Speaker 1: We all push things out, but some things are too
important to leave until tomorrow. Like your pension at Irish Life.
We make it easy to start today. Try our pension
calculator at Irishlife dot ie, or if you're ready to
start or top up your pension now, talk to your
financial broker or advisor at Beture Life.
Speaker 2: With Irish Life, Irish.
Speaker 1: Life Financial Services Limited, trading as Irish Life, is regulation
by the Central Bank of Ireland. Irish Life Financial Services
is an insurance intermediory tied to Irish Life Assurance for
life and pensions.
Speaker 3: Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret.
It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out.
You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great.
You love the host, You seek it out and download it.
You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even
going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion.
And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention?
You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising
from libs. In ads, choose from hundreds of top podcasts
offering host endorsements, or run a pre produced ad like
this one ross thousands of shows to reach your target
audience and their favorite podcasts with libsynads. Go to libsynads
dot com. That's l I B s y n ads
dot com today.
Speaker 1: Meaning the live man like this man letting butterfly flapping
his wings, dig down in the forest.
Speaker 4: Man, you gonna cause the tree.
Speaker 2: Fall, letting five thousand miles away?
Speaker 4: Man, nobody see nobody else you know need no Man,
you don't they luck. You followed a little story and.
Speaker 5: You got that.
Speaker 4: Man. Man don't like the ding on the panel?
Speaker 6: Man, Man, you matter man.
Speaker 5: Sept bird. As I was saying before we we we
started recording, Uh, I think I just like tormenting you right,
exposing you to like eighty five i q A de
Catholic bigotry and other nonsense.
Speaker 4: So yeah, become every time I've gotten an invite on
the show is to be is to experience some form
of anti Catholic bigotry.
Speaker 5: Well here's the thing. I whether it's Jack Chick, or
whether it's black nationalism or in this case, uh, schizophrenic
so called classical liberals. I find all of this very funny.
Speaker 4: I mean too, I thought you were I thought you
were gonna say I largely agree with their anti Catholic
taket youth and asking innocent question.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, this is what it all is. It's a
it's a massive passive aggressive scheme to just ye my
criticisms note of you personally, bird, Yes, yeah, but uh,
this is actually one of my longest running ones. And
so I've been collecting the kind of schizo ramblings of
the classical liberals. Right, this is kind of the system
of thought, you know, centered around Genes Lindsay and as
crazy as he.
Speaker 4: Is, Oh oh my god.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay his reply guys, the guys who have bought
in hooklighted Sinker are even crazier. They're genuinely unwell people
and so forth.
Speaker 4: Can I stop you really quick? So, okay, James Lindsay.
I know a little bit about James Lindsay. We don't
have to rehash all of James Lindsay's history. But I
and I don't remember when it was. I think it
was around Michael miss when he was doing that whole
thing about the archangel Michael and how Catholic there's like
a I don't think he was talking about all Catholics, right,
he was saying there was a cadre inside Catholicism of
woke rtists who actually worshiped Satan? Who is the archangel?
Can you explain to me specifically, is there a term
ideologically speaking an ism for his what he was trying
to say, because it was very foreign to me and
I couldn't really go I'd like to research what he means,
but I'm not even really familiar with the kind of
libtard anti Catholic Michael Worshiper saying that he was doing.
Is that an established ideology as.
Speaker 5: Far as I can understand, No, And he has created
this kind of schizoid school of what you could say,
like bibliographical schitzo posting where and believe me, I have
like thirty different infographics which go into this where. Effectively,
the general thought is that you have left wing and
right wing woke, and woke functionally means everything that isn't
like Bill Clinton or George H. W. Bush and everything
else is just sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's all after the fact justification. And so it gets
very very unhinged very quickly. And said, look, if you're
an audio listener, I will try my best to describe
what is going on, but these are by and large
the ramblings of insane people.
Speaker 4: So isn't he claiming that Aaron McIntyre was secretly a
Gnostic Catholic like what it went very far, like it
went away beyond.
Speaker 5: He also claimed that he was in some way connected
to the Mesopotamian sorcerer Areman, and that he was in
some way commuting with sort of a Keeper of Supert
style Mesopotamian demon. Actually, my last episode.
Speaker 4: Aaron McIntyre was you're saying.
Speaker 5: Yes and I know orin he is one nice a
Southern Baptist.
Speaker 4: That was my first impression was, I'm pretty sure he's
a Southern Baptist.
Speaker 5: Which you know, never let you know the facts of
the situation sta end of the way of a particularly
a music conspiracy theory. But you'll notice in my last
episode with Arn after his name, I put in in
brackets n h r M, because every time Lindsay and
his followers refer to Arn McIntyre, like the Muslims referring
to the prophet, they include that acronym after every invocation
to signify it's not his real name. He's basically created
a personality cult around. To be honest, some of the
funniest conspiracy theories I've ever seen. So what I'll start
with is a Most of these I have in photoshop,
but this this one was too complicated, so I just
put it onto Uh. I just took the image directly
from Twitter. Right, what we have is, uh, dude, this
is this is so shallow.
Speaker 4: I remember seeing this.
Speaker 5: So what we have here is the political compass left right, authoritarian,
libertaire and at bottom, in big block letters, it says
communist attack, swing hard left and into tyranny, and a
hand drawn red arrow going up into the left. Okay,
then in sort of a shadow path going down to
the right. Pendulum swing back should look like this towards
right word and liberty. Okay, But we have a solid
red line going to the right authoritarian that says unnatural
swing exclamation point artificial exclamation point instead all caps, fast,
fascist misdirection, swing hard back to the right, but not
towards liberty, and then regression to leftism. The pendulum swing
is gone, Liberty is lost. So the idea is that
fascists keep the political pendulum locked in the top quadrant
away from liberty. You'll notice that there's really no backing
to this this is your sort of an autodidact theory
of politics, like twenty sixteen Instagram memes. And I thought
this was funny just because it's quite literally it came
to me in a dream. But the actual image that
provoked me and let me pull this up to do
this stream with you, bird, let me pull this up
is a handmade meme. Can you describe this? Bird?
