Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 9

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 9 · UK Column Radio

0:38
Herman Hops book Democracy the God that Failed, natural order
0:42
and Monarchy being superior to democracy and I think it was
0:46
Churchill that quipped something along the lines of its democracy
0:49
is what the best system we have or something and Hop obviously
0:53
disagrees with that. I think that any system it has
0:56
the capability of being an object failure at the bottom.
1:02
At the bottom of everything is engagement and you know, every
1:07
system has its pros and it's cons, but if there's some
1:11
fundamental principles that aren't understood by the general
1:15
population and the general population can always be
1:17
exploited, I think I think it's fair to say that certain
1:22
governmental systems or certain societal systems are more prone
1:26
to that than others. Perhaps or or at least
1:28
safeguards aren't in place, but but plenty of times in the past
1:32
we have. There's plenty of historical
1:33
context for systems that have had protections in place and,
1:38
and those have systematically been sort of chipped away at
1:43
until they don't exist anymore or they're ignored.
1:46
And so, you know, it's, I think that the fundamental issue here
1:50
is, is education and, and an understanding of what natural
1:55
law is, what natural principles are.
1:58
And that's something that isn't taught.
2:00
And because of that, of course, we leave ourselves open to all
2:04
kinds of exploitation. I if I can just go back one to
2:10
the idea of democracy as it's presented now.
2:13
I don't think anybody sincerely suggests that the form of
2:18
democracy that is exposed in the modern Western world has any
2:29
anything to say about democracy, to suggest that it's a good
2:32
system, unless they're actively trying to use that system to
2:37
control the people within it and to make money out of it.
2:41
I mean that that is effectively what it is.
2:44
I don't, I don't think any serious political philosopher
2:46
over the ages has ever put forward democracy as we now
2:50
regard it as being a sensible system by which people should
2:53
live their lives. And, and when 1 looks at the way
2:58
it's rolled out, well, the way it's practiced in societies like
3:03
the United Kingdom or United States.
3:05
And then the suggestion that that model should be sort of
3:09
gifted to countries that are in say South Asia or the Middle
3:16
East is, is totally absurd. I would say because the in
3:23
supposedly enfranchising people, in actual fact, all you're doing
3:29
is imposing a system of daylight robbery.
3:32
We were talking about the National Health Service on the
3:36
news, most recent news Extra program that Mike and I were on
3:40
together. And people obviously have
3:42
different views about it. And I don't want to get dragged
3:43
down that rabbit hole. But the fact of it is that the,
3:45
the, the National Health Service costs over £200 billion every
3:49
year now and for what? You know, but, but that would
3:53
not be possible without the system of supposed democracy
3:56
that we have now, which is in effect saying, well, you know,
3:59
you get to vote and because of that, we're going to take all
4:02
your money. So that's a, that's a pretty bad
4:06
place to start going towards the, the idea of, of monarchy.
4:11
Again, I would suggest that it's a, it's a false binary.
4:15
And I have to be careful what I say here because of the way in
4:18
which we're covering the devolution agenda.
4:22
But to my mind, the idea of a population as large as that of
4:28
the United Kingdom, which is approaching, as far as we're
4:31
aware, about 70 million people, the idea that that number of
4:34
people should be under control is not the right word perhaps,
4:40
but but under the government or governance of one individual is
4:46
again, ridiculous. So, so the the suggestion that
4:50
it's either a sort of representative democracy, which
4:52
of course it isn't, or that one person can in any way have some
4:58
sort of oversight or consideration for or regard for
5:02
that number of people, again is ridiculous.
5:05
Unless there is actually a system that operates consistent
5:10
with that. So, so that at at every lower
5:13
level there is a coherent system by which people receive the
5:18
benefit of the monarch's benevolence or wisdom or
5:21
whatever it should be. But of course we don't have
5:24
that. We have a monarch and then
5:26
nothing in effect. I know I'm oversimplifying and
5:30
and not actually actually representing the situation, but
5:33
it but it doesn't correspond. So I think that I think both
5:37
systems have enormous problems and, and loathe as I am to bring
5:43
him into the conversation this early, Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus
5:49
Schwab, sort of jack-in-the-box academic bloke has he's written
5:55
extensively and I would say quite coherently about some
5:58
things, definitely not very coherently about others.
