and what he basically says is,
Speaker 1: look like people have become radically like I guess, like
Speaker 1: detached from birth and death. So he's basically saying, like,
Speaker 1: look like, if you can imagine kind of an average
Speaker 1: human over the last however long of you know, of
Speaker 1: human history, that's difficult to say. But he's like, look
Speaker 1: like that existence was one in which you came into
Speaker 1: contact with birth and death on a fairly regular basis. Right,
Speaker 1: You had animals, You had a multi generational family, and
Speaker 1: so you know what, like obviously you didn't just live
Speaker 1: as kind of a you know, a nuclear family with
Speaker 1: mom and dad and your grandparents. If they die, they
Speaker 1: die in a home somewhere. Right, Well, your grandparents, if
Speaker 1: they died, they died in your house. You probably had
Speaker 1: siblings who died, and so death was a like a
Speaker 1: prescient reality in your life. You know, it wasn't something
Speaker 1: to be kind of like pushed to the side. And
Speaker 1: it's interesting because you're right, he may be a fraud,
Speaker 1: but I have a I have a one of my
Speaker 1: best my best friend. His family, in addition to owning
Speaker 1: a cattle ranch, also runs you know, a small town
Speaker 1: funeral home. Oh wow, and what they talk about because
Speaker 1: it's because it's multigenerational, right, And yeah, yeah, and he's
Speaker 1: got his his grandfather, who has you know, been running
Speaker 1: it since the fifties, who's now, you know, eighty five,
Speaker 1: And he's talking about the difference of how people react
Speaker 1: to death, Like, no one wants an open casket, No
Speaker 1: one wants to see a dead body. Everyone just wants there,
Speaker 1: you know. Once Grandma cremated, stuck in to earn and
Speaker 1: he's like, look like it's kind of killing the business
Speaker 1: of funeral homes because people are so radically like derascinated
Speaker 1: they can't even be bothered to essentially show up to
Speaker 1: their dad's funeral, you know, because that's not only an imposition,
Speaker 1: but that requires you to kind of acknowledge mortality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, exactly. What's also that's part of why I
Speaker 2: believe in it. Yeah, gros Grossman's to jig go off,
Speaker 2: but he was right about that. But I'll also point out,
Speaker 2: you know, women used to die constantly in childbirth and
Speaker 2: bring bring you know, because it's it's really I mean,
Speaker 2: if you think about it, I want I don't want
Speaker 2: to upset people or be or be crass about it,
Speaker 2: but it's really incredibly you know, like a woman giving
Speaker 2: birth to a baby naturalill that like terrors her body
Speaker 2: apart and uh finishally, you know, if you don't have
Speaker 2: modern medicine and things, it's like sharads are probably like
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty you know. So, I mean it's like
Speaker 2: you become a woman, like you basically grow up when
Speaker 2: you come to terms with the fact you're gonna die.
Speaker 2: And if you're a man, that usually comes from the hunt,
Speaker 2: or it comes from you know, going to war, or
Speaker 2: it comes from some kind of rite of passage, like
Speaker 2: nature makes you a woman because that's when you are
Speaker 2: able to get pregnant. But it's like, so every lady
Speaker 2: who survived, you know, when she got pregnant as a
Speaker 2: teenage girl, you know, she was very aware, like when
Speaker 2: this child comes out of me, you might tear me
Speaker 2: apart and kill me. I just bleed out, you know.
Speaker 2: So if you live through it, it's like that's part
Speaker 2: of how you become an adult, you know. And and yeah,
Speaker 2: coming one of the things that under likes marriage, you
Speaker 2: know obviously is bare is is can't be extricated from
Speaker 2: the procreative function.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: That's that's kind of when you become an adult, you know,
Speaker 2: when you come to view yourself as a as a parent,
Speaker 2: and also kind to terms with your point you know,
Speaker 2: like life and death. You know, that's one of the
Speaker 2: reasons who like the gay subculture. I mean, there's a
Speaker 2: lot there that it's you know, that is that is psychosocial.
Speaker 2: It's not simply about sexuality. And part of it is
Speaker 2: it's about like never never becoming an adult. You know.
