Latest / UK Column Radio / How Xi Jinping Became Hitler | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

How Xi Jinping Became Hitler | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:30
Speaker 1: My name is Jerm. This is Germ Warfare, the Battle
0:33
Speaker 1: of Ideas. Matthew Garrett. Thank you for joining me in
0:36
Speaker 1: the Strangers.
0:38
Speaker 2: All right, Jerm. Always a pleasure.
0:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's been a process trying to get you
0:43
Speaker 1: on because you've been oversleeping. I've been.
0:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then and then yeah, my mother had a
0:50
Speaker 2: head to deal with a certain infestation at her place,
0:52
Speaker 2: and then that screwed up one of our attempts. But
0:55
Speaker 2: but here we are. It finally worked out.
0:57
Speaker 1: We funny you say that we had a facetation just
1:01
Speaker 1: a few days ago, not of whatever it is that
1:04
Speaker 1: you had. We we had some weird kind of en
1:08
Speaker 1: but like a really really big end and they I
1:13
Speaker 1: don't know where they came from, but they have been
1:14
Speaker 1: destroying my wife's flowers.
1:19
Speaker 2: Yeah. Ants, you know, I always liked answer. They're very communal,
1:24
Speaker 2: and it's fun to watch them all like look out
1:25
Speaker 2: for each other and stuff. But once you get them
1:28
Speaker 2: in the garden, they're they're communists.
1:31
Speaker 1: They're communists, they're calmis. Ultimately, yeah, well, hang on, there's
1:37
Speaker 1: a segway. So let me start off asking you a question,
1:42
Speaker 1: why is Shijing ping Hitler?
1:47
Speaker 2: Why? Well, if you were a a radical black pilled anarchist.
1:53
Speaker 2: It would be because Shijing Ping uses big government to
1:57
Speaker 2: do things. And in the scillogious formula that is prevalent
2:01
Speaker 2: amongst many, not all, but many among the radical ideological
2:07
Speaker 2: anarchist groupings who are in the alternative media space, they've
2:09
Speaker 2: come to this weird formula that is very simplistic, but
2:15
Speaker 2: that asserts that because if anybody uses government to do things,
2:21
Speaker 2: then that person is just like Hitler. Because Hitler used
2:25
Speaker 2: government to do things, and JFK and Franklin, Roosevelt and
2:29
Speaker 2: Lincoln used government to do things just like in our
2:32
Speaker 2: modern world changing. Ping is using government to build infrastructure
2:36
Speaker 2: and harmonize action for long term things, just like Hitler,
2:41
Speaker 2: and that act alone puts them all in the same
2:43
Speaker 2: basket as being equally tyrannical, dictatorial pushing things down the
2:48
Speaker 2: road to serf them. And it really is pretty simplistic
2:52
Speaker 2: because the idea of like, well, are they doing good
2:54
Speaker 2: things or bad things? Are the principles animating the policies
2:58
Speaker 2: of let's say Hitler's Nazi German any, Lincoln's greenback system
3:02
Speaker 2: in America, and Hijin Ping's policies over the last ten
3:07
Speaker 2: years under the Belton Road initiative. Are they good? Are
3:10
Speaker 2: they in harmony with natural law? Are they bad? Are
3:13
Speaker 2: they medievalist feudalist programs to enslave the masses? No regard
3:19
Speaker 2: for that, it doesn't matter. That question is irrelevant in
3:22
Speaker 2: the ideological sort of package that comes with many who
3:26
Speaker 2: are of the again radical anarchistic sort of viewpoint. That is,
3:32
Speaker 2: of the nature that that I attacked a little bit,
3:35
Speaker 2: or at least I polemicized against a little bit in
3:37
Speaker 2: my recent article how She Jining became Hitler that you
3:41
Speaker 2: that you just referenced.
3:43
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I mean, so this is what the conversation
3:46
Speaker 1: is premised on. It's that sub stack and the reason
3:50
Speaker 1: why I caught my tension. And we won't obviously go
3:53
Speaker 1: into names, but it basically it's a it's basically a
3:59
Speaker 1: kind of respects to a number of various attacks that you, Cynthia,
4:05
Speaker 1: and me and many others have experienced over the last
4:08
Speaker 1: few months. But what's actually more important is the framework
4:12
Speaker 1: that you have laid out. It's very complex. So if
4:17
Speaker 1: you don't mind start off with like a simplified version
4:20
Speaker 1: and then let's go into it.
4:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, Yeah. The idea that originally I was struggling
4:30
Speaker 2: with whether or not I was going to respond since
4:33
Speaker 2: these attacks, which really at least I've noticed at least
4:36
Speaker 2: began heavily in twenty twenty five, right around Trump's second term,
4:42
Speaker 2: when the anti China program became much more virulent. It
4:47
Speaker 2: had already been going on in Trump's first term, especially
4:50
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty it really started getting ugly with COVID,
4:54
Speaker 2: and then under the Biden regime it expanded and it
4:58
Speaker 2: got it I would say, amplified in a much more
5:03
Speaker 2: vicious manner, both in the rhetoric used to paint the
5:05
Speaker 2: image that China is this evil entity, but then in
5:08
Speaker 2: action as far as the policies of putting al Qaeda
5:12
Speaker 2: into power in Syria, the overt I mean, it's very
5:15
Speaker 2: clear for anybody who actually just looks for it that
5:18
Speaker 2: one of the top ambitions of US foreign policy since really,
5:23
Speaker 2: you know, March of twenty twenty five, has been just
5:26
Speaker 2: destabilized China destabilized the broader Eurasian area, the Belton Road initiatives,
5:32
Speaker 2: the ports, the Maritime Silk Road, the North South transportation
5:37
Speaker 2: corridor that has been built up very carefully and systematically
5:40
Speaker 2: over many, many years by Russia, China Iran played a
5:44
Speaker 2: very has played a very very important role, and all
5:47
Speaker 2: of these things have been systematically targeted, right, and the
5:50
Speaker 2: idea is to just increasingly destabilize Eurasia since Eurasia has,
5:54
Speaker 2: according to his big new Brazinski, represented the only especially
5:58
Speaker 2: the Russia China Iran alliance has represented the only possible
6:03
Speaker 2: serious threat to the new world order that was envisioned
6:07
Speaker 2: by some of the nineteen nineties championing an end of history.
6:11
Speaker 2: So anyway, I've been Cynthia and I have been for
6:16
Speaker 2: many years very close China watchers. Following the policies of
6:20
Speaker 2: the Belton Road Initiative. We've given many conferences going back
6:23
Speaker 2: to twenty fourteen public conferences talking about why what is
6:28
Speaker 2: the strategic value is the quality of cultural thinking that
6:31
Speaker 2: has been revived, especially through China's leadership around Shijingping. What
6:36
Speaker 2: are the battles of the Chinese deep state? So we've
6:38
Speaker 2: mapped a lot of these things out. What about the
6:40
Speaker 2: Russian deep state architecture? Where, what are its origins? How
6:43
Speaker 2: does it influence for the bad things inside of Russia? Inversely,
6:47
Speaker 2: where are the patriots? What are the deeper, better traditions
6:50
Speaker 2: that have been organized and revived against this other agency,
6:55
Speaker 2: just like we've done mapping out in the West, sort
6:57
Speaker 2: of similar exercises to see, well, what are the the good,
7:01
Speaker 2: vible parts of US history, of European history, and what's this,
7:07
Speaker 2: what's this other thing, what's this other very evil agency,
7:10
Speaker 2: this parasite that's latched on for centuries, if not millennia.
7:13
Speaker 2: So we've done, we've been doing this exercise, try to
7:15
Speaker 2: make it public. And it became more and more clear
7:19
Speaker 2: that that there was an effort to really really destabilize
7:25
Speaker 2: Shot his efforts to build an alternative, an alternative framework
7:29
Speaker 2: of cooperation based on long term thinking and really some
7:32
Speaker 2: of the best ideas that I've found that animated the
7:36
Speaker 2: West when we were not crazy yet has you know,
7:40
Speaker 2: been targeted. And around that same time, I started finding
7:44
Speaker 2: that there were an increased array of attacks on anybody
7:49
Speaker 2: in the sort of I guess you can call it
7:50
Speaker 2: the alternative media information space UK column you guys, Cynthia myself,
7:57
Speaker 2: we started getting these different slanders. Strangely that just increased
8:03
Speaker 2: months to month, and then in twenty twenty sixty we
8:06
Speaker 2: saw a really big spike of different things that were
8:10
Speaker 2: painting any all of us as just China shells, multipolar
8:13
Speaker 2: max in China shills.
8:15
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, let me just jump in there. I want
8:21
Speaker 1: to brag if you don't mind, because I am one
8:23
Speaker 1: of the very few people that I know of who's
8:26
Speaker 1: actually been to the hot of the Belton Roade initiative.