Speaker 4: So what we're seeing here is an image of multiple
hands that are reaching up towards the top of the image.
The hands, there's one hand that is much higher up,
reaching higher up than the others, and there's three lower
hands reaching towards the highest hand. The three lower hands
seem to be weird colors. The highest reach.
Speaker 5: Hand is reaching out of hell.
Speaker 4: By the way, that's true, there's flames at the very
bottom of the image. And the highest hand, which is
a Caucasian hand, let's just say it, because the other
hands are different aids and raises.
Speaker 5: The hand on the right, is that a goblin.
Speaker 4: The right, Yes, there is a green hand. There is
also a gray hand, and then there is also a
similarly Caucasian colored hand. But anyway, the highest hand is
reaching towards what appears to be some kind of dumbbell. Uh,
And the bar of the dumbbell says idealism, and then
woke right and woke left make up the conk the
different parts of the dumbbell. So the idea, I guess
is rom hal the white man reaches towards idealism, which
at either poll is just wokeness.
Speaker 5: That is my best bed of this. This was posted
we no cap I am.
Speaker 4: Lost, well, no captain, I didn't know what it really
I still don't at all.
Speaker 5: I was like, I have to keep digging because this
is this is truly truly bizarre behavior. So we have
another one, right, this is this is somehow an even
more confusing one. So we have we have sort of
a scale of justice, if you will. By the way,
I might add, James Lindsay is an atheist. He's written
for us about how he doesn't believe in God. This
is an imagery that he created. So the base of this,
this scale is reality God. The the shaft, I guess,
we would say, on the which the arms balanced is
labeled truth. The folkrum says, says realism. And then this
is where it kind of falls apart, because on the
bar on one side it says liberals in quotes. On
the right end says conservatives, and then it says realists
to the conservative side, centrist moderates to the left side.
But the axis says realism, so you assume that realists
would be the closest to realism. But on either side
you have leftist communists right as fascist Nazis, both labeled
as idealists. And in the bucket, so to speak, it
says theories and grievances on both sides right, which is
one of the things that I picked up on, which
is the idea that having any grievances at all, like
just as period, is a signifier of being woke. I
don't really understand how theory relates with this. It seems
that this itself is a theory. I'm curious, bird, do
you have any idea how to make this sort of scrutable?
Speaker 4: No? Okay, Now, obviously, what the image is trying to
communicate is that rational centrist realism is as a balance. Okay,
I'm sorry, the balancing scale is rational centrist realism. So
that is to say, the measuring stick is rational centrist realism.
Speaker 5: Now in the truth of God, apparently.
Speaker 4: That and now we yes, I'm I'm well, whoever posted
this is one thing. But what the meme seems to
be saying is that the objects within the scales on
either side are grievance based politics, and it is the
scale itself which is designed to weigh grievance based politics.
I am a little bit confused, obviously at the analogy here,
because the object of measurement is a composite of metaphysical
realism and seism, as well as moderate centrism, conservatism, and
left liberalism.
Speaker 6: Looking for the one this spring, get a Bus Series
four seventy thirty fridge freezer now nine hundred and ninety
nine ninety nine, save one hundred and ten year old
plus get ten percent of when you buy two or
more large kitchen appliances over five hundred Juro Curris for
the tech you love at prices you'll adore.
Speaker 7: The Defense Forces are recruiting the next generation of cadets.
Speaker 1: We're looking for the best, and to recruit the best leaders,
we too have to lead.
Speaker 7: That's why we lead the way with fully funded opportunities
for education and training.
Speaker 1: We lead with skills you won't learn anywhere else, skills
that could be vital to future employers.
Speaker 7: And of course we lead when it comes to being
part of a team, developing character and resilience and serving
with pride.
Speaker 4: We lead.
Speaker 6: Now you can too be.
Speaker 7: More apply for Defense Forces cadet ship at military dote.
Speaker 4: The objects being weighed are communism and fascism of various
kinds or rightism. I guess I hate the term rightism.
It's so ridiculous because it's forcing a binary that doesn't
really exist. Leftism doesn't mean okay anyway. No, I don't
quite understand what we're trying to learn here, because what
I take away from the image is there's three different
things to take away. The base of reality is God.
Truth ascends from God, whatever lockative you want to use there,
Truth comes out of God. And then truth becomes an
object that measures grievance politics, and part of the measuring
stick is a dialectic between left and right, conservative and
liberal and centrists as well or in the middle. But
the object being weighed is leftism and theories and grievance,
and rightism and theories and grievance. So no, honestly, burden,
I don't know what the meme is trying to say, because,
on the one hand, we have a commentary on epistemology, right.
I mean, it seems that the scale is an epistemological statement.
The scale itself is saying a scale is an object
that determines some quality of reality. And so every normal
political part of the political spectrum is part of the
scale that judges the reality. And the weight or the
thing that the scale is meant to judge is theories
and grievance. So honestly, and again, I'm not over analyzing this,
but you asked me to give my thoughts on it,
so I'm trying to break down what it's trying to say.
What I am seeing from this image is simply the
statement I and part of a device that measures extremism.
That's all that the meme seems to really be saying.
Is ultimately like, hey, it's God and realism and the
three parts of American politics normal American politics, which is liberalism,
moderate centrism, and conservatism. And the thing that we are
weighing is leftism and rightism. And our determination is everything
comes to balance out of the two sides. It seems
to be a mixed metaphor saying the grievance politics of
the left and the grievance politics of the right are
equal in weight. I don't know what that means, but yeah, Burden,
am I over analyzing it or are we looking at
an image that doesn't really say much?