6:00
But one of the things he talks about is societal groupings and
6:04
the idea that 150 people represents the approximate
6:07
maximum for having a, a, a structure within which
6:12
relationships between people can work effectively without,
6:16
without there being all the ills that are associated with
6:18
democracy. So that's that those are some of
6:23
my thoughts on on the the, you know, the the answers that are
6:26
presented, but I don't think any of them are actually answers.
6:29
I think I'll, I'll just add a little bit to that if I could.
6:33
So the United Kingdom, let's say Britain is.
6:38
And in fact, others would even argue that it's not even
6:41
Britain, that it's England is, was never a democracy.
6:46
It was a constitutional monarchy and the role of the monarch is 1
6:53
of this is one of these instance where instances where the role
6:57
of the monarchy has been changed over the years and subverted in
7:01
fact by the occupants of the role in many cases as well.
7:07
I mean, if I, if we look back through post Battle of Hastings
7:13
history of, of England, actually there aren't too many kings or
7:17
Queens of, of England that we can say did a good job.
7:21
Henry the 7th is one that I think did a good job.
7:25
Queen Anne while she lived did mostly a good job.
7:30
But the role of the monarch was to and once, once we became a
7:35
constitutional monarchy was to, was to do that, to uphold the
7:38
constitution and act as a, as a, a limit on the excesses of, of
7:43
Parliament. And that's something that has
7:46
been long since forgotten by the current incumbents of the, of
7:50
the position. So, so I've, I've, from a
7:55
constitutional point of view, I've been quite in favour of
7:59
monarchy in the UK, not at all in favour of the royal family
8:06
because because they are not doing the job.
8:09
And in fact, they're too, they're so caught up in their
8:12
own personal political imaginations, particularly
8:16
around environment and climate change and these kinds of
8:18
things, that they long since forgotten what the role supposed
8:24
to be. So, you know, and, and it's the
8:26
same in the United States, OK, Their, their constitution was
8:32
created, as you say, and didn't sort of develop naturally, but
8:36
it, but it, it was created out of what they perceive to be the
8:40
best aspects of, you know, constitutions in Britain and
8:44
France in particular, which, which you could argue developed
8:47
naturally over for hundreds of years.
8:53
But all the protections that, that, that constitution that,
8:55
you know, when the founding fathers wrote that constitution,
8:57
they put protections in to, to try to limit the ability of, of
9:03
future governments and future federal powers to, to the kinds
9:08
of excess that they were likely, that they perceived they were
9:11
likely to, to enter into. And those limitations have been
9:16
systematic, as I say, systematically chipped away at
9:19
in both countries in the UK and in the United States.
9:21
So that they don't, they don't basically exist anymore in the
9:24
constitutions of both countries are ignored.
9:26
And of course in Britain, the constitution is ignored because,
9:29
because people say there isn't 1, because it was because it's
9:32
not in one place and it's, it's complex and it's hard to follow
9:35
and so on. But of course, something which
9:38
has developed and evolved over, you know, since basically
9:42
certainly 1000 years is, is naturally going to be complex
9:48
and difficult to, to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong.
9:52
So no, we, we just, we, we got to remember, we don't, we
9:58
shouldn't, we don't live in a democracy.
10:00
And the, the term democracy is, I think we've sort of mentioned
10:02
this is, I think we, we can say it is 180° from what it should
10:09
be really, as Charles has said. So, you know, lots of people
10:14
are, are looking at, at monarchy as being something dangerous
10:18
because it's far in the hands of one person, but not necessarily
10:22
it can be the role of the monarchy as supposed to be in
10:25
the UK is, is one of, you know, being aware of what the
10:32
limitations are on, on the executive in the country and,
10:37
and protecting the people from that.
10:40
And that is that's in the coronation oath and consistently
10:44
ignored by monarch after monarch.
10:46
So, you know, upholding the laws and customs of the country is
10:50
something that that, that is the core role of, of king or queen.
10:55
It's been adhered to for a long time.
11:01
At the risk of falling into the logical fallacy of the No True
11:05
Scotsman argument, you know this.