8:29
Speaker 1: So I hope you are very jealous, Matt, I.
8:31
Speaker 2: Am, I am, Yeah, you got to see what You're honest.
8:34
Speaker 2: I've only been to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau Cynthia.
8:38
Speaker 1: No, No, that's far away, it is.
8:40
Speaker 2: No, You've actually been a Shinchang, shinjang Eh.
8:43
Speaker 1: And more specifically to Cashgar and the actual cities where
8:47
Speaker 1: the Belton Road initiative is what's the word not founded,
8:55
Speaker 1: it's where, it's where the central nervous system of the
9:00
Speaker 1: Balden World initiative actually is. It's an incredible thing to
9:03
Speaker 1: see people don't understand the magnitude of what they are doing.
9:08
Speaker 1: And I think it's because of that that that area
9:12
Speaker 1: is politically sensitive, because you have m I six and
9:15
Speaker 1: you have every Western intelligence agency trying to destabilize that region.
9:21
Speaker 2: And how what did you encounter when you were in
9:24
Speaker 2: Kashgar and Shinjang. Was it a horror show of weaker
9:28
Speaker 2: genocide and and in sleeping of the people or.
9:32
Speaker 1: It also yeah, it was there were just you know,
9:34
Speaker 1: bodies lying everywhere. We went to a wega wedding in
9:40
Speaker 1: I think it was cash gar where you know, shame
9:43
Speaker 1: those poor people that were having the last party. You know, Ever,
9:48
Speaker 1: if you if you.
9:48
Speaker 2: Say statistics proving the increased longevity, the increased number overall
9:52
Speaker 2: quantity of population of the wiggers, if you if you
9:57
Speaker 2: say these different things, the the provable demand, consperable increased
10:01
Speaker 2: demographic standards alone, just on an objective on an objective level,
10:04
Speaker 2: access to electricity, access to fresh running water over the
10:09
Speaker 2: past fifty years, and just like bring that to the surface.
10:14
Speaker 2: That's still just Chinese propaganda. You can't believe it. They'll
10:17
Speaker 2: they never let truth out. And then if you put
10:19
Speaker 2: somebody actually on the ground with eyes to see and
10:22
Speaker 2: to go and talk to the people, were you being curated?
10:25
Speaker 2: Did you have the Chinese.
10:26
Speaker 1: No soldiers met even police, even police in Shinjang or
10:33
Speaker 1: ugas well?
10:35
Speaker 2: There you go, right, I mean, yeah, well so you can't.
10:40
Speaker 1: Wait, but it is a fairly militarized province. You know,
10:44
Speaker 1: compared to the rest of China. But again, as call
10:47
Speaker 1: has said, it's because of the attempts to destabilize the region.
10:51
Speaker 1: But we're going off topic a little bit. Yeah, the
10:54
Speaker 1: point is that me saying something positive, or let me
10:57
Speaker 1: rephrase that me not trashing China makes me a China maxa.
11:02
Speaker 1: So I've experienced a lot of these similar texts. But
11:05
Speaker 1: the other one that's actually for me more interesting, which
11:07
Speaker 1: your article deals with, and I want you to just
11:09
Speaker 1: expand on it a bit, is unipolarity versus multiplarity, and
11:15
Speaker 1: what is going on in that dichotomy?
11:19
Speaker 2: Well, you know, and this is the thing, right, It's
11:22
Speaker 2: it's like for so for the novice, who I don't
11:25
Speaker 2: think is watching your show right now, I think everyone's
11:27
Speaker 2: probably a dept at this language. But you know, it's
11:30
Speaker 2: been recognized that there's sort of different ways of imagining
11:34
Speaker 2: the organization of the world, which encompasses different nation states,
11:38
Speaker 2: different cultural traditions, different individuals. Clearly, so there's a lot
11:43
Speaker 2: of individuation, different differences. But then how do we live together? Right,
11:48
Speaker 2: And on the one hand, you have the Leviathan crowd,
11:51
Speaker 2: the hobbsy and groupings who have to view that the
11:54
Speaker 2: only way to ever have peace and stability is through
11:58
Speaker 2: some levias and some head jamon from above the nations,
12:01
Speaker 2: above the game, imposing some form of rules that keep
12:07
Speaker 2: the basically keep feudalism in place, that keep everybody from
12:12
Speaker 2: naturally killing each other, which is what we would do
12:14
Speaker 2: as beasts. As human beings, are only capable of being selfish, consuming,
12:19
Speaker 2: drawing down resources if left to our own devices, and
12:23
Speaker 2: thus resulting in conflict with our neighbors, conflict with those
12:26
Speaker 2: who think or speak or look differently. And it's a
12:29
Speaker 2: very cynical way of defining human beings. But the British
12:32
Speaker 2: Empire around Thomas Hobbes really organized their entire existence. I
12:35
Speaker 2: would say every modern empire organized. It's a foreign policy,
12:41
Speaker 2: it's domestic policy around some variation of that hobbsy and
12:44
Speaker 2: idea of the leviathan of the hedgemon, and that more
12:48
Speaker 2: recently became the unipolar notion. In more recent I'd say,
12:53
Speaker 2: since this collapse of the Soviet Union, right that we're
12:55
Speaker 2: in the end of history, that now you know, it's
12:58
Speaker 2: only a matter of tying up blue ends. As this
13:01
Speaker 2: supernational one world government run by an unelected cast of
13:05
Speaker 2: high priests is brought in to impose order from above.
13:10
Speaker 2: The other alternative idea to that has been the notion
13:13
Speaker 2: that no, we can coexist together. We can have faith
13:16
Speaker 2: that we won't naturally just go to war unless there's
13:19
Speaker 2: maybe intelligence agencies stoking the fires of arson between countries
13:23
Speaker 2: and maybe finding terrorist cells and Islamist extremists or whatever
13:28
Speaker 2: extremist do you want to imagine on the list of possibilities.
13:31
Speaker 2: If you don't have the MI six's and the cias
13:33
Speaker 2: doing that, then we would naturally find ways to work together,
13:38
Speaker 2: to play together, to find solutions to objectively clear problems
13:43
Speaker 2: that encapsulate the Hindu, the Buddhists, the Muslim, the jew
13:47
Speaker 2: the Christian, everybody would naturally orient themselves to looking for
13:51
Speaker 2: what makes us human, to respect our differences while not
13:54
Speaker 2: just evangelizing or trying to impose what we think the
13:57
Speaker 2: world should be onto our neighbors. That would be the
13:59
Speaker 2: more optimistic idea of human nature, and that one in
14:03
Speaker 2: a practical political sense, became increasingly termed i'd say, over
14:07
Speaker 2: the last thirty years or so, the multipolar option. Now,
14:10
Speaker 2: of course, that doesn't mean that there that every like.
14:17
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that cannot be perverted into something evil either.
14:21
Speaker 2: So I'm acknowledging that there is an evil kind of
14:27
Speaker 2: Orwellian idea of multipolarity. And I think when you hear,
14:31
Speaker 2: you know, Klaus Schwab was for period even saying that
14:35
Speaker 2: multipolarity is the new the new world order. You know,
14:38
Speaker 2: he's saying the words, does he have an idea of that,
14:42
Speaker 2: of of what that means? That's not necessarily unipolar? No,
14:45
Speaker 2: I would say, it's it's just a different species, a
14:47
Speaker 2: different coloring of unipolar in his mind. It's not the
14:50
Speaker 2: same meaning as when a Hi Jinping or a Putin
14:53
Speaker 2: has said those very same words. And there's the in
14:57
Speaker 2: the mind of let's say, a Rubio, of a Neo,
15:00
Speaker 2: of a Klaus Schwab. I would say, it's much more Orwellian,
15:03
Speaker 2: It's much more based. If you think about the construct
15:05
Speaker 2: of what George Orwell laid out for what he envisioned
15:08
Speaker 2: the future world order to be. And he had an Eurasia,
15:11
Speaker 2: an East Asia, an Oceania representing essentially the Anglo American
15:17
Speaker 2: sphere of influence that would always be used as sort
15:20
Speaker 2: of look, these fascist jurisdictions run by a common control mind.
15:27
Speaker 2: You that would always be kept in a state of
15:31
Speaker 2: apparent perpetual war from the from uh from bottom up.
15:36
Speaker 2: From that perspective, it would seem like they're constantly at war,
15:39
Speaker 2: but they would in a calculated way shift so that
15:42
Speaker 2: the enemy. Where Eurasia was fighting Oceania five years ago,
15:46
Speaker 2: now all of a sudden, Eurasia is the enemy and
15:49
Speaker 2: East Asia is the sorry. East Eurasia is the ally,
15:54
Speaker 2: and East Asia become east Asia becomes the new enemy.