Speaker 5: Well, and that's the thing about this, it's sort of
crazy making because you're you're basically like trying to decipher
these like the Rosetta stone. What I found interesting about
this is that fundamentally he is making in this a
claim that would would make a medieval monarch blush, which
is basically, I have been appointed by God to divine
truth me Jimbo lindsay former male masseuse have been given
a mission from God, which I don't believe in. By
the way, two impart his truth into realism and put
all the politics on a scale. Yeah, compare you know,
one set of of grievances against the other. So we
also have a number of pie charts, right.
Speaker 4: Well, okay, wait before we get to these, Burden, this
is a good thing. We don't often have serious conversations,
but go back this one for me. So I think
one thing that would elucidate the image more is if
you were to show the balancing mechanism at the top
the full kerm or whatever you call the part of
the top that spans both sides. It would it would
seem to me the image would make its point more
clearly if the bars that are holding the weights were
bent or you could tell that they were overweighed. Right,
Because doesn't the memes seem to be saying that realism
is subject to ideological craziness and that the scale is
burdened by the heavy weight of idealism on either the
left or the right. Does that comport with you? Does
that make sense?
Speaker 5: That would that would make more sense? You also have
the secondary issue that the whole point of a infographic
is to quickly and concisely convey information. This not only
suffers from the sort of mucho texto fallacy.
Speaker 4: Uh yeah, also it does.
Speaker 5: This is genuinely inscrutable, right, I see and I are
both like effectively casting into the void to try and
guess what this means. It's very unclear. I think that
you were correct. But also, is this just a diagnostic piece?
Like this is how it is? Is this how it's?
Speaker 4: I almost think it is diagnostic, And obviously, from the
perspective of an atheist, the irony of it is thick
because you know, and I am a metaphysical realist. I
consider myself of the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas as
many Catholics do. So I consider myself a metaphysical realist.
Now the irony though, is of an atheist posting this,
although obviously this is not a commentary on the meme,
but of the poster is metaphysical realism. The basic axiom
is that reality exists independently of the mind, and that
idealism being it's it's opposite that reality is fundamentally a
mental or spiritual product. So if you're putting God as
the foundation of reality to an atheist, isn't that idealism
that it is fundamentally a fiction that is the product
of the reality? Right, So the diagram, the poster of
the diagram, being an atheist, is accidentally seems to be
endorsing a thing that it would otherwise place at the negative.
I mean, both the left and the leftists and the
rightists both have these grand metaphysical claims at the base
of reality. A Marxist, for instance, historical dialectic is at
the basis of social reality. On the right, you know,
there's different branches of what the right would say. But
for instance, one of the slogans of the Nazis was
God is with us. So isn't that an example of
the abuse of God as a metaphysical image? Isn't it
putting God at the bottom of reality the base of reality?
Stupid for an atheist to do.
Speaker 5: Well well, of course, because ultimately you're you're you're doing
the exact same thing, right, you were are basing reality
in what you know to be a fiction, which seemingly
is the same flaw and idealism. This will not be
the first time, Burdo that we catch all gim look.
Speaker 4: You get this going, hm, and you know, and again,
I just want to say, like I am a theistic realist.
I believe God is the grounds of the objective, mind
independent reality that we're experiencing. So it's not saying you
can't have this opinion, but uh, it's weird for an
atheist supposed to this because they're saying the reality literally
can't function without God, presumably while also not believing in God.
And I mean, so either way you're looking at an
image just saying both sides are extra and I'm very
smart in the middle. Also, the thing that's holding up
my metaphysical framework is something I don't believe then, So.
Speaker 5: If you were to draw this accurately, what it actually
would be is God would be the shaft, and then
both the base and the buckets on either side would
be labeled idealism. Yeah, it's idealism all the way down.
Speaker 4: You know, right right? The only thing that is measurable
is idealism is something else you could take out it.
It's a very unusual. I don't think a scale makes
sense to use in this image, which seems to be
saying reality is a measurable experience and idealism is simply
a weight to be measured, but not reality in itself,
which I think actually is a valid commentary. But the
image doesn't make the point clearly because as you said,
Mucco texto, and you know what the Mucco texto is
theories and grievances. Yes, literally, because it's floating out in
space and the I I guess ostensibly the things that
are holding the part of the measurement is theories and grievances.
But this is the Mucco texto that it's suffering from
is because apparently theories and grievances are now part of
the measuring device rather than part of what's being measured,
aka not reality but secondary to it. So this is yeah, Mucco, texto, Muco.
I went to college, Mucco, I'm very smart. That's kind
of what you're seeing here. I have to say, Burden.
I also want to say I hate analyzing retarded images
this way. I really do, because I start to feel
like I'm the very smart guy who's analyzing this stuff.
So let's get off of this image because there's a
lot to be said about it. But at some point
you say too much and the audience starts going, aren't
you just a really smart idiot who's thinking too much
about this? So yeah, let's move forward.
Speaker 5: Him a lot of these Uh, you have to want.
Speaker 4: To video listeners, go to the go to the burdens
YouTube or burden, whatever you preferred video platform is here
because you need to be watching this. Listeners, you really
need to be watching this otherwise you are missing a
core of the thing we can't experience.
Speaker 5: So there's also a treasure trove of us. There's a
treasure trove these ven diagrams right, which are.
Speaker 4: Doesn't this all just kind of tell you what the
real base concern is and that everything around it is
kind of rhetoric to complexify what the based concern is,
which I'm not saying is an illegitimate concern. I'm just
saying this is a lot of words to use to
make your position seem more thought out than other similar positions.
Speaker 5: Well, because you'll notice there is a reference to a
certain ethno sectarian group and basically every image, yes the
Hyderian lawyers, as Doll puts it, uh, where we have
kind of three different ven diagrams basically making the same point.
The quote unquote Wolke light and the Wolke left and
also Islam are basically the same. But this one, now, shoot,
let me get rid of these. I think is particularly
funny because there's one more inclusion on this one in
the middle. So we have one circle on the left,
the woke right.