11:08
There hasn't been a real democracy or there hasn't been a
11:10
real monarchy, but still striving towards something is
11:17
better than simply, you know, brushing it aside.
11:20
A monarchy is superior historically to democracy.
11:24
And I think the, the sort of idea that the monarchies are
11:27
just sort of this King Joffrey idea from Game of Thrones where
11:30
the king just wants to kill everybody.
11:31
I mean, it's, it's, it's more, that's more in the realm of
11:35
fantasy than, than reality. Because if you think of natural
11:39
order emerging, like you'll have a, a family that settles on a
11:43
piece of ground and they decide they're going to farm it a bit.
11:47
And as it expands slightly, they might need a bit of help.
11:50
And so they'll get some, some people from the neighboring town
11:53
or something to come and help them.
11:55
They'll might, they might offer them some perks to stay on the
11:57
property. And then over time it builds and
12:00
it becomes something, but it still belongs to the the family,
12:04
the the farmer himself. Yeah.
12:07
But historically, if we look at, at the, the history of all this,
12:11
we've seen a number of styles of monarchy in the, in England, for
12:15
example, we've seen the, I mean, this is probably an
12:20
oversimplification, but nonetheless, it gives, it gives
12:22
an idea. You know, we've seen the sort of
12:25
really unpleasant dictatorial monarchy that, that believes
12:31
that they own everything and, and therefore they are in
12:34
complete control and, and can do what they like.
12:38
And they are the sort of King Joffrey figure from Game of
12:40
Thrones. We have seen that in the past.
12:43
And we've also seen weak monarchs that are totally
12:46
manipulable and, and you end up actually with more or less the
12:50
same type of outcome. Henry the Eighth would be a
12:53
great example of that. You know, the, the people around
12:56
him played him left, right and centre over the fact that he
12:59
couldn't have children. And, and you know, you sort of
13:02
see an expression of, of, of how he was totally subverted in his
13:08
own mind by this. There's a, there's a, if you go
13:10
to the Tower of London, there's a suit of armor from Henry the
13:13
Eighth's later life. And, and it's got this massive
13:17
bulge in the crotch area because, because he was clearly
13:21
trying to imply that he was an extremely virile person and, and
13:26
that he was, he still was able to, to do it sort of thing.
13:30
But that just to me, when I saw that it's, it's, there's, it
13:33
came across to me as someone who was actually quite from a mental
13:37
health point of view, not quite all there that he needed to, to
13:41
make that kind of demonstration. And so he was completely
13:43
manipulated in many ways by many, many people.
13:48
And, and on the other hand, as I say, we have had some strong
13:52
leadership from from monarchs, Henry the 7th being a good
13:56
example of it. So, you know, it's, it's a bit
13:59
of a lottery with with what you end up with at the same time.
14:04
So I take all your points. You're absolutely right that,
14:08
that that type of thinking is something that that is a feature
14:11
of monarchy, but it relies on person occupying the post, being
14:18
able to, to think that way and to having the, the personal
14:22
strength to, to, to, to, to fall through on it and, and not fall
14:27
into the sort of psychopathic hold that we've seen from many
14:32
monarchs over the centuries. I think Louis the 15th was also
14:36
considered fairly weak. Maybe I I can't quite recall
14:43
actually, but but what I would like to say, first of all, I'm
14:47
feeling a bit left out because I don't even know what Game of
14:49
Thrones is. But I do have.
14:52
I do have another. It's a it's a detective story.
14:55
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's not get into that.
14:57
But, but, but I do have a, a cultural reference which I think
15:00
the audience will engage with on a far more profound level.
15:05
Let's say now I disagree with you.
15:08
I, I don't think that that's a monarchy or a monarch does in
15:15
fact conform to the idea of the natural order.
15:18
I don't, I don't think that a monarch does come naturally.