15:58
Speaker 2: And things just flip around in this world. So there
16:02
Speaker 2: is this like Count Kudenhova Kalergi had a similar idea
16:06
Speaker 2: of an evil multipolarity that that was partially why Kudenhova
16:12
Speaker 2: Kalergi slipped in after Roosevelt was dead. In the San
16:15
Speaker 2: Francisco UN Conference articles fifty two to fifty six, where
16:21
Speaker 2: Richard Couden the founder of Pan Europe, the Pan European
16:24
Speaker 2: fascist movement that brought in membership including networks around Mussolini,
16:28
Speaker 2: around Hitler's banker hil march Schacht, many of the tholmon
16:33
Speaker 2: Texas members of the House the House of Habsburg. Even
16:37
Speaker 2: Otto von Habsburg himself actually was a member of this
16:39
Speaker 2: this Pan Europe of Fascist structure. The CFR members, all
16:47
Speaker 2: of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations were
16:49
Speaker 2: promoting the Kutenhova clergy agenda. Now he brought in these
16:53
Speaker 2: articles at the U at the founding Conference of the UN,
16:57
Speaker 2: article which should have never been in the UN constant
17:00
Speaker 2: articles fifty two to fifty four fifty six, which allowed
17:03
Speaker 2: for the creation of these regional blocks. So those articles
17:06
Speaker 2: allowed for something that should have been illegal, which is
17:08
Speaker 2: the creation of the European Union, which is always the
17:11
Speaker 2: idea is to strip nation states, individual individual nation states
17:15
Speaker 2: of their ability to have any sovereigns say in their
17:18
Speaker 2: destiny and move those those aspects of the nation state, banking, military,
17:24
Speaker 2: political harmonization to entities of unelected bureaucrats, which is what
17:31
Speaker 2: the European Union always was designed to be as an
17:33
Speaker 2: anti nation state regional bloc. NATO was created based upon
17:37
Speaker 2: the legal arguments made possible by Article fifty two that
17:41
Speaker 2: could the Claargy article, and so again that was allowed
17:44
Speaker 2: to that was designed to get away from to create again,
17:47
Speaker 2: you know, militaristic supernational entities that were then able to
17:52
Speaker 2: oversee things like Operation Gladio, the Secret Army Apparatus, so
17:56
Speaker 2: there's this evil version that some would would like to
18:01
Speaker 2: see the world adopt, an evil multipolarity. I'm of the view,
18:05
Speaker 2: and I think the evidence does speak quite well in
18:07
Speaker 2: supportive of what you've experienced, what you've evaluated, what Cynthia
18:11
Speaker 2: and I am with the many other people in the
18:13
Speaker 2: who actually look at this, who look at these variables,
18:17
Speaker 2: I think we're all of the view that there is
18:18
Speaker 2: still this healthy multipolarity that is being fought for and defended,
18:22
Speaker 2: which is particularly why China is so strategically attacked both
18:27
Speaker 2: in terms of slander but also in terms of asymmetrical
18:30
Speaker 2: warfare all across the board, and has been now for
18:33
Speaker 2: a number of years, because they're representing a genuine threat
18:36
Speaker 2: to those structures who would like to have this more
18:39
Speaker 2: Either they don't care either an evil unipolarity or multiplarity.
18:43
Speaker 2: They don't care. They just want feudalism. And from the
18:46
Speaker 2: standpoint of this Anglo American dominant access managing so much
18:50
Speaker 2: of the Western world.
18:52
Speaker 1: You make a very good point in terms of definitions
18:56
Speaker 1: and how we understand them. I'll give you just a
18:59
Speaker 1: practical example, the word communist. We were joking about it
19:02
Speaker 1: at the start of the conversation Now, if you ask
19:06
Speaker 1: your average American what is a communist? And you ask
19:10
Speaker 1: an average Chinese what is a communist, You're going to
19:13
Speaker 1: get two very different responses. So when somebody talks about multipolarity,
19:20
Speaker 1: what exactly are they talking about? Ultimately, that's what you're
19:24
Speaker 1: actually trying to break apart.
19:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm trying to get at the exactly the meaning
19:29
Speaker 2: of the terms because we get, I think, a little
19:32
Speaker 2: trapped into nominalism. Nominalism is a great way to brainwash somebody,
19:36
Speaker 2: because if you can get everybody to think that a
19:39
Speaker 2: particular word has a very fixed definition to it, then
19:45
Speaker 2: it's very easy to take a complex nuance subject and
19:51
Speaker 2: oversimplify it so that people actually don't understand what they're
19:54
Speaker 2: talking about. And I think everybody has experienced this where
19:56
Speaker 2: you're having a conversation with somebody who are using the
19:58
Speaker 2: same words, and then you come to realize into the
20:02
Speaker 2: conversation that gets more contentious that you're not you don't
20:05
Speaker 2: mean the same things with the words that you're using.
20:07
Speaker 2: You see this with capitalism too, right. Some people have
20:09
Speaker 2: a very healthy idea of capitalism because their idea of
20:13
Speaker 2: it is premised on the idea of personal competition, incentive, creativity,
20:21
Speaker 2: taking responsibility for your ideas. You know, Like there's a
20:26
Speaker 2: certain healthy aura about about some good notions of capitalism.
20:33
Speaker 2: Other people have a very bad idea of it because
20:35
Speaker 2: they've just been looking at different ways capitalism has been
20:39
Speaker 2: used as a cover by the British East India Company,
20:42
Speaker 2: or by Monsanto or these other you know, behemoth multinational
20:46
Speaker 2: agencies like Palanteer, you know, and they've just been looking
20:51
Speaker 2: at the fact that these things have been growing under
20:53
Speaker 2: the guise of capitalism, but in fact have been really
20:55
Speaker 2: covers for feudalism with a capitalist front. As Peter Theale
21:00
Speaker 2: even said in a lecture to I think it was
21:02
Speaker 2: Harvard students, that the purpose of the new capitalism is
21:06
Speaker 2: not competition but monopoly. And that's easy coming from a
21:09
Speaker 2: guy who's been a cardboard cut up for the military
21:12
Speaker 2: industrial Complex and the CIA since his early days at Stanford,
21:17
Speaker 2: because he's never actually had to compete for anything. He's
21:19
Speaker 2: always just had things given to him, just like Jeff
21:21
Speaker 2: Bezos at Amazon. With Amazon, it's destroyed small and medium
21:26
Speaker 2: enterprises all over North America beyond who can't compete with
21:30
Speaker 2: the type of incentives and no shipping charges for anybody
21:33
Speaker 2: who has an Amazon Prime subscription. You know, like, that's
21:37
Speaker 2: very convenient next day shopping, click of a button, next
21:39
Speaker 2: day you're going to get a package in the mail
21:41
Speaker 2: with like, you know, whatever you want. So would they
21:44
Speaker 2: exist though? Do they have a business model that allows
21:47
Speaker 2: them to exist without government subsidies? Could they have ever
21:50
Speaker 2: existed without massive government subsidies in the tens and hundreds
21:54
Speaker 2: of billions of dollars? No, they could not. That's not capitalism.
21:59
Speaker 2: So you know, again the people are even the same word,
22:00
Speaker 2: and then they're like, no, my idea. Their ideas are
22:02
Speaker 2: totally different and the same thing. Like you said for communism,
22:05
Speaker 2: you know, Sheijin paying a typical Chinese person's idea of
22:08
Speaker 2: the word is very different from the Marxist on a
22:11
Speaker 2: New York University camp, you know campus, who's thinking about
22:17
Speaker 2: burning down civilization and redistributing the wealth after they eat
22:20
Speaker 2: the rich. It's a very different, different notion.
22:23
Speaker 1: A good example of your capitalism argument that is, if
22:27
Speaker 1: I want one of your books sent to me, it's
22:31
Speaker 1: extremely expensive to ship from your side of the world
22:34
Speaker 1: to me. Amazon does it at a stupidly low rate.
22:38
Speaker 1: So now I'm you know, I have to now buy
22:42
Speaker 1: your book of Amazon if I want to get it
22:44
Speaker 1: to me cheaply.
22:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, and and and that's only because Amazon
22:51
Speaker 2: receives subsies from municipal, from state, from provincial, from federal agencies.