Speaker 2: It's about like never looking at women as anything other
Speaker 2: than your moni and never looking at them as you know, uh,
Speaker 2: romantic partners. You know. It's about never like acting like
Speaker 2: a grown man.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's about like never accepting that you know you're gonna
Speaker 2: get old, you know. I mean that's all these things
Speaker 2: are bound up together. You know.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you see that in and essentially like
Speaker 1: a lot of like tender right, and a lot of
Speaker 1: heterosexual dating apps essentially stole there, not stole there because
Speaker 1: it was it was deliberately in the same company in
Speaker 1: many cases, basically stole their model from the gay community.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: It's like hypergamy, you know, like kind of like wheeling
Speaker 1: and dealing through sexual interactions, and it is it is
Speaker 1: profoundly it is adolescent in the idea that like if
Speaker 1: you're talking about like you kind of become a man,
Speaker 1: you become a woman, you know, through this kind of
Speaker 1: like dangerous act you know, first, you know, being married
Speaker 1: and then you know later childbirth right is it immensely
Speaker 1: physically risky, right, Like you kind of become, you ascend
Speaker 1: kind of like through you know, the stages of life
Speaker 1: by essentially adopting more and more kind of ties to
Speaker 1: your community into others.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and think about it like this too, And
Speaker 2: it's it's it's it's good, it's important. It's good you
Speaker 2: raise that point. I mean, I'm a lot older than you,
Speaker 2: so I it might not impact you as much, but
Speaker 2: it When I hear people in my age, like people
Speaker 2: in four to fifties talk about quote dating, I'm like,
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? You wanted the senior prom?
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like I, if I wanted a wife, if I'd
Speaker 2: start like living around for you know, a lady a
Speaker 2: little bit younger than me, because I'm I'm an old guy,
Speaker 2: I'd be looking for a lady who's like thirty thirty five,
Speaker 2: you know, who could still get pregnant. But if I
Speaker 2: you know, I, I've got no business hanging around girls
Speaker 2: unless i'm women rather, I mean I and unless I'm
Speaker 2: looking for a wife, Like what we're gonna want to date? To?
Speaker 2: The movies? Like what we're gonna go to the senior
Speaker 2: prom like, I don't know, you don't talk about quote
Speaker 2: nute dating when you're forty six years old. You know,
Speaker 2: like if you're going if if if you want to
Speaker 2: get married, that's great, you know, that's how you should do.
Speaker 2: But then you're looking for a wife, you know, it's
Speaker 2: you're you're not You're not quote unquote dating like that.
Speaker 2: That's how you do when you're seventeen years old, you know,
Speaker 2: when you.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah you get to take dad's car out for
Speaker 1: the weekend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you get used. Yeah, it's like how you learn
Speaker 2: how to talk to girls and not be a goof
Speaker 2: and like you know and in some girls like learn
Speaker 2: to like not be freaked out by men, like yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: it's like you're not you know, yeah, yeah, it's not
Speaker 2: I'm not just I'm not just being some jig off
Speaker 2: like you know, English language snob like that that actually
Speaker 2: is really really perverse to hear people talk that way,
Speaker 2: you know, like at uh and yeah, well it's also
Speaker 2: too like that's why that's why the government pushes homosexuality
Speaker 2: so much. I mean, part of it's because they're constantly
Speaker 2: looking for like, you know, metaphorical solvents you know, to
Speaker 2: you know, to kind of break the bonds that are
Speaker 2: organically occurring between people socially for the purpose of you know,
Speaker 2: engineering their behavior and and eradicating cultural modalities that you know,
Speaker 2: people be as authoritative. But it's also uh that that's
Speaker 2: considered like the ideal, like like men and women wally
Speaker 2: get together because it's like some kind of like sex
Speaker 2: consumer choice. There's nothing to do with family. He's nothing
Speaker 2: to do with pregnancy. Like I remember telling my guy,
Speaker 2: I actually liked your generation. I don't bash like zoomers
Speaker 2: and millennials, but this one guy, he's not like in
Speaker 2: our He's not in our he's not in our circles.
Speaker 2: He's just like a dude, I know. And uh, you
Speaker 2: know he was uh he was. He was freaked out
Speaker 2: about uh like a pregnancy scare. And I told him, like, look, man,
Speaker 2: I'm like, if you've got no BIS basic I told
Speaker 2: him basically, you know, ms, you've got no biss having
Speaker 2: sex with a girl. If you're worried about getting are pregnant,
Speaker 2: that's what happens and you have sex with women. And
Speaker 2: he like, actually, like I was saying crazy things, you know,
Speaker 2: like he did. He like he was silent, but I
Speaker 2: could tell by look in his face, so like he's thinking, Wow,
Speaker 2: this this old guy. It's like some muktaes or some
Speaker 2: like Holy Ruler. It's like it's like, so it's like
Speaker 2: nuts to you that, like, you know, you shouldn't have
Speaker 2: sex with girls that you don't that you aren't okay
Speaker 2: with getting pregnant. It's like, well, what do you think
Speaker 2: sexy is a man?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, like what why do you think it exists?