15:21
And what I would like to do is go back because you're, you're
15:25
specifically talking about property and land ownership and
15:32
people belonging to a particular bit of ground or the ground
15:36
belonging to the people. And I think, I think it's a
15:38
very, very interesting thing. And I my belief is in fact that
15:44
this rot, as I would describe it, started with the
15:50
agricultural revolution, the first of many agricultural
15:54
revolutions in that people had, as they still do in quite a lot
15:59
of parts of the world. The world moved according to
16:03
where there was food exactly like migratory birds or animals
16:07
do, and there was no problem with that and quite how it came
16:12
about. Obviously I can't explain
16:13
because I wasn't there. But what happened was that
16:17
people who had existed on harvesting fruits and other
16:23
things that were available at particular places, particular
16:26
times and otherwise off animal products by and large.
16:30
OK, I'm, I'm way oversimplifying, but, but, but
16:32
taking advantage of, of what was there were convinced that their
16:38
lives could be different if they started to eat slightly
16:42
different things, mostly grains. And I don't want to get drawn
16:46
into some of the stuff that we've talked about in previous
16:49
weeks. But if you look at where the,
16:51
you know, human health, where we have concerns, it's very
16:53
interesting to look back to the genesis of, of that in terms of
16:58
agriculture being a system by which we, we control what we eat
17:02
rather than the other way around.
17:05
So, so there's, there's that side of it, but but what that
17:07
means is that immediately you're creating an artificial system.
17:11
You're, you're trying to make land do something that it wasn't
17:15
actually planning to do. And that persists today.
17:17
And I think that's something that needs to be questioned.
17:21
I appreciate we are where we are and we do have a certain number
17:24
of people that need food and you can't just change overnight.
17:27
So, but still, I do think to go back to the point at which this
17:32
changed is, is incredibly significant because the moment
17:34
you do put people in the same place and ask them to try to
17:41
exist in a particular way, then with that comes a loss of
17:47
liberty and an ability to control.
17:49
And it's, it was exactly the same sales pitch then as it is
17:53
now, which which concerns productivity, which is, well,
17:56
look, if you grow this stuff now, then you can produce a
18:02
surplus. So.
18:03
OK, Yeah, OK. We'll produce a surplus.
18:05
And then and then we'll then we'll produce more children.
18:08
And then they, they, they will help us work and then they
18:10
consume the surplus. And you, you see where this is
18:12
going. And it continues and it
18:14
continues. And so to get to my cultural
18:16
reference, which I've been absolutely itching to get into
18:18
one of these banter sessions, I'd like to quote Australia's
18:22
premier philosopher, Michael J Crocodile Dundee, because he's
18:27
asked when, when he takes Sue Charlton that into the Bush in
18:31
the first film, she asks him about all sorts of issues that
18:34
he's concerned with. And he, he doesn't really have
18:37
any axes to grind. And she says, OK, what about,
18:39
what about land rights? What about the, the, the
18:42
Aboriginals claim to the land? And he says, no, well, that's
18:46
not how the Aborigines see it. They, they, they believe that
18:50
they belong to the land. So the analogy he gives is
18:54
saying, you know, who who owns the land would be like 2 fleas
18:57
arguing over who, who owns the dog they live on.
19:00
And I know that seems glib, but actually that that goes right to
19:05
the heart of it. And this idea that you can
19:09
demarcate an area and say that it's yours gives somebody else
19:16
the potential to try to muscle in or to use that as leverage or
19:23
what, Whatever it is. The point is that it's only from
19:26
that that you can enter into any kind of situation where monarchy
19:31
can be proposed or suggested or or or to come about.
19:35
Whereas if, if people were still largely migratory pneumatic, for
19:41
example, you can see that clans and family groupings would
19:45
develop, but there would be no need for anything more than that
19:49
because you don't need the structure.
19:50
Because you haven't constrained yourself by this rigid
19:54
association with a particular plot of land and, and a
19:57
particular way of life that you're trying to force onto the
20:01
land rather than the other way around.