Speaker 4: Ah. Just it's it's so aggravating because it's in such
bad faith. The other one that you had was in
particular about faith, but we can wait to get to
that one. I guess it's just in such bad faith.
Speaker 5: Also, this person doesn't understand how ven diagrams work, right,
because the left side says woke left, the right side
says woke, right, the left side says cis white Christian
men are problematic. The woke rape says Jews, liberals and
neo Kon's control the world. But by the way, bird,
if we got into war with Iran yet not today.
Speaker 4: I mean we're getting there, we're getting there, but not today.
Speaker 5: No comment. And then in the middle right what they
have in common, and this is labeled woke, which if
both boxes are woke, you'd assume it would just be
one circle because they would share everything. But it says
blaming class enemies. And then in smaller text what I
think is quite funny, hates boomers.
Speaker 4: Boomers, Oh bless Now, okay, let's just take these statements
for what they are. I want to do that, Okay.
The walk left says sis heterosexual heterosexual? Right? Sis is
that what the het?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's what that happens.
Speaker 4: It said cis genderus heterosexual white Christian men are the problem. Now, Mom,
why did they call it Scottish cheese?
Speaker 6: It's cottage cheese, honey.
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure, did you duck?
Speaker 4: Other countries speak different languages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so when when.
Speaker 4: We get there, well, we've got to fix the car first.
Speaker 2: But there's someone coming to help us.
Speaker 5: Is it the man from Geneva?
Speaker 7: Not Geneva, he's from a Viva.
Speaker 1: Oh there's a van now.
Speaker 2: For car insurance with breakdown rescue, it takes a Viva
visit a Viva dot eat to say fifteen percent acceptance criteria,
terms and conditions apply. Minimum premium of three hundred and
ten year old. Fifteen percent discant applies to new policies
BottomLine see Aviva Dota EV details. Car insurance is underwritten
by Aviva Insurance Ireland Duck Aviva Direct Arland Limited is
regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.
Speaker 5: No, No, they are problematic.
Speaker 4: Are problematic? Okay, you're right, and you're right, and it
is a weaker clam. You're right. Okay, that's the weak clam.
Now the right says kataris, because I don't know what
you can say on YouTube, so we'll just say, okay, kataris.
Liberals and neo cons control the world now immediately. Categorically
different statements, as you said, one is simply saying one
group that exists is problematic. The other group is saying
three groups control the whole world. So right there, category
distinction but apparently the two groups that are separately believing
these things believe the same thing ultimately, which is there
is a class enemy to be blamed for. What what
are they being blamed for? I don't know, but yeah,
there is no dichotomy here because the categories are so
far apart.
Speaker 5: Well, one may ask, well, if creating classes of political
enemies is the issue, what do we make of the
term woke? Because seemingly we've just done the same thing
and made a worse category.
Speaker 4: Right, And what a great point. It's why you should Actually,
what would be funny is if you moved the words
woke left and woke right into the bubbles, would make
a lot more sense than rather than being outside of
the bubbles. So yeah, like, if you have them in
the bubble, then exactly what you said would also be
evident by the meme itself. Also, what's wrong with blaming
a class of people for something? I don't understand where
this whole tendency is from. If the class substantially as
a class is participating in something that's against you, what's
wrong with doing that? I don't understand. Isn't that how
antipathy works? I mean, is so okay? So isn't it
the case that terrorists are bad to us? You and me?
I mean, like, if we lived in a country where
there was a class called terrorists would be a bad thing, right,
That wouldn't make us woke to go terrorists are bad?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 4: Well, I would imagine who you are defining as terrorists
obviously is what's in question. But blaming a class enemy
is If that's woke, then the very basis of determining
any enmity at all is is woke. So the like
you just said, I guess, I mean, I guess. See.
The problem with James Lindsey types is they aren't merely realists.
They smuggle a certain kind of realism and call it
all realism, which is kind of what libertarians do, or
what kind of what anarchists do with all forms of libertarianism.
They go, our version of the thing is the only
correct thing, but they neglect to realize the only way
you got to your version of the thing was because
it was a descendant of a less explicated version of
the thing. So here you have, Actually, can you go
to the other one, because I just want to point
out my thought on this, the one with lots of words,
the black and white one with yes. So this one here, okay,
So this one that we're looking at here, and this
is the example of it, admires national socialism. Government redistribution
is good if it's called distributism.
Speaker 5: Now, by the way, when we were talking about the
Indie Catholic bigotry, they really have a bone to pick
with distributism. Of course, short of my buddy Dave, who
calls himself the distributist right and has never really publicly
commented on that system of thought, can you think of
really anyone who describes themselves as a distributist short of
like Hilaire Bellock and like a certain writings of GK. Chesterton.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: I don't want to just like debunk you, but I
would say Catholic social teaching is distributists. I would say
proper Catholic social teaching is distributists. So people who call
themselves Catholic and follow Catholic social teaching, I think you'd
find they, I mean, in practice, are distributists. Their preferences
are distributists. So actually the meme is basically saying most
Catholics are who any Catholic who's following Catholic social teaching
for the past one hundred and fifty years is basically
a distributist. Now again there's specificities and there's a need
to update over time. My problem with the image is
your issue or not libertarian is woke? Yeh yes, literally,
and even then very tactically it's saying a very tactical
invocation of libertarianism because we'll find out they hate Rothbard
and they hate Hopa like in particularly. Okay, so, which
is just is this just all like Cato Institute? Are
we going to find out that all of this stuff
that we're seeing is just rhetoric to bully people who
are outside of the regime's way of thinking? Is that
what we're going to find out because instantiated regime of
and I'm using the words here and I know that
I'll get pushed back, especially from my audience, But the
whole Reagan Night thing was, I mean, the best representation
of libertarianism that our US government has seen thus far,
maybe until today. And I know some people have different definitions,
but okay, Reagan and Greenspan were libertarians. I mean, the
messaging was libertarian, The practices were libertarian bar a few
instances where you could argue otherwise, not Rothbardian, not hoppying,
just basic libertarian liberalism. Some people would call it right.