Speaker 2: You know what?
Speaker 1: It's so odd to me because going back to kind
Speaker 1: of what we were talking about, how like so many people,
Speaker 1: you know, specifically South Africa, but also in this case,
Speaker 1: kind of don't really think of things. They just kind
Speaker 1: of like absorb, you know, broader cultural ideas. I really
Speaker 1: do feel bad for people. And I'm sure you've seen
Speaker 1: people like this who essentially kind of think that their
Speaker 1: early twenties are going to go on forever. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think this is especially apparent with women, but I
Speaker 1: think we're deluding ourselves if this hasn't happened to men too.
Speaker 1: Oh definitely, essentially just you know, live hard, you know,
Speaker 1: have a three digit body count, and then are wondering
Speaker 1: why they can't settle down and be normal at thirty eight,
Speaker 1: and you're like, well, did you think this was all
Speaker 1: a game?
Speaker 3: Right? Like your life is your life. And the idea
Speaker 3: that like, oh, you.
Speaker 1: Can just waste ten years doing you know, essentially nothing
Speaker 1: and have that be you know, it's a choice you
Speaker 1: are kind of untouched by.
Speaker 3: It's very odd to me, and look, I get it,
Speaker 3: I'm twenty three.
Speaker 1: Ten years is a whole lot of my life proportionally,
Speaker 1: you know, but still like there's this weird idea that
Speaker 1: you can essentially not you personally, but you know, like
Speaker 1: the cultural you can kind of just like do whatever
Speaker 1: you want and grow up later and just keep pushing
Speaker 1: that back.
Speaker 2: No, it's totally nuts. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. It
Speaker 2: does impact men. It impacts men in different ways, but
Speaker 2: they're they're just as bad as females. Like you're gonna
Speaker 2: have ambanishing females. I mean anything but a white Knight
Speaker 2: if anything. Like, it's weird people in my generatingal Coudert
Speaker 2: tell me I much some kind of savage for the
Speaker 2: way it talk to and about women. But then like
Speaker 2: these internet goes like You're it's like, no, I'm just
Speaker 2: saying like women aren't any better or any worse than men,
Speaker 2: And if you got an act men with women, you're
Speaker 2: being a loser, you know, like it, they're just different
Speaker 2: and like men are just as bad women maturity, just
Speaker 2: in a different way because men and women are different.
Speaker 2: But but yeah, I'm also in my I guess you know.
Speaker 2: I made this point again and again, and I'm I'm
Speaker 2: just talking shit, I'm really serious. Like the worst time
Speaker 2: in my life was as a teenager and a guy
Speaker 2: in his early twenties. I didn't know what the hell
Speaker 2: I was doing. I was, I was, I was scared
Speaker 2: all the time. I you know, like everything was like
Speaker 2: a mess. You know, like being a guy in his
Speaker 2: forties is pretty dope, assuming like you've got your health
Speaker 2: and like you're not sitting in prison or something. You know,
Speaker 2: like you like like things have become easier and like
Speaker 2: people like respect you more, and you know, there's just
Speaker 2: like more and more options and you actually have like
Speaker 2: equity and things, you know, like figuratively and literally. So
Speaker 2: you know, I always worried about money and stuff, I mean,
Speaker 2: and so like I I wouldn't I wouldn't go back
Speaker 2: to being nineteen years old for a billion dollars. Okay,
Speaker 2: So when I hear guys my age, you know, saying like, man,
Speaker 2: like I can't even I don't even like think about
Speaker 2: high school because I, you know, nothing could ever touch that.
Speaker 2: It's like, bro, when you were like seventeen and and
Speaker 2: like getting de mariage of home monitors, that was like
Speaker 2: the best time in your life. Really, man, It's like
Speaker 2: what it's like, what kind of horrible life did you
Speaker 2: have after that?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, and it's I I can't I I came
Speaker 2: with phantom man. But it's like I said, I believe
Speaker 2: firmly it's fact to what you were saying when I
Speaker 2: raise about people being unwilling to accept accept mortality, Like, I,
Speaker 2: you know, I really believe that maybe I'm an outlier.
Speaker 2: I maybe most people have like this awesome time as
Speaker 2: a teenager. I didn't nobody I knew, did I mean?