20:03
I just think I, I don't want to totally divert the conversation,
20:05
but I, I just think it's a really important point to make
20:08
that we have gone so far down the track that we've sort of
20:11
forgotten in, in a way, when we're talking about the natural
20:14
order, we have actually forgotten what the natural order
20:17
really means. Well, let me, let me ask you
20:21
something about that then, because if we look at Indigenous
20:25
people in the, in what is now the United States or Canada, and
20:31
they lived that way as well. But those clans eventually grew
20:36
big enough that they ended up or centuries at war with each other
20:42
over. Well over what is it over
20:45
natural resources? Was it over the right to be on a
20:47
particular piece of landed time and, and, and get access to the
20:52
animals and the fruits and so on, and they could get access to
20:58
so at that point that once you're once you're, is that not
21:02
a natural? Was that not a natural a result
21:06
of natural progression? And, and therefore they had, you
21:10
know, their, their nations became larger than just family
21:14
sized and they ended up with the chief.
21:17
So there seemed to be a natural development of a head of the,
21:22
you know, equivalent of a monarch of, of the tribe.
21:26
And the tribe is much bigger than a single family or a single
21:29
clan. So.
21:30
So does that not sort of suggest that that the argument you've
21:36
made is only correct up to a point?
21:39
Yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure it is. And I, I mean, I, I certainly
21:41
don't know enough about that period of history to be able to
21:45
give a, an objective viewpoint on it, because one wonders what,
21:50
what other factors, what other influences there, there may have
21:53
been, which may or may not have been accurately recorded in
21:56
history. And I think with any society
21:57
that that has a well, and for any tradition of history, it's,
22:02
it's always very difficult to determine exactly what has has
22:04
brought about what. So I, I don't know is the honest
22:08
answer, but I, but no, I absolutely take the point that
22:10
yes, you are right. There has of course been
22:13
conflict. And I, and I'm not, I'm not
22:14
suggesting that there wasn't and I'm not suggesting that that
22:17
hasn't meant that there'd been larger, larger groupings made.
22:23
But I think still to, to go back to the point that that therefore
22:30
a country, I mean, you know, even then we're still talking
22:34
about groups of people that by and large considered that they
22:37
could go wherever they wanted to go.
22:40
And, and if there were competition for the resources
22:44
that were in that place, then that would result in conflict
22:48
and quite possibly, as you say, would result in larger groupings
22:51
of people. But it's, but I, I don't know,
22:53
it's, I mean, it's, it's a, it's a bit of a chicken and egg
22:56
argument. But I, I suppose one thing that
22:59
I've found fascinating, and I know this is, this is different.
23:01
It's absolutely not to the point, but I think a lot of, if
23:03
we look at a lot of the history of what we, what we regard as
23:09
tribes in Africa and, and the way in which they have been
23:14
either in conflict with one another or, or controlled or, or
23:17
whatnot. That shouldn't be disassociated
23:21
from the beginnings of the colonial period where the
23:28
initial control mechanism was exactly to manipulate and change
23:33
the clan and family groupings in order to form what subsequently
23:37
became known as tribes. So I think we have it's, it's
23:41
very easy to have a have a very sort of blurred view of, of that
23:46
period of history. But but As for North America, I,
23:48
I, I don't know. Yeah, I know it's a, it's a very
23:50
good point. And and and.
23:52
At what point any of this did start to change, I don't know.
23:55
I I just say that the other thing, Jeremy, is don't want to
23:59
necessarily take this conversation down a blind alley.
24:02
But, but you know, if we're talking about natural order and
24:06
we're talking about what is natural, I, I do wonder about
24:12
this whole discussion about humans, human activity and
24:17
what's natural and what's artificial.
24:20
When you know, if, if we say that we are natural in the sense
24:25
we've we've evolved over time to, to what we are, just at what
24:32
point did it become normal to to assume that everything that we
24:37
produce is somehow artificial because it came out of our
24:41
brands which are natural. So, so I don't know whether you
24:45
want to go in that direction, but I think this is this would
24:47
be worth having a quick discussion about.
24:49
I'd be interested in Charles's view on that.
24:51
Let me just quickly apologize. I have some serious rain coming
24:56
onto my roof, so if it's coming through, it's my turn this time.
25:02
You might as well just blame me. I always come back to a farming
25:06
scenario, an agricultural setting, because that is the
25:08
heart of of civilization. It is farming and everything
25:12
that's built on top of that is effectively centred around the
25:17
agricultural setting. Of course now as we head towards
25:19
sort of like a technocratic future, agriculture's on the
25:23
outskirts. It's no longer the centre.