22:57
Speaker 2: There's all sorts of different centives in Canada where we
23:01
Speaker 2: have the Canadian Postal Service that's been around since it
23:04
Speaker 2: was founded by Benjamin Franklin in the seventeen fifties. They've
23:08
Speaker 2: been systematically just crippled because there has been a slow
23:11
Speaker 2: maneuver to take down a lot of these agencies and
23:17
Speaker 2: then replace. The only way that they're even surviving is
23:19
Speaker 2: that they've been forced to, on the one hand, cut
23:24
Speaker 2: the budget and fire so many of their staff. So
23:26
Speaker 2: the few who do work are underpaid, young people who
23:30
Speaker 2: don't get reliable hours. They don't get to know what
23:32
Speaker 2: hours are going to be there in two weeks, so
23:34
Speaker 2: it's impossible to have to plan a family. You don't
23:38
Speaker 2: know if you're going to earn enough money to pay
23:39
Speaker 2: your bills. You have to work a second job. So
23:41
Speaker 2: it's already like only the old ployees who've been around
23:44
Speaker 2: since the seventies or the eighties still have sort of
23:47
Speaker 2: a reliable income, but they're overworked as well. And then
23:51
Speaker 2: they're integrating Amazon services with the Canadian Postal service, so
23:54
Speaker 2: they're increasingly phasing it out as Amazon is being brought
23:58
Speaker 2: in to have a privatized them. But again it's a
24:01
Speaker 2: weird kind of privatization because it's only being made possible
24:04
Speaker 2: by this weird agency that has taken over the state
24:08
Speaker 2: and that has been using the instruments of the state
24:10
Speaker 2: over the past decades, especially since JFK was murdered. But
24:15
Speaker 2: to then prop up these new, vetted, seemingly private agencies.
24:19
Speaker 2: And we've seen this as well with the New Space movement,
24:22
Speaker 2: Jeff Bezos' Blue whatever it is, his private space agency,
24:28
Speaker 2: and Elon Musk's private space agencies, and Richard Branson and
24:33
Speaker 2: this whole idea. This is something that didn't exist in
24:35
Speaker 2: the nineties. It was entirely made possible through again government subsidies,
24:38
Speaker 2: a lot of military industrial contract contracts as well that
24:43
Speaker 2: gave all of these again seemingly private entities a massive,
24:48
Speaker 2: unholy edge to just destroy any small anybody trying to
24:52
Speaker 2: do what they do is impossible because they have the
24:54
Speaker 2: support of the security state, of the deep state, of
24:56
Speaker 2: the Qtel operations in which the CIA's venture cap front
25:00
Speaker 2: that vetted these particular individuals to be the selected frontmen
25:04
Speaker 2: who will then be used to build up palants here,
25:06
Speaker 2: to build up starlink and SpaceX and you know everything
25:12
Speaker 2: in between, the virgin you name it for. So they
25:15
Speaker 2: would have what appears to be you know, private billionaire
25:18
Speaker 2: tourism on the moon and casinos on the moon and
25:21
Speaker 2: mining mining operations on asteroids and beyond, which I'm not
25:24
Speaker 2: against mining in space. I think it could be cool,
25:28
Speaker 2: but it's like part of the systematic destruction of NASA,
25:33
Speaker 2: of the national space agencies that were created by JFK
25:37
Speaker 2: that are a little bit too much tied into the
25:40
Speaker 2: institution of the sovereign nation state per se, which I
25:44
Speaker 2: would say has been a long term mission of this oligarchy,
25:48
Speaker 2: this financier oligarchy, has been the destruction of the sovereign
25:51
Speaker 2: nation state in order to replace it with a one
25:53
Speaker 2: world government. Because the sovereignation state is a relatively new
25:56
Speaker 2: institution in the grand scheme of things, and it was
25:58
Speaker 2: something that was fought for in a freedom movement over centuries,
26:03
Speaker 2: especially since the the Italian Renaissance, and it emerged out
26:07
Speaker 2: of that idea that no people can have a say
26:10
Speaker 2: in their destiny. It's not just the kings and the
26:12
Speaker 2: hereditary lords who have the right to determine the course
26:16
Speaker 2: of action of a nation of a civilization, but it's
26:18
Speaker 2: every everybody can be not just simply a surf like
26:22
Speaker 2: subject to be you know, played with as mercenaries or
26:28
Speaker 2: as farmers for a plantation owner, but everybody that could
26:33
Speaker 2: become a citizen and thus participate through vote, through participation
26:39
Speaker 2: town halls, through union organizing in some manner of in
26:43
Speaker 2: some form of amptitude or another, with the general policies
26:46
Speaker 2: that are in an animated going to affect their kids
26:48
Speaker 2: and grandkids and the lives of everybody to come afterwards.
26:50
Speaker 2: And that was a very new innovative idea, and it
26:53
Speaker 2: built up. There is always a fight, but you know,
26:57
Speaker 2: unfortunately many amongst those who have positioned themselves to be
27:02
Speaker 2: influencers within this very dark media space, since there is
27:06
Speaker 2: a lot of darkness, a lot of evil, a lot
27:08
Speaker 2: of Satanism that has been trying to stay in the
27:10
Speaker 2: shadows over centuries that you know, thanks to the Internet,
27:13
Speaker 2: and it's great that we have the ability for people
27:16
Speaker 2: like you and me to actually have a voice, which
27:18
Speaker 2: in the nineties and the eighties, in the pre internet age,
27:21
Speaker 2: would have been unthinkable. You had to have gotten in
27:24
Speaker 2: good with a publishing house, meaning yet you know, you
27:27
Speaker 2: had to to probably agree to certain terms and conditions
27:31
Speaker 2: with those who had the big controls to get your
27:34
Speaker 2: book published and accessed in bookstores or magazine shops in
27:39
Speaker 2: order for your voice to have any influence. And all
27:41
Speaker 2: of a sudden that's not the case anymore. But there
27:44
Speaker 2: is there. There is a disproportionately large number of people,
27:49
Speaker 2: just because I think there may be a bit on
27:50
Speaker 2: the younger side in many of the cases under fifties,
27:53
Speaker 2: you know, fifteen younger. In many cases, they've only experienced hypocrisy, corruption.
28:00
Speaker 2: They've never they didn't live through John F. Kennedy. They
28:03
Speaker 2: weren't alive when Bobby Kennedy was giving his speeches. They
28:05
Speaker 2: didn't have a living memory of anything sane. And so
28:09
Speaker 2: it has become very easy to simply get black pilt
28:12
Speaker 2: and just say, well, the entire idea of hope, the
28:16
Speaker 2: idea of a fight against this empire, is an illusion.
28:19
Speaker 2: It's never been that the evil that Americas day is
28:22
Speaker 2: the evil it always has been, and so anybody trying
28:25
Speaker 2: to look for any positive angle on a fight is
28:29
Speaker 2: either a fool or they're a chaos agent that's out
28:32
Speaker 2: to give you false hope, and don't trust them. And
28:35
Speaker 2: that applies to the past, or it applies to the
28:37
Speaker 2: current configuration of our living world today, as far as
28:40
Speaker 2: those who like us identify that there are fights by
28:43
Speaker 2: legitimate people who are not genocidalists, who have who are
28:46
Speaker 2: wielding political influence and are resistant to this new world
28:50
Speaker 2: order great reset depopulation agenda to bring back feudalism.
28:54
Speaker 1: So, Matt, what you just said there has been a
28:58
Speaker 1: frustration of mine for quite a while. And I love
29:02
Speaker 1: what you said in your sub stack. You're opening a
29:05
Speaker 1: few paragraphs actually point to this. Let me read what
29:09
Speaker 1: you said. Yeah, pretty much, anyone you thought represented a
29:12
Speaker 1: movement towards goodness can easily be reframed as a villain,
29:17
Speaker 1: because you should be aware that there has never been
29:19
Speaker 1: a fight for goodness against evil which wasn't controlled by evil.
29:24
Speaker 1: That is what you were just talking about. The ultra cynical,
29:27
Speaker 1: blackpooled dark reading of everything. Name anybody, and I'm sure
29:32
Speaker 1: we can spin them.
29:36
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we've seen that you know and whether, yeah,
29:42
Speaker 2: it doesn't stop. But I had a little list of
29:44
Speaker 2: different examples in that essay as well.
29:46
Speaker 1: Yes, just give me hang on, let me read a
29:48
Speaker 1: few of them. Sure, because it's epic. George Washington, You're
29:53
Speaker 1: a Freemasonic slave owner. Benjamin Franklin, hellfire club child killer,
29:57
Speaker 1: Alexander Hamilton, rothschild bank puppet, Abraham Lincoln, abusive tyrant who
30:02
Speaker 1: hated freedom, Helen Keller, fake deaf, mutwo lied about learning
30:07
Speaker 1: other languages, Franklin, Roosevelt, corrupt banker, stooge, big government freemason.
30:12
Speaker 1: Jfk Well mafia run, corrupt, hotthead who probably killed Marilyn Monroe,
30:18
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King Junior, Robert F. Kennedy, goes on Socrates, Plato,
30:24
Speaker 1: even Jesus, Saint Paul, Saint Augustine. I mean, the point is,
30:29
Speaker 1: pick a name, any name.
30:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, any and it's it's you could.
30:34
Speaker 1: Find except except the person making the accusation.
30:38
Speaker 2: By the way, right, well, they're of course they're the
30:43
Speaker 2: they're on the side of late because they're the late
30:45
Speaker 2: that's shining itself onto the darkness. That is, all the
30:48
Speaker 2: things you thought were good were actually bad. And so
30:51
Speaker 2: how could they be possibly telling the truth, telling a lie.
30:54
Speaker 2: If if they're exposing evil and it's really you know,
30:58
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, what are you doing? You know, like,
31:00
Speaker 2: what are you doing with your life? If what you're
31:03
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure a lot of people are very
31:05
Speaker 2: authentic and believe what they're saying when they're looking at
31:07
Speaker 2: all of the these these negative spins. You could spin anything,
31:11
Speaker 2: you know, But but is it true? Is the question? Now?
31:15
Speaker 2: Maybe a lot of them believe that it's true what
31:17
Speaker 2: they're saying about Martin Luther King being an orgiastic, an
31:22
Speaker 2: orgiastic rapist, hypocrite, couldn't don't waste your time listening to
31:26
Speaker 2: his speeches or investigating what he was doing, what policies
31:30
Speaker 2: he's fighting for. Don't study the strategic his strategy in
31:35
Speaker 2: combating imperialism and UH and fighting for civil rights. Don't
31:39
Speaker 2: don't look at any of that, because he's just a
31:40
Speaker 2: hypocritical racist. You know. I'm like, Okay, is there evidence
31:46
Speaker 2: to back that up? Well, there there are data points
31:49
Speaker 2: that are brought to the surface. There there are citations
31:52
Speaker 2: of people who said that he was But just because
31:56
Speaker 2: somebody says that somebody is a bad thing, writes it
32:00
Speaker 2: in paper, that it gets published in a book, does
32:03
Speaker 2: that make it evidence that this person that that they're
32:07
Speaker 2: that they're telling the truth. I mean, it's in a book.
32:09
Speaker 2: Now for some people, that's sufficient that the that that
32:13
Speaker 2: it's not simply gossip because it's been published. It's like, well,
32:17
Speaker 2: there's many books that lie to you. There's many publishing
32:20
Speaker 2: houses that don't have an interesting truth. I would say
32:22
Speaker 2: almost all of them at this point. So the question
32:27
Speaker 2: is like, well, what are the when you look at
32:28
Speaker 2: the sources, what's the actual evidence that Hamilton was an
32:32
Speaker 2: agent of the Rothschilds? Really, what's the actual evidence. I
32:35
Speaker 2: know that there are constructs. I've seen the money Master's
32:37
Speaker 2: movies I've seen I've looked into the arguments that say
32:40
Speaker 2: that he is. But when you actually look at the data,
32:43
Speaker 2: look at who killed him, look at who killed the
32:45
Speaker 2: institutions of the national bank that he created, which we
32:48
Speaker 2: are told are precursors for the Federal Reserve. Is the
32:51
Speaker 2: Hamiltonian national banks? Well, just read their charter, look at
32:54
Speaker 2: what they did, Look at what they finance. Look how
32:56
Speaker 2: they're different from the Federal Reserve. How they actually finance
32:59
Speaker 2: the building up of great infrastructure, projects like the Eriie Canal,
33:03
Speaker 2: look at what his enemies did, who created Wall Street,
33:05
Speaker 2: like Aaron Burr, who actually was the founder of Wall Street,
33:08
Speaker 2: that co opted and took control of these agencies and
33:11
Speaker 2: destroyed them from within, and then you could start to
33:14
Speaker 2: get a better picture of the nuance the drama that
33:16
Speaker 2: allows for and appreciation. Once you get that in the mind,
33:20
Speaker 2: then you can revisit some of the simplistic arguments that
33:23
Speaker 2: we all encounter trying to make sense of the mapping
33:25
Speaker 2: of conspiracies or history as conspiracy, which is much more
33:29
Speaker 2: useful than looking at it the way that popular history
33:31
Speaker 2: books talk about history, which is shit just happened because
33:36
Speaker 2: Hitler couldn't become a painter, you know, Napoleon had a
33:39
Speaker 2: small penis, so these wars happened. It's like, that's not satisfying.
33:43
Speaker 2: But then when you look at the deeper free Masonic
33:45
Speaker 2: you know, coloring shaping the real reasons why World War
33:48
Speaker 2: two happened, why did the Napoleonic wars happen? That deal
33:51
Speaker 2: with these satanic agencies, these espionage networks, these deep state structures,
33:56
Speaker 2: it's much more interesting, but it's much more challenging too,
33:59
Speaker 2: because it takes a lot of there's more subtlety. You
34:03
Speaker 2: can't go in it with a simplistic mindset assuming that
34:08
Speaker 2: you could just sort of fit things in a pre
34:10
Speaker 2: existent definition that you have, because all of your definitions
34:12
Speaker 2: are all misshapen. You have to reevaluate all of your
34:16
Speaker 2: core definitions of things in order to go in with
34:19
Speaker 2: an understanding of like, well, what were the dynamics in
34:21
Speaker 2: which Hamilton emerged and did what he did and got
34:24
Speaker 2: killed doing what he did? And Lincoln emerged, developing his identity,
34:28
Speaker 2: developing his strategy with what network that he was allied
34:31
Speaker 2: with that were taking down? You know, during and then
34:34
Speaker 2: after the Civil War? What were they trying to do
34:36
Speaker 2: with Russia, What were they trying to do with China,
34:39
Speaker 2: with Peru building rail networks? Why did none of their
34:41
Speaker 2: beautiful ideas which were clearly going to happen? You know,
34:45
Speaker 2: we passed legislation in Congress in eighteen sixty four to
34:48
Speaker 2: extend Lincoln's Transcontinental Railway up through the Bearing straight into Russia,
34:52
Speaker 2: where Lincoln's allies were positioned around Alexander the Second, to
34:56
Speaker 2: continue to build up this network of this multi polar
35:00
Speaker 2: kind of world of cooperation long term thinking that would
35:04
Speaker 2: transcend outside of the control grid of the British East
35:09
Speaker 2: India Company of you know, this whole imperial structure of
35:14
Speaker 2: Forever Wars that was like where things were moving in
35:18
Speaker 2: the late nineteenth century. And then you can evaluate how
35:20
Speaker 2: all of these leading officials who were making it happen
35:24
Speaker 2: were all systematically killed. Garfield killed his all of his
35:28
Speaker 2: his ambassadors in Latin American many of them were assassinated, poisoned,
35:32
Speaker 2: McKinley killed. There's so many, including in Russia Alexander the
35:36
Speaker 2: second and the third and Nicholas the second. They were
35:39
Speaker 2: all assassinated, with so many people in Germany also going
35:42
Speaker 2: through the same fate and France who were all of
35:44
Speaker 2: the same orientation strategically in China. So you know, I'm like, well,
35:50
Speaker 2: who was doing the assassinations? Oh, it was a lot
35:53
Speaker 2: of anarchist, anarchist terrorists who were being like incubated in
35:57
Speaker 2: these weird communes all over North America, Canada, Russia, Europe
36:02
Speaker 2: that were being seemingly controlled by similar intelligence networks to
36:07
Speaker 2: be then sent out as disposable idiots to go and
36:11
Speaker 2: kill a high level target who which would then destabilize
36:15
Speaker 2: and upset this potential emergence of a world of cooperating
36:18
Speaker 2: sovereign nation states. So it's very similar in ideology to
36:22
Speaker 2: a lot of the anarchist philosopher's to day, who are
36:25
Speaker 2: having a very difficult time appreciating where are the good
36:28
Speaker 2: guys in history? Where are they today? They can't see it.
36:33
Speaker 1: It is no small irony that the founders of the
36:36
Speaker 1: Frankfurt School, which was obviously in opposition to the Austrian School,
36:42
Speaker 1: which anarchists typically despise, literally generated critical theory and birthed
36:47
Speaker 1: the abomination called workism based on this species of syllogism.
36:52
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that?
36:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that the idea of well critical theory
36:58
Speaker 2: is based on this weird Vivarian and like Max Weber
37:02
Speaker 2: Freudian Marxist syncretic analysis that was infused into our education
37:09
Speaker 2: system by the followers of Georg G. Lucax, the Bolshevik
37:13
Speaker 2: leader of the Cultural Minister of Bolshevik government in Hungary
37:17
Speaker 2: in nineteen nineteen, and he along with his very misanthropic colleagues,
37:23
Speaker 2: who all shared a similar self hating They're very anti human,
37:29
Speaker 2: they thought humans were just scum. They all had an
37:32
Speaker 2: intellectual framework that incorporated elements of Freud, elements of Weber's
37:37
Speaker 2: socio dynamics and Marx's critiques on capitalism, and Marx's a
37:42
Speaker 2: lot of his ideas, his garbage ideas that there is
37:46
Speaker 2: this intrinsic, perpetual class struggle where the nature of man
37:52
Speaker 2: demands that those who have, who control the levers of production,
37:58
Speaker 2: must necessarily exploit and enslave and destroy the lives of
38:04
Speaker 2: the masses of laborers, and that there's a natural antagonism
38:07
Speaker 2: between the workers and the like those who control the entrepreneurs,
38:12
Speaker 2: you know, and that those assumptions that those who are
38:16
Speaker 2: in elite positions, who have affluence, must always be parasitical
38:21
Speaker 2: and destroy the weak. It's very, again, a very hobsy
38:24
Speaker 2: idea of mankind. That was something that Marx believed was
38:28
Speaker 2: a perpetual truth that they also shared. But then they said,
38:31
Speaker 2: let's expand that and redefine the study of history of sociodynamics,
38:36
Speaker 2: of the self image of man around the idea that
38:41
Speaker 2: there is that that all norms, all ideas of justice,
38:47
Speaker 2: of good, of morality, are all the consequence of white
38:53
Speaker 2: European males, or white males in general, that have been
38:57
Speaker 2: the oppressive species imposing their will onto the masses, and
39:02
Speaker 2: thus the idea of Christianity, the idea of morality, all
39:05
Speaker 2: these things, the idea of the nation state, are just
39:06
Speaker 2: tools to enslave the oppressed women, people of other skin colors,
39:13
Speaker 2: people who were white men, which is poor you're going
39:16
Speaker 2: to be. All of these things are there to destroy you,
39:19
Speaker 2: and so critical theory was brought in to create the
39:22
Speaker 2: sort of i think victim identity, or at least that
39:25
Speaker 2: was the consequence was of a lot of people who
39:28
Speaker 2: only saw themselves as victims, especially if you were of
39:31
Speaker 2: a minority group, if you were a female, if that
39:33
Speaker 2: was part of the new feminist sort of third wave
39:37
Speaker 2: feminism idea, the black power movement was very stokely. Carmichael
39:43
Speaker 2: was very influenced by a lot of these ideas of
39:46
Speaker 2: the Frankfurt School as well, which then saw, well, the
39:49
Speaker 2: only way to have freedom is to overthrow the established order.
39:52
Speaker 2: And thus any type of idea that is prevalent in
39:56
Speaker 2: your society, whether it's of the Christian world, whether it's
39:58
Speaker 2: an idea of conventional morality, of justice, of the nation
40:01
Speaker 2: state of God, all these are just the Yeah, it's
40:05
Speaker 2: hierarchical structures imposed to keep us down, and we should
40:08
Speaker 2: just overthrow it all if we want to have freedom
40:10
Speaker 2: and liberation. The liberation movements came.
40:12
Speaker 1: Out of that order. Generally seems to be a result
40:16
Speaker 1: of hierarchy.
40:18
Speaker 2: Somebody's got to make Yeah, exactly, Try a classroom in
40:22
Speaker 2: any school. If you go to any elementary school and
40:25
Speaker 2: you remove the teacher and just say the kids are
40:27
Speaker 2: going to like teach themselves, see how see how that
40:30
Speaker 2: works out? I mean, you know, kids aren't gonna start
40:33
Speaker 2: teaching themselves Shakespeare or even just learning math or anything.
40:37
Speaker 2: You typically need to have some hierarchy. Someone's gotta, you know.
40:42
Speaker 2: But the question is is it going to be done
40:44
Speaker 2: by imposition by a dictator who doesn't give a shit
40:48
Speaker 2: about the human cows that he wants to just heard,
40:53
Speaker 2: or is it going to be done in a more
40:55
Speaker 2: lawful way that incorporates through a dialogue, through open conversation,
40:58
Speaker 2: open discourse, and participation. The participants, the humans who are
41:04
Speaker 2: not cows, will be part of the conspiracy to make
41:07
Speaker 2: a thing happen. And it really comes down, one is
41:10
Speaker 2: more difficult. One is more easy to get things done.
41:12
Speaker 2: It's more seductive sometimes to say I want to be
41:15
Speaker 2: the dictator, I don't have to deal with bureaucracy, red tape,
41:19
Speaker 2: stupid people who have dumb ideas. I could just get
41:21
Speaker 2: things done. And maybe there's a case to be made
41:23
Speaker 2: at different moments in history where things weren't a massive
41:26
Speaker 2: crisis where you needed, for at least a time, some
41:28
Speaker 2: form of a strong guy to get shit done in
41:31
Speaker 2: the moment. But is that the perpetual way you want to,
41:34
Speaker 2: like forever, organize something, Well, it's very cynical. If you
41:38
Speaker 2: have the idea that no human beings can get better,
41:40
Speaker 2: that we have this innate, innate capability to become better people,
41:46
Speaker 2: to become mature, to grow our powers of wisdom and discernment.
41:51
Speaker 2: If that's your idea, that culture can be something not
41:55
Speaker 2: just for the elite to benefit from, but for everybody
41:57
Speaker 2: to have access to the best of culture, so that
42:00
Speaker 2: we can learn to harmonize our desires individually with our
42:04
Speaker 2: sense of what we should and ought to do for
42:07
Speaker 2: our family, for our community, for a society at large.
42:10
Speaker 2: If you could do that, which I think is the
42:11
Speaker 2: purpose of good culture and good politics is to bring
42:14
Speaker 2: about that type of development, then I think the dream
42:18
Speaker 2: of having a more perfect union of democracies as possible,
42:22
Speaker 2: and I think that that actually, ironically is a healthy
42:24
Speaker 2: runs into a healthy form of anarchism that I mentioned
42:28
Speaker 2: in the paper. I would say that there are certain
42:32
Speaker 2: types of anarchism, if you want to call it, that
42:34
Speaker 2: that I agree with, and that I think I also
42:37
Speaker 2: I have in my heart, which is that the more people,
42:40
Speaker 2: as individuals culturally become excellent and can make these can
42:44
Speaker 2: love the joys of wisdom, of discovery, of doing something productive,
42:49
Speaker 2: the more that they learn those joys are of a
42:51
Speaker 2: transcendentally superior sort than the more guttural pleasures of the flesh,
42:58
Speaker 2: which are, you know, like you shouldn't not like you
43:00
Speaker 2: shouldn't enjoy cake or a beer, you know, every now
43:02
Speaker 2: and again. But it's like, that's not the purpose of
43:04
Speaker 2: your identity to be shaped by those lower pleasures. But
43:07
Speaker 2: the higher ones are are way better because they make
43:10
Speaker 2: your soul more joyful. As people learn to take pleasure
43:14
Speaker 2: in that, they don't need external laws as much, because
43:16
Speaker 2: their internal compass becomes more powerful and more discertain, you know.
43:22
Speaker 2: And as the internal lawfulness grows and grows, so our
43:26
Speaker 2: will and our duty harmonize more and more. You don't
43:30
Speaker 2: need external laws that prode or manipulate people, that can
43:35
Speaker 2: dissipate as people become more free in a true sense.
43:39
Speaker 2: So that's a healthy anarchism that I dig and I
43:44
Speaker 2: think you know, Ben Franklin and so many people who
43:47
Speaker 2: fought to make the world better all had that idea
43:50
Speaker 2: to get to that place, that city of God that
43:53
Speaker 2: Augustine talks about. That was the idea for the city
43:57
Speaker 2: of God of man to be, for the city of
44:00
Speaker 2: and to be organized around some metric of natural law,
44:04
Speaker 2: of God's law, such that our laws would be a
44:08
Speaker 2: reflection of the divine. That that's the the overarching I
44:12
Speaker 2: think goal for the best of humankind that has been
44:15
Speaker 2: part of a good conspiracy. And then that's seen as
44:18
Speaker 2: a threat by those who disagree and believe that human
44:21
Speaker 2: beings are actually much more wormlike scum to be controlled
44:25
Speaker 2: by some master class or master race and kept naturally
44:30
Speaker 2: in the darkest human talking cows. They don't like that,
44:33
Speaker 2: that that Augustinian idea. So there's this this tension built
44:36
Speaker 2: into the fabric of nature.
44:38
Speaker 1: Right, But Matt do what thou wilt, Well.
44:43
Speaker 2: Then there is that, right, yeah, Yeah, the Crowley Edicts
44:49
Speaker 2: of Thelima Thelma. Is it thelma Thalima?
44:52
Speaker 1: I have no idea how to pronounce it. I'm interviewed.