Speaker 2: I I don't know?
Speaker 3: Okay, but no, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 1: Like, look like it was a it's an important part
Speaker 1: of life in the sense that you can't really jump
Speaker 1: from being a child to a full grown adult like
Speaker 1: it's necessary.
Speaker 2: But oh yeah, I mean I think it's not like
Speaker 2: it was.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I think a lot of what I look
Speaker 1: back on it, and I think this is necessary. It's
Speaker 1: just kind of a mix of like profound embarrassment, especially
Speaker 1: if you're interested in anything.
Speaker 3: Like mildly like political or philosophical. Yeah, you look back
Speaker 3: at me, like what what?
Speaker 1: It's like, I think for a lot of guys in
Speaker 1: these side of things, that's when you kind of hit
Speaker 1: the first cull to sack for young right wing guys,
Speaker 1: which is like, uh, like wait, I'm I'm a Republican
Speaker 1: but slightly more libertarian. Yeah, so I won't even touch
Speaker 1: social issues, so you can't call me racist, right right,
Speaker 1: and so like I look back at that, I'm like, god,
Speaker 1: dear god like and so. But my point is that
Speaker 1: not that like, oh wow, let's all laugh at me
Speaker 1: for being an embarrassing seventeen year old, but look like
Speaker 1: that's that's a stage in your life, and the idea
Speaker 1: that like you you peak at seventeen is just it's
Speaker 1: a little bit embarrassing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It almost tells you more about the person saying it
Speaker 1: than it does anything else.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and it's like I yeah, man, And it's like,
Speaker 2: I mean I can see it if if you're a
Speaker 2: limited guy. And I mean I'm not saying that. He mean,
Speaker 2: let's say there's some guys were limited and like they
Speaker 2: were like great athletes, but they're not great enough to
Speaker 2: like make the NFL okay. And it's like if you're
Speaker 2: a limited guy and you've got like a great throwing arm,
Speaker 2: but other than that, there's not a lot going for you,
Speaker 2: and so like, you know, you're like you're like you're
Speaker 2: like the king of some like freaking you know, highly
Speaker 2: competitive like high school where they got a great football program,
Speaker 2: and then like after that, you know, you literally work
Speaker 2: some shit job. And it's like I can understand a
Speaker 2: guy like that, like's looking into his you know, cocktail
Speaker 2: and saying like, man, like what went wrong? Like when
Speaker 2: I when I see guys like you know who who
Speaker 2: are of like above average intelligence, you know, and have
Speaker 2: objectively like good jobs, you know, and they got like
Speaker 2: wives and kids, It's like, bro, like what are you
Speaker 2: talking about? You know what I mean? It's uh, it's
Speaker 2: really it's almost it's almost kind of like low key sociopathic,
Speaker 2: you know, like it's I can't find value in anything
Speaker 2: other than you know, when I when I get my
Speaker 2: rocks off all the time and you know be yeah
Speaker 2: like act you know, act like uh you know, like
Speaker 2: like live like uh, live like a degenerate. But chalk
Speaker 2: it out to youthful discretion, you know. It's yeah, it's
Speaker 2: really it's really disturbing. I mean, like I said, maybe
Speaker 2: I was just like a I don't think I was
Speaker 2: like any cooler or bigger or like as you know,
Speaker 2: any cooler or uncool than like anybody else. But I,
Speaker 2: like I said, man like, I don't I don't look
Speaker 2: back on my youth. It's like, oh that was hell,
Speaker 2: but it's like, man like, it was probably about the
Speaker 2: most like unfun like uncool like part of my life. Man,
Speaker 2: And like, you know, that's why I'm away saying like
Speaker 2: that's why I don't bash young people. It's not just
Speaker 2: because that's fake and fucking like g A T y.
Speaker 2: It's it's it's it's because like being a young person
Speaker 2: actually is not easy, and being my age is a
Speaker 2: lot easier. I mean, yeah, grant, I'm like a single man.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not like I'm looking after a bunch
Speaker 2: of kids. It's not like I got a wife who
Speaker 2: you know, has got has got problems I've got to
Speaker 2: attend to but it, you know, being being you know,
Speaker 2: being like seventeen to twenty five years old is not easy, man,
Speaker 2: you know, and I I'm the first a mint. I've
Speaker 2: got it. I've got it easier than a lot of people, Okay,
Speaker 2: and I definitely have it easier than young guys today.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't recited that, but uh,