25:25
Yeah, well, yes, I I just to sort of split hairs.
25:30
I mean, is it actually a farm or is it is it a source of food?
25:35
Because it's quite fascinating How if if say, 1 takes the the
25:40
incredible range of documentary series that David Attenborough
25:44
has produced over the years and how as time has progressed, the
25:49
climate change narrative has been woven more and more into
25:53
his script and, and and actually has become the only point of
25:56
producing any of his stuff. As far as I'm Sam's in the the
25:59
most recent thing. But I do remember watching one
26:02
of I think one of his things quite recently, or it might not
26:06
have been documentary, but anyway, he was suggesting he was
26:08
talking about it. It it was actually not
26:10
dissimilar to what Alan Savory talks about in, in in terms of
26:15
rehabilitating desolate plains or areas of land that have have
26:20
had major vegetation loss and rehabilitating them via
26:25
livestock. I mean, not necessarily what we
26:27
might regard as domesticated livestock, but but but with
26:29
animals. And Attenborough makes the same
26:32
point, except that he is specifically saying, and then
26:41
that's it, they must never be touched.
26:42
But of course, at the point going back to the, the sort of
26:46
early days that we're talking about where there were animals
26:48
there, which people would have eaten, but in such a fashion
26:51
that there would have been no harm to that population in terms
26:55
of its ability to maintain its levels or indeed increase its
27:00
levels. And if, if they increase to a
27:02
certain point, then presumably some of that herd or the entire
27:05
herd would have moved elsewhere. But of course with Attenborough
27:08
now it's, that's not how you regard it.
27:11
It's just sort of, it just keeps going, keeps going, keeps going.
27:14
And humans never get the the benefit of it.
27:17
So, so it's, yes, a source of food because I, I think for us
27:22
to imagine that food can only come from, from agriculture, as
27:28
in practices where we are controlling the meat or plant
27:35
resources. I think is, is wrong.
27:37
When you look at, OK, I, I live in, in the countryside, but
27:41
there is so much food that is just there without you having to
27:45
do anything about it. So why on earth do we ignore all
27:50
of that? So, so I sorry, I don't mean to,
27:53
to be too pedantic. I mean, I do mean to be quite
27:56
pedantic, but not too pedantic, hopefully.
27:59
Because I, the, the reason I mentioned it is just, you know,
28:01
again, it's this, this whole idea of natural and the
28:06
difference between, well, if, if we can do it, is it natural?
28:10
And so this is the we're introducing the idea of
28:15
cooperation really because of course, your city state you've
28:18
just referred to and that that cannot work unless some people
28:22
are going to do such and such a thing in order that other people
28:26
are fed. I mean, otherwise, why on earth
28:27
would you go and live in a, in a city?
28:29
I mean, there's OK, there will be a little bit of food given
28:31
what I've just said, but there will basically be no food.
28:34
So, so that's a that's an element of it.
28:36
And I think this is what Ben Rubin and Will Keats recent
28:40
discussion on this issue on on the natural order was, was
28:43
fascinating in bringing out the this idea that in effect you may
28:50
do absolutely anything until such point as it impacts on
28:55
somebody else's life. But of course, the twin aspect
29:02
of that is this idea of cooperation.
29:06
But the, but the, the reason that, that all that food that
29:09
you're talking about is left on the trees, as it were, is
29:12
because comes back to the original point of engagement by
29:18
people, because people want to just sit in front of the
29:22
television and be entertained rather than take an active role
29:26
in their lives. The reason that systems of
29:29
government collapse into corruption and, and, and
29:34
despotic treatment of individuals is because
29:38
individuals make the wrong choices.
29:41
And you know, if food is being left on on bushes and then
29:45
breeze that's, that's growing naturally and it's available,
29:49
it's because we don't want to spend our time doing that.
29:53
We want to spend our time watching Game of Thrones.
29:55
Yeah, well, this is it. And, and you know, this goes
29:58
back to whether it be a constitutional monarchy or some
30:01
variant of democracy or whatever.
30:04
Effectively, there's there's always two different things.
30:06
There's, there's the, the system as we find it and as we can
30:09
fault it over the years, or there's the system as you can
30:12
design it on paper, which as the jokes always go about socialism
30:18
or communism, it, it, it never ever works out like that.