44:56
Speaker 1: What would you call it? An elder? No whatever. The
44:59
Speaker 1: equivalent to a church elder is of Anton Devey's Church
45:04
Speaker 1: of Satan once upon a time, no shit, And he
45:08
Speaker 1: was and he was telling me all about do what
45:11
Speaker 1: thou wilt. Well, I mean, look in a nutshell, those
45:15
Speaker 1: guys who identify themselves as Satanists are really just atheists
45:22
Speaker 1: who like to dress in drag and form their wives
45:24
Speaker 1: having sex with other men.
45:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there's something weird, right, Like from a
45:32
Speaker 2: help from what I was just saying earlier, if you
45:35
Speaker 2: actually aspire to wisdom, yeah, you should do what thou wilts.
45:42
Speaker 2: If everybody wants what is truly good because they've been
45:44
Speaker 2: culturally matured, you know, fine, Okay, but it seems like
45:50
Speaker 2: all of those Crowley a Levet followers just seem to be,
45:58
Speaker 2: like you said, more prone to hedonism and perversity and
46:02
Speaker 2: want just the right to just do whatever perversity that
46:07
Speaker 2: you know, gives them a thrill. And it's like when
46:11
Speaker 2: there's not a lot of philosophical meat on the bones
46:13
Speaker 2: of that thing. Yeah, and I sense that a lot
46:18
Speaker 2: of this comes down to a lot of the theories
46:20
Speaker 2: in the sort of early nation state era. A lot
46:26
Speaker 2: of it stems from I cited Hobbes earlier, but a
46:30
Speaker 2: derivative of Hobbes was this guy I don't know if
46:32
Speaker 2: you've heard of him, and named Bernard Mendeville. Have you
46:35
Speaker 2: heard of Bernard Mendeville, You have, okay, the Fable of
46:39
Speaker 2: the bees So he wrote this really influential book called
46:42
Speaker 2: the Fable of the Beeves or Private Vice's Public Virtues,
46:47
Speaker 2: and this is like the early seventeen hundreds, and his
46:49
Speaker 2: documents his thoughts as a theorist really became influential in
46:54
Speaker 2: the British Healthfire Club. The British Hellfire Club was a
46:58
Speaker 2: church of Satan that most members of the British government
47:02
Speaker 2: were members of throughout the eighteenth century. It became something,
47:07
Speaker 2: you know, it became the Phoenix Society after France Dashwood's
47:10
Speaker 2: order at Medmenham Palace or medem him this basically former
47:15
Speaker 2: monastery with caverns where they carried out all sorts of ritual.
47:20
Speaker 2: This is very powerful for like eighty years. So Mandeville
47:27
Speaker 2: and this became the Phoenix Society in like seventeen eighty
47:31
Speaker 2: three or so, run by Francis Dashwood's nephew. Anyway, Mandeville's
47:36
Speaker 2: private Vices public virtues made the case that the murderer
47:41
Speaker 2: seems like a bad guy, but that's only because of
47:43
Speaker 2: our conventional morality. But in fact, he says, when you
47:46
Speaker 2: look a little bit more closely, when the wise man,
47:48
Speaker 2: he says, looks a little bit more closely at the
47:51
Speaker 2: murderer who kills a guy and steals his wallet or
47:55
Speaker 2: his sack of gold, well he'll go to town and maybe
47:58
Speaker 2: he'll get across. And this is directly what Mandeville is saying.
48:02
Speaker 2: And he says, and you may think that getting a
48:04
Speaker 2: prostitute is immoral, but in fact, look the wise man knows.
48:07
Speaker 2: He looks a little bit closer, and he sees the
48:09
Speaker 2: goal that the murderer gave the prostitute. And she'll use
48:11
Speaker 2: that goal to go and buy some buttons for her blouse,
48:14
Speaker 2: and that will employ the button maker in the street.
48:17
Speaker 2: And she'll go buy some eggs and some milk for
48:19
Speaker 2: her kids, which will employ the farmers. And so it's
48:22
Speaker 2: actually a public virtue that you have these private vices,
48:25
Speaker 2: And all virtue is actually the consequence of private vices
48:28
Speaker 2: being permitted to just go unbounded, and the less regulation,
48:32
Speaker 2: the less national law that prevents us from doing what
48:35
Speaker 2: we wilst from preventing the murderer and the the whatever
48:41
Speaker 2: from doing whatever they want to do, the better for
48:44
Speaker 2: all of society. So the best society, the society that
48:48
Speaker 2: is governed best, is governed least in his mind, and
48:51
Speaker 2: he meant it from a very hedonistic standpoint, and then
48:54
Speaker 2: this was added to a little bit later on by
48:56
Speaker 2: Jeremy Bentham, who developed his hedonistic calculus, is the one
49:00
Speaker 2: of the most powerful intellects of the British Empire during
49:03
Speaker 2: and after the American Revolution, and the whole hedonistic calculus
49:06
Speaker 2: was taking Mandeville's system incorporated, which also inspired Adam Smith directly.
49:12
Speaker 2: Adam Smith was directly inspired by Mandeville. And when Smith
49:16
Speaker 2: formulated his seventeen fifty nine Theory of Moral Sentiments, he
49:19
Speaker 2: cites the same line of logic of Mandeville and makes
49:24
Speaker 2: the point that the only society that is legitimate societies
49:28
Speaker 2: that do not plan for the future. And he says
49:31
Speaker 2: that's the domain of God and not of man, says
49:33
Speaker 2: Adam Smith. He says that mankind is given the desire
49:37
Speaker 2: for lust, sex, passions, food. Those are the desires that
49:42
Speaker 2: mankind has been given by God to animate his identity.
49:46
Speaker 2: But planning for where society is supposed to go in
49:49
Speaker 2: the future, that is for God and not for man.
49:51
Speaker 2: We should detach ourselves, and any society that tries to
49:55
Speaker 2: do that is not a legitimate society. Which is why
49:58
Speaker 2: again in a lot of his ideas that were then
49:59
Speaker 2: re packaged and refined a little bit more in the
50:03
Speaker 2: Wealth of Nations published in three volumes starting in seventeen
50:05
Speaker 2: seventy six, we're directed against Benjamin Franklin, against Alexander Hamilton,
50:09
Speaker 2: and those people inside of the who were leading the
50:12
Speaker 2: American Revolution, who are saying, no, we should have the
50:15
Speaker 2: right to have protectionism, and we should have the right
50:17
Speaker 2: to develop a local industry that we currently don't have
50:21
Speaker 2: because we have been kept cash cropping and dependent on
50:24
Speaker 2: cheap exports to the foreign markets of the British Empire.
50:27
Speaker 2: For I mean, since the colonies began, and so they
50:31
Speaker 2: all wanted the right to say, okay, we should be
50:34
Speaker 2: able to direct to have this new type of idea
50:37
Speaker 2: of a republican nation that can direct the orientation of
50:41
Speaker 2: that society outside of the wishes of the Bank of England,
50:45
Speaker 2: of the British East India Company, that people like Bentham
50:50
Speaker 2: with his hedonistic calculus, and what Smith and then later
50:53
Speaker 2: Ricardo and Stuart Mill and all of these guys who
50:55
Speaker 2: were all followers of Mandeville. Even John Maynard Keynes and
51:00
Speaker 2: Frederick von Hyak today in our more twentieth century age
51:03
Speaker 2: were all followers of Bernard Mandeville. It's like, that's the
51:08
Speaker 2: same Frederick von Hyk of the Austrian school whose enemy
51:10
Speaker 2: was Keynes. You'd think, but they were lifelong friends. But
51:14
Speaker 2: they were both celebrating Bernard Mandeville. So maybe their differences
51:19
Speaker 2: were only skin deep. Maybe they actually had commonalities that
51:22
Speaker 2: were much more coren foundational. That was part of a
51:25
Speaker 2: big joke that was played as a sie up onto humanity.