So are we gonna find out that at the end
of this thought, terminating enemy creating dialectic is just a
way to bully people into saying, Margaret Thatcher was a
real American and Ronald Reagan was a real American, and
this is the only kind of American you can really be.
Is either you can either be Ronald Reagan or you
can be Jimmy Carter. Is that what we're going to
ultimately find out is that this is just an advocacy
for the politics of forty years ago, quite literally.
Speaker 5: Yes, there's other things I think are quite funny. The
equivocation made between vocal left and woke right. So on
the left side it says everyone should look the same
in brackets ugly, which I think is pretty pretty music.
Speaker 4: It's really odd. Yeah, on the right side, every spandrel
in there almost yeah, everyone should they didn't know lessons,
I didn't know leftist red spandrel. That's good.
Speaker 5: He's he's quite woke right as well. I just thought
that was funny. Even the equivocation is quite messy.
Speaker 4: Even what's the right wing equivocation.
Speaker 5: Everyone should think the same. All legal immigration is bad.
I like that they've sort of smuggled in the premise
that the right doesn't care about how people look, but
how they think, which, okay, if you believe they're obsessed
with racial identity. I feel like we found a contradiction
in their own work here, So don't worry burto things
keep going. Oh God, describe this image to me.
Speaker 4: We're seeing a straight line horizontally and a bent line vertically.
The top of the band says woke, laugh, The bottom
of the bend says woke.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: The polls are left and right, but it's not centered.
Speaker 5: Great, it's far to the left because again the woke
rate is inherently left right.
Speaker 4: And also the X and y, or rather the y
boundary hasn't been defined. Yeah, really, I don't know either.
This is so weird, dude. This is the weirdest one
so far by those three memes. I don't know what
these people think. Actually I do. Unfortunately, I think I
actually do know what they think, and it's a lot
less complicated than the memes make it seem like.
Speaker 5: It is. Pretty much Okay, explain this.
Speaker 4: Here we go Okay, okay, So let me tell you
a story about philosophy.
Speaker 5: Oh, they get into that.
Speaker 4: The beginning of philosophy, there was the woke left and
the post liberal right. Now, the woke left is ultimately
just MARCUSA. If you know, Marcus MARCUSA was hot on
the college campuses. And what MARCUSA wanted everybody to do
was if we as leftists want to win, we got
to march our way through these institutions, and we have
to redefine what these institutions are teaching people. Now, MARCUSA
led to Marx and Hess. Okay, all right, sure, because
the arrows are pointing to these things, right, so they're
not pointing against the Okay, So MARCUSA leads you to Marx.
I'm just gonna say Mark and Marx, Well, Marx was
reading Kant and Hegel and Gerta and Spinoza and Spinosa
and Gerta and Hegel and Kant. Well, they're all just
nominalists or Esthoteric Pagans hold.
Speaker 5: On, hold on, which is exactly a.
Speaker 4: Second, Wait a second, hold on, because this is I
don't know if this is what you think. This is. Okay,
post liberal right. They all come obviously out of Buchanan.
That would be Pat right, Pat Buchanan right, But I
guess has way more influenced than I thought he did.
But sure, Okay, the postliberal right comes out of Buchanan,
and obviously Buchanan comes directly out of Spengler and Schmidt.
And you know who Spangler and Schmidt were writing, reading
kant Hegel, Gurta and Spinoza and those guys again, nominalists. Okay, Burdon,
I just want to talk to you, not looking at
the meme, Okay, okay, okay. First of all, the meme
is saying, if I draw lines in a certain way,
isn't that true?
Speaker 5: That's it.
Speaker 4: That's what the meme is. Obviously, that's the rhetorical trick
of the meme. Never mind that Mars also has commentaries
on Plato. Okay, where's Plato? Marx had commentaries on Aristotle.
Where's Aristotle? Well, you can't include Aristotle because Aristotle was
a metaphysical realist, so we don't want to include Aristotle.
Schmidt commentaries on Aristotle. Well, you don't want to include
Aristotle in the Contagle Greta, Spinoza box because Aristotle was
not a nominalist. He was a realist, so we can't
write him in. So you have as a case of
isn't me drawing lines around stuff? True? So that's what
that is.
Speaker 5: Here's what I think it works off of. I think
it works off of an audience who actually has never
read any of these people and doesn't really understand how
ideas work. So the whole game I try to be rude,
but I mean, I think that's what it is. Because
the whole game that Lindsay played with the woke left
is basically creating bibliographies, right, connecting one idea to another.
So you would say, oh, you know, this egregious social
policy in blah blah blah public school in Biloxi, Mississippi
is actually because of you know, certain ideas you see
from you know, Herbert Marcusa or you know some of
the other thinkers of the French New Left. And that's
actually a fairly easy direct ideological lineage to plot. Because
if someone went to college where their professor wrote a
bunch of books about how much they liked Marcusa and
took all their ideas from him, Okay, fair enough, right,
you can say that idea came from that one. That's
not an argument you were just describing, right, Yeah, But
the problem is very quickly he reached the end of
the map, right, and so to keep the business model going,
he had to keep digging right. And the problem is,
I don't think he particularly understands what he's talking about. So, like,
I have a certain amount of affection for Buchanan as
a political figure, right, I've taken a lot from the
paleo Conservatives because I think that what they did was
fundamentally honorable. Right after the Cold War, they argued, our
great quest is done. Now we go back to being
a normal country. We're not a world empire anymore. Sure,
I think that if they had won, we would be
in much better straits now. Yeah. Yeah, He's not a
as far as his writing per se, particularly influential past that, Like,
there are other neo conservative thinkers, even some of them
you could connect to Marcusa. Think of by Buddy Paul Godfrey,
who actually studied under MARCUSA and who his thinking right,
whether you know, you want to look about fascism, the
career of a the career of a concept, or anti
fascism in the course of a crusade, are seminal texts
on the quote unquote post liberal right. Even figures like
Thomas seven to seven pull from him a lot. So like,
there's a version of this meme with all the arrows
pointing the opposite direction, because that's just incusable. I really
cannot figure out why these eras are pointed in this direction.