51:29
Speaker 2: Just like if you look at the Battle of the
51:31
Speaker 2: nineteenth century, it wasn't called Keenes versus von Hyak. Is
51:35
Speaker 2: your two choices. If you want to be a politically
51:37
Speaker 2: minded person, you have to pick one, even if both
51:40
Speaker 2: might be controlled oppositions. In the nineteenth century it was
51:44
Speaker 2: Adam Smith or Marx pick one. It's like, well, they
51:46
Speaker 2: actually share a lot in common, and even Mark said
51:48
Speaker 2: that his ideal form of society would be one that
51:51
Speaker 2: is fully fully free market. He said that because in
51:55
Speaker 2: his mind, that would accelerate the internal contradictions of the system,
51:59
Speaker 2: so that the system would more quickly self implode under speculation,
52:05
Speaker 2: under expansionism, under chaos. Pretty much, He's like, that would
52:08
Speaker 2: be good, because then we can have our proletariat revolution
52:11
Speaker 2: more quickly, and then we'll get this perpetual utopia, which
52:14
Speaker 2: would never happen because it's a fantasy land. But they
52:17
Speaker 2: actually shared a lot of commonality, or both theories, even
52:20
Speaker 2: that would appear to be oppositional, actually shared a lot
52:24
Speaker 2: in common as far as the nature of humankind was concerned,
52:28
Speaker 2: what underlies it, and some of the mechanisms. So anyway,
52:31
Speaker 2: what was being left out of all of this was
52:33
Speaker 2: this Augustinian system of the science of political economy that
52:37
Speaker 2: people like, you know, the Colbertist school that generated the
52:40
Speaker 2: nation state in France, were pushing under maziniin Coldbert, that
52:46
Speaker 2: people like Hamilton had studied, that Ben Franklin had studied,
52:48
Speaker 2: who was refuting Thomas Maltis, refuting this other evil feudal capitalism,
52:54
Speaker 2: and this whole American system school that every American president,
52:58
Speaker 2: like I got across in my book, every American president
53:01
Speaker 2: who is assassinated while in office, of which there have
53:03
Speaker 2: been eight eight American presidents, four by bullet, for by poison,
53:07
Speaker 2: and then you can add a few other many other
53:09
Speaker 2: patriots who were not the president but were very influential
53:13
Speaker 2: as warriors, who also got killed. They're all they're all
53:18
Speaker 2: doing the same thing. They're not playing this controlled dialectic game.
53:21
Speaker 2: They're they're acting on something much more universal as far
53:25
Speaker 2: as the system of national economy. And it's not taught
53:28
Speaker 2: in schools anymore. It's been iced out of curriculums of
53:31
Speaker 2: the Western world. The only people who really celebrated in
53:34
Speaker 2: a serious hey, ironically is China, because Chida is actually
53:38
Speaker 2: doing the thing that made America not suck, and that
53:41
Speaker 2: they're actually like applying it in their own in their
53:43
Speaker 2: own version of it. You know, it's it's it's it's
53:46
Speaker 2: got it. It's not called the American system, clearly. But
53:49
Speaker 2: if you look at all practical like mechanics, the use
53:53
Speaker 2: of the productive protective system national banks productive credit tied
53:58
Speaker 2: to long term plans that increased the productive powers of labor.
54:03
Speaker 2: That is what made Lincoln's policy viable and attractive to
54:06
Speaker 2: the world in the nineteenth century, and that's what was
54:09
Speaker 2: being destroyed by the false dualistic options of Marx versus
54:13
Speaker 2: Smith or you know, von Hyak versus Keynes. Is they
54:17
Speaker 2: people missed fuls. What's outside of that?
54:23
Speaker 1: So you're effectively arguing in this article that the everyone
54:29
Speaker 1: is controlled opposition narrative is a kind of anarchist nihilism
54:38
Speaker 1: that serves the best interests of the elite.
54:42
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, I think it's ultimately they don't care how
54:45
Speaker 2: much information you know about how bad things are and
54:48
Speaker 2: how corrupt things are. They ultimately the elite. I don't
54:52
Speaker 2: want to call them that, but this this sociopathic oligarchical parasite.
54:56
Speaker 2: Let's call it that. I prefer that. One. They don't
54:59
Speaker 2: care how much you about the crimes they do. They
55:02
Speaker 2: they they really don't want you to be empowered to
55:04
Speaker 2: do anything about it. And I think ultimately the framework
55:07
Speaker 2: that is delivered with a lot of the conspiracy analysis
55:11
Speaker 2: of the black pilled like incompetently anarchistic crowd, is that
55:17
Speaker 2: they're very good at mapping out it's smelling evil, at
55:20
Speaker 2: smelling bad things and bringing that to the surface. But
55:23
Speaker 2: it disempowers people completely, so that the only thing, the
55:26
Speaker 2: only option that their followers have as an idea of
55:31
Speaker 2: action is detach, you know, enjoy the popcorn while you
55:37
Speaker 2: watch the everything everything burn. Yeah, maybe try to a garden.
55:42
Speaker 1: It's very dark garden, it's very dark.
55:45
Speaker 2: Yeah.
55:46
Speaker 1: Why would you get up in the morning, you know,
55:48
Speaker 1: why would you have any joy in your life?
55:52
Speaker 2: I don't know. Yeah, it's it. That's what kind of
55:55
Speaker 2: I mean. I get that there's a you know, you
56:01
Speaker 2: could lie to yourself and say, well, I want to
56:03
Speaker 2: evangelize this kind of black pilled gospel, because if there's
56:07
Speaker 2: enough of us who all share the same black pill
56:10
Speaker 2: and all detach from the system, maybe some magical parallel
56:16
Speaker 2: set of economies are going to occur and will be
56:18
Speaker 2: better equipped to Uh. Yeah, I think that that that
56:25
Speaker 2: anybody who does that becomes much more pliable and much
56:30
Speaker 2: more easy to pick off. At the end of the day.
56:32
Speaker 2: I think the oligarchy, who only exists and can can
56:36
Speaker 2: thrive by having divided societies of atomized individuals and atomized communities,
56:41
Speaker 2: they would like that. They would like more of that.
56:45
Speaker 2: So the idea of actually organizing the way we get
56:47
Speaker 2: in the better days many decades past, to take back
56:50
Speaker 2: control of the nation states, to use the nation state
56:53
Speaker 2: as a tool of the good, as a tool of
56:55
Speaker 2: offense and defense of ourselves, but offense against the empire.
56:58
Speaker 2: These things is what them power really doesn't want. They
57:01
Speaker 2: want us to get to basically champion the destruction of
57:04
Speaker 2: the nation state of the old order and being capable
57:09
Speaker 2: of resisting the bringing in of a new type of
57:11
Speaker 2: feudal social credit system designed to enslave you know, our
57:17
Speaker 2: kids today. That's that's what they would like. And I
57:19
Speaker 2: think a lot of people, yeah, who fall into the
57:22
Speaker 2: black pilled mindset are helping ultimately.
57:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I do wonder how many of those
57:29
Speaker 1: black pulled types are actually doing anything other than doom scrolling.
57:34
Speaker 2: Very few as far as I could see there. And
57:38
Speaker 2: another thing too, is they they the very medium that
57:41
Speaker 2: they're utilizing to spread their gospel comes from the like
57:45
Speaker 2: an electric an electrical grid. They're using electricity that relies
57:49
Speaker 2: upon satellites, that relies upon hydro electric dams, nuclear power plants,
57:54
Speaker 2: coal plants, that you've got a whole grid. They go
57:57
Speaker 2: to the bathroom and use the to they have running water,
58:01
Speaker 2: We have little lights that come on our houses with
58:03
Speaker 2: electricity and refrigeration. Food doesn't go bad so quickly because
58:06
Speaker 2: we have refrigeration that is all possible, not because everyone
58:09
Speaker 2: has this like local Tesla battery in their backyard. We
58:13
Speaker 2: have generations of infrastructure that have been built up through
58:18
Speaker 2: the use of the nation state and national planning that
58:21
Speaker 2: people take for granted. So it's like, yeah, you're spread
58:23
Speaker 2: of your gospel. You couldn't do it if it weren't
58:26
Speaker 2: for organized planning and the nation state doing things at
58:30
Speaker 2: different times of the past. So there's a certain just
58:36
Speaker 2: I don't want to use the word hypocrisies, maybe a
58:38
Speaker 2: little bit heavy, but it is. It's a little bit hypocritical,
58:40
Speaker 2: or at least self it lacks self awareness at the
58:43
Speaker 2: very least, I could say, and that's that's unfortunate.
58:48
Speaker 1: Matt How can I find you audicle?
58:52
Speaker 3: Sure, I go to my substack Matthew rat dot substack
58:55
Speaker 3: dot com. Well, also, I also have a Canadian patriot
58:59
Speaker 3: dot org org. A lot of the stuff that I
59:01
Speaker 3: do on substack, and Cynthia doesn't. Her substack goes on
59:04
Speaker 3: Canadian patriot dot org. Our books are there, our videos
59:07
Speaker 3: are there. We recently did a brand new documentary with
59:10
Speaker 3: the help of YAO Media called Black Sunrising on the
59:13
Speaker 3: esoteric roots of Nazism past and Present, which is a
59:16
Speaker 3: wild ride that we just made available for free this week,
59:19
Speaker 3: so people can go and check that out on that
59:21
Speaker 3: website as well.
59:22
Speaker 1: So yeah, betthew Eric, thank you for joining me in
59:26
Speaker 1: the trenches.
59:27
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jerem