But the problem is the conclusions. Yeah, the conclusion is
absolute nonsense. But the idea that these are nominal esoteric pagan's,
it's like, okay, well.
Speaker 4: Sure right, that is nonsense. Yes, can I I know, well, well, okay,
can I tell you what I am realizing about this meme?
This meme is you so you brought me on to
uh see anti Catholic bigotry, which we've seen a little
bit of. But I mean, this meme ostensibly is one
hundred percent a tonistic narrative about the decline of the West,
because the tell is the fact that everything converges ultimately
on nominalism as the root of all evil, which obviously
the story being that William of Akham broke the medieval
synthesis between the classical pagan metaphysic and the the Israelite religion.
He kind of broke that medieval synthesis and severed the
connection between language and the description of a reality. Right, So,
and this is something Thomas say. They blame the whole
Reformation on William of Bakam. I know you've you've heard this.
So what's weird about this, obviously is James lindsay and
then the crowd, who I think the crowd is called
like the New Discourse. If I'm not mistaken, that whole
crowd of people, the new atheists, the New Discourse. They're
all atheists. So the mood that's being made in this
meme is tracing everything that's wrong with modernity back through nominalism, which,
by the way, you can't escape classical liberalism as being
a part of this diagnosis either. Yes, so that's what's
weird is regular liberalism as comes out of the English tradition.
And Hobbes was an aggressively anti Catholic diagnosis. I mean,
Hobbes was aggressively anti Catholic, and so the Catholics feel
the same way about classical liberalism as they un Locke
was aggressively anti Catholic, and the Puritans were aggressively anti
Catholic and very liberal in the classical sense. So it's
just weird that to me, this is the kind of
you to Ed Vaser could come up with this kind
of a meme, right, It's a framework that only makes
sense if you think Aquinas had it right, and every
everything since then basically has fallen away from from from Aquinas,
which is I agree with the meme. Actually I agree
with the meme we're looking at, except by omission, it's
missing a lot of different parts, especially.
Speaker 5: When you combine the last couple images which we saw
where yeah, the real issue was, you know, the desire
to mandate a state religion. And it's like, okay, well,
what were the conditions on the ground before the rise
of nominalism was it? Was it all liberal? One in
a liberal order? Right, No, so within your own logic,
And I am not this, but these people should be,
for lack of a better word, like throwing in alter
Catholics right.
Speaker 4: By yeah, But that's what I'm saying is I don't
think we should discount the possibility that some Catholics are
are moving into James Lindsay's way of thinking. That they are.
They are in the same way that Leo Strauss attracted
many Catholics. Are we just looking at neo Straussianism. Are
we looking at James Lindsay creating a new strauss And
the reason why I say that is because the meme
that we are looking at is redefining the narrative by
a mission. Because properly speaking, if you included classical liberalism
into this diet, aka, the thing that James Lindsay ultimately
is is a regime liberal. He is a liberal from
forty years ago, aka a neoliberal. That's what we're seeing here. Biomission.
The meme has decided, well, that group doesn't need to
be talked about. We don't need to talk about the
English liberal tradition here, even though properly speaking, as you say,
the throne in alter Catholics, they blame liberalism, they blame
the Reformation, they blame nominalism ultimately prior to the Reformation
for this break. So it's weird because it's Straussian in
that it's meant to capture Catholics into something they don't actually,
properly speaking believe, by making Catholics into neoliberals. That's kind
of what we're seeing here, and the only reason we're
seeing that is biomission. It's like, let me tell you
all of the bad things about communism. Let me tell
you all the bad things about fascism. You know how
communism and fascism are bad. Well, that's because ultimately they
trace their belief systems to Hegel's idealism, and then prior
to that, to CONTs breakaway from the classical tradition, which
is ultimately rooted in the Reformation, which is ultimately rooted
in nominalism. And you're going, well, I believe all of that. Yeah,
I mean, that makes a lot of sense when you
put it that way. But the omission is, let me
now tell you about why you should be like a
Reagan night And you go, hold on, wait a second,
that's a part of these traditions too. You just omitted
that arm of the philosophy from the discussion so as
to focus me on your two enemies. You just circumscribed
your two enemies. But you're a part of the same
dialectic as the two people that you are an enemy too.
But you don't want me to know that. You just
want me to focus on the fascists and the communists.
You don't want me to be thinking about the capitalists also.
You know, we'll call them the capitalis store properly. And
I think nick Land has outlined the best version of
this the Gnostic Calvinists. That's the that is the actual
third arm of this is the James Lindsay types, the
the what nick Land would call the Gnostic Calvinists or
the capitalists or the Anglo Protestant tradition. So again, this
is what we're looking at is actually a very Catholic meme.
But it's omitting the reason why it's Catholic, because it's
omitting the it's omitting the third whole of liberalism, which
all of social Catholic teaching was, I mean, in the
in the eighteen hundreds, in the nineteenth century, as it
was formally written down, was meant to address not just communism,
not just fascism, but also capitalism. And that's I don't understand.
So Burden, tell me a, as a non Catholic, do
you see the omission of the third arm here? And
if so, from your perspective, why is that omission invalid?
Why should that third poll also be on here? That's
what I would like to know as a non Catholic.
Speaker 5: Well, because fundamentally right, the project here is not an
intellectually honest description of current events. It is a post
fact justification for why James Lindsay in particular should be
allowed to act as sort of a Bill Buckley esque
figure on the right, why he should be the arbiter
of all decisions, and the actual specific ideology that he
and many others believe and we may or may not
get into. This is sort of the schizophrenic combination of
an atheist view of the Scottish realists right who they
quite know? Yes, but the problem is again right, this
did not spring out of nothing right, and many of
these thinkers influenced some who later would turn into quote
unquote the woke, So fundamentally it's not an intellectually honest exercise.
The point of this is not to actually map reality.
Ironically enough, given his pretense to rationalism, the whole thing
is a desire to how can I tell my audience
that the people making fun of me on the internet
from my right are just as bad as the blue
haired nineteen year old female college students that I made
my bones dunking on on social media.
Speaker 4: That's the whole Yeah, I think you know what's weird
is we can admit there are racial collectivists on the right. Yes, Now,
you and I don't fall into those categories, and yet
somehow racial collectivism is moved into the same thing as distributism. Now,
I don't know about you, Burden, I'm sure you've got
thoughts on this. Catholics really aren't uh racial selectivists, I think,
as we're seeing by the great letter recently put out
by the USCCB or you actually aren't racial collectivists.
Speaker 5: Well, and that's why this is such a messy category,
right when when woke includes everyone from you kind of
like race first, Pagans too, and we'll get to this later,
the pharaohs of Egypt to like Starbucks baristas, what Catholic
social teaching. It's like, okay, this category means nothing. This
is just a The unifying factor is I don't like you,
which you know again, if we have, you know, fully
accepted kind of a postmodern view of politics, which I
don't think you have, Jimbo, or at least you would
be unwilling to admit, then fair enough, right, But if
you have this pretense to labels meaning something, you know,
language being correlated to uh, you know, a knowable and
a knowable reality unbound by human consciousness, we find ourselves
in a very different position. Uh, I want to keep
going bird because we've got.
Speaker 4: This is so unusual. Man, The stuff that you are
showing me is contrary to what I understand about philosophy. Like,
I don't the I am so confused by an atheist
who is essentially like a human common sense realist, right, Like,
that's ultimately the metaphysical position that I think is being
advocated for. Hume's whole thing was let's ditch aquine us
because we can just use ordinary experience and sentiment to
establish how reality works for us, moral reality works for us.
Yet we are seeing a functionally Aristotelian Tomas critique of
modern reality. It's borrowing from the Thomas diagnosis, but it's offering,
as you said, this kind of Scottish Enlightenment prescription, which
is that we just need common sense and science. So
it's speaking out of both sides of the mouth. On
the one hand, it's saying God is the basis of reality,
and on the other hand, it's saying, but we don't
want God to be too involved in our present day
real circumstances. That's what's so weird about it is for
a person to say God is the basis of reality,
then to also say, well, we don't want to get
too distributists about stuff. It's like, wait, hold on, what
do we actually believe is reality here? Because that is
a bird?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so this is just a placeholder. It's kind of
just generic liberal cringe. The next one bird legitimately the
most baffling image I have ever or scene. It is a
sort of bizarre image. Macro ok going on here, Well,
we'll scroll down through the top for the new Christian intellectual.
I didn't notice that. I'm going to go search that
because one of the things that really sister her about
this is, uh, this.
Speaker 4: Is fucking Straussian. That's all this is. This is Strauss,
This is recapturing the Christian right, that's all this is. Yes,
so for the service of the katari is it's the
second half of the sentence because James Lindsay probably has
something on his computer that makes him beholden to a
group of people who are really good at finding the
bad things on your computer. Is that what we're seeing
is that all this is this is just neo Straussian
run by a guy who's got some skeletons in his closet.
I mean, is that all this is really like? Is
this just a very advanced rhetoric to to to this
is weird? Man. Also, the symbol on the bottom, are
you seeing underneath the arrow? What's going on there?
Speaker 5: Which? But if you've gone through the same Pizzagate deep
dive I had, many others have is going on in
the past couple of weeks, that'll see familiar. Okay, So,
to be fully fair, this isn't from Lindsay. This is
from I think a classical liberal on X great follow
highly recommend it.
Speaker 4: Okay, So and he made this, he made this in
a Lindsayan mode or okay, okay this you say, he's great,
one hundred percent, he's hilarious. Uh Okay.
Speaker 5: We have again a political spectrum. Right. We have on
the mutually exclusive principles statism capitalism. The right side is
defined by free markets, the left side socialism. What is
the farthest left on.
Speaker 4: The spectrum of ancient Egypt.
Speaker 5: Yep, and then it is communism, fascism. The twenty ninety
US mixed economy, which I find out that I find
it kind of funny that the twenty nineteen US mixed
economy is roughly equidistant from ancient Egypt and the original
American Constitution. Just fundamentally I find that funny. So again,
it's sort of a political spectrum. I don't know what
this spiral symbol means, but you see it quite often,
so I guess maybe it's supposed to be the spell
of dialectics.
Speaker 4: Check check, we're back in a.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you're back where effectively a wizard named Dialectic uses
magic to frog march you to the left? I think, wow,
I'm not really entirely sure. Otherwise, here on the bottom,
after the wizard drawing, we have quite possibly the most
confusing in it yet.
Speaker 4: Why is with all of the spirals? What is going on?
Speaker 5: I think that that means dialectics.
Speaker 4: Oh okay, that's there was a lot of dialectics being
spoken of in those emails. I guess yes.
Speaker 5: Uh so, what we have here is a guy in
a boat labeled personal liberty. You have is this character
called siren Head? Why is he there?
Speaker 4: That's siren Head? That's correct, that's a creampypasta?
Speaker 5: Yeah, why who knows? And we have a beautiful mermaid
labeled both leftism and Christian nationalism. And this is is
labeled the exoteric and a curlocue arrow going down through
communism to a bunch of angry fish people labeled fascism
and the esoterists.
Speaker 4: It's dude, what I've realized is they are at the okay, yes, okay.
What I've realized is the people objecting to nominalism or
having a very difficult ability of parsing language and image
because they put words in places in the image that
have no meaning. Yes, the every meme is the same meme,
which is saying anything other than pure capitalism is ultimately nominalism,
which is ultimately totalitarian Egyptian gnosticism. So it doesn't matter
where any of the words are located. That's it doesn't matter.
This is almost a mystery Babylon, dude. This is always
like monomithic mystery Babylon stuff. This is like how they think,
oh my god, we have another individualism. There's the word. Okay.
I was waiting for when that word would come up,
because they call themselves rational in divalists, I think is
one of the things you'll you'll hear a lot from
the Lindsay crowd is the atomic individual type of people.
Speaker 5: And the idea is yet again that that fascism is
functionally identical to communism, are squeezing out this sort of individualism.
But we're coming up on time, so I'll go through
and select some of the bat Oh yeah, by.
Speaker 4: The way, is objectivism. Oh these are all objectivists. That's
what this is. This is just objectivism. Okay, now I
know what I'm dealing with, and I know why it's
so philosophically hard headed. They were seeing new objectivism.
Speaker 5: So this is where we get to the Antifa stuff.
So this woman cj the palmer Worm, She's great. I
follow her on subjecon on YouTube. She does, like Ai Shorts,
kind of going over this material. But I will I
will let you Oh shoot, I'll let you read this one.
Michael O'Fallon very minister individual connected to some very suspicious people.
He is ontn't happy. So that is all alleged. Do
your own research. But again you see the connection of
the Theosophism at the Catholic church. Yeah, but I'll have
you as a struggle to use photoshop. I'll have you
read this one bird.
Speaker 4: Okay. Are Catholics aware that Saint Michael has been a
major part of theosophist doctrine for transitioning society into the
age of Aquarius Blovotsky, Steiner, et cetera. Catholics, do you
have any discernment left? Can you not see when aspects
of your own doctrine are co opted to Luciferian ends?
Where is that theological line delineating between Catholicism and Luciferianism.
Your faith is being sublated into dialectical pantheism in parentheses,
evolving perennialism by your own pope's admission and approval. Not
enough of you are discerning the wolves operation within your
ranks for far too long. I mean, who has been
complaining about Frankist infiltration into her religion forever? I mean,
was it anyone other than Catholics? I don't know, was
it anyone else?
Speaker 5: I mean, there's actually a particular Catholic and my favorite
woman of color and mad.
Speaker 4: Mobs mine too, right, Well, she was. She's making quite
a larger point than the one that I was just making.
For what it's worth, my point was just a group
infiltrated in another group. Hers was that group has infiltrated
everything in society and nobody else has. By the way,
that was.
Speaker 5: Ruiting her dreams by the way.
Speaker 4: I know, oh my god, don't even get me started
on her dreams. Look that post that you showed me
is there's there's a lot in that post, and we
don't have the time to go into it. My one
thought about the posts is simply we have been complaining
about this. That's all that I'll say. It has not
gone unnoticed.
Speaker 5: Well, and it's especially weird because many of those people
who would have made that complaint did it in a
way that would not be uh, would not be acceptable
to O fallen and COO right of course, Yeah, which
I find just incredibly amusing. So we jeez, we got
so many of these. Oh I accidentally did this one twice,
So one more.
Speaker 4: Man, I'm sure honestly burden. I'm sure anybody listening to
this is so bamboozled as we are, is so bamboozled
they're probably begging for this episode to be over.
Speaker 5: Good. I want Tom to beg I have developed a
disdained for my audience, So this is why I keep
doing it. Yeah, this is why I thought this one
was funny. So this is the new term. Twelve two tribes,
one mindset, tribal woke right, tribal woke left. All the
points are basically the same, but the word twok I
think is particularly amusing and also again not particularly understanding.
Speaker 4: Uh I don't know. This is really weird to me.
Is equity safe spaces? Language codes is contrasted with purity, loyalty, conformity. Okay,
where did loyalty comments say?
Speaker 5: Those just sound like virtues at least two or three.
Speaker 4: Purity obviously, purity depends on how that word is being used,
and conformity, I guess similarly, how is that word being used.
But loyalty is a sort of rhetorically strong word, like
almost everybody thinks loyalty is a good thing. It's just
it's so weird. A lot of this is yeah, perplex
language games. A lot of this is like, uh, I
wish I had the right word for it. But there's
a thing that objectivists love to do. This when you
argue with objectivists, but largely anybody who's trying to bamboozle you, Oh,
dish gallop. There's a lot of dish galloping that kind
of goes on in these memes. As you said, in
another way, a word salad or mucho texto, they kind
of just load a lot of words in when it's
not necessary. It's not really what they mean, and you're
kind of scratching your head and going, well, what do
you believe because you've just said loyalty is a bad thing?
Like what does that mean? It's just so unusual to
me more or less weird? Oh my god, Okay, I'm sorry.
Thing staring at this thing.
Speaker 5: Because they seem to believe that the trip, the tribe
that is a hard word to say, the twoke right,
if you will, has apparently controls the engine of state
cultural enforcement.
Speaker 4: I think by that they must mean like you two
Tube and podcasts, which we kind of do dominate. But
I don't know what they mean by state. But they
I don't know what they mean by state. I don't think.
See again, when libertarians use the word state, what they
really mean is coercion. So they kind of they kind
of lump two words together that otherwise have nuanced meanings,
even if in function they do the same thing. So
state cultural enforcement might just mean the ability to set
what is appropriate in government by cultural enforcement? Is that
what that means? I don't know. Man, Again, this is
like an info hazard. Do you think too hard? About
it and you start to think harder than the person
who made it, and that's just a trap.
Speaker 5: The bird. Where can people find you?
Speaker 4: Man nowhere, don't don't find me?
Speaker 5: What what what?
Speaker 6: What?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 6: What's not but
Speaker 5: Mgariagary Program