30:22
But does that mean that we should stop aspiring to be able
30:25
to, to do it? And and that relates exactly to
30:29
the production and consumption of food and, and indeed this
30:32
whole idea of whether something is natural because it's
30:36
possible. I mean, look what what Hop was
30:39
ultimately arguing is that a democratic system is a
30:47
artificially designed and imposed B unsustainable because
30:51
every democratic government becomes susceptible to being
30:54
infiltrated, being bought, being manipulated because the
30:58
president doesn't have a long term interest.
31:00
He's only rent seeking for four or five years or whatever.
31:03
I think these are all fair points.
31:04
And I think, I think that that, you know, it's certainly and
31:11
implies that if you accept those points, it implies that that for
31:14
the reasons you've just suggested, monarchy is superior
31:18
to democracy. And I think one of the
31:23
limitations of the conversation that we've had so far is that
31:25
we're well, aside from the, the discussion of indigenous
31:28
peoples, we've, we've been focusing on Western leadership
31:33
and no one country that we haven't considered so far.
31:37
We're talking about big populations as China.
31:40
You know, that that society has up up until the Cultural
31:43
Revolution existed as an empire with emperors for thousands of
31:48
years, very successfully. And not just as a not just as a,
31:55
an empire that that within itself, but a trading empire.
31:59
And although the Western financial interests from, you
32:05
know, once the Silk Road got going, once a certain financial
32:08
interest from Italy started trying to take advantage of of
32:13
that trade, nonetheless, they were largely successful in what
32:17
they were doing. But but it was interesting that,
32:21
you know, China clearly as as big as it was historically,
32:28
decided that it didn't need to be any bigger.
32:30
So they built a wall with a view of with a view of, of keeping
32:34
people out, But of course, that also made it difficult for them
32:37
to expand any further than the wall.
32:40
So, so you know, these China's an interesting, I think that
32:44
that we should know much more about the history of China and
32:47
how it's been governed over the years and having a look at it.
32:50
And I don't know enough about it, so I'm not going to try to
32:52
wax lyrical about it. But you know, we something we
32:55
should be looking at and seeing what the what the good aspects
33:01
and undoubtedly bad aspects of that were over the centuries.
33:04
I think it's a very good point. I was thinking about China also,
33:06
and I think Japan in fact, in fact, you're right.
33:09
Some of the non Western countries have very different
33:13
historical structures of of hierarchy, which is what you're
33:16
alluding to earlier. Charles about culture playing a
33:19
massive role. The whole world can't be run in
33:22
the same way. That's absolutely obvious.
33:26
I mentioned earlier Louis the 15th.
33:27
I think it was Louis the 16th who ended up triggering the
33:32
French Revolution and look at France now.
33:37
Yeah, but the French resolution, it was really two revolutions.
33:40
They had. They had a revolution, began as
33:43
a revolution that was, you know, an intent much more like what
33:48
the American Revolution became. And then was the Jacobin terror
33:52
took over the show and we ended up with, you know, France ended
33:56
up chopping the head. So you had you sort of headed at
33:58
this few minutes ago. They chopped with heads off
34:00
anybody that had an intellect or a brain.
34:04
And so you ended up absolutely with people that didn't really
34:08
know anything about anything setting the rules.
34:11
And, and so, you know, France, modern France and modern French
34:17
bureaucracy is, is the result of that.
34:19
And anybody that spent any kind of time there knows how
34:22
absolutely appalling that can be.
34:24
And of course France exported that to, to other countries, you
34:28
know, North Africa and Lebanon and so on and, and Syria and,
34:33
and yeah, they exported that, that way of doing government
34:37
which, which anybody that's lived there.
34:40
And Vanessa will tell you what, what those countries can be like
34:43
in terms of just trying to get things done.
34:46
So you know what what how the French Revolution ended up and
34:52
and what came afterwards is a good example of of when you when
34:58
sort of the the the populist mob ends up taking control.
35:03
It doesn't necessarily work. But there is a pattern with you
35:09
mentioned China a moment ago and the states is similar.
35:13
As soon as you have a population that is very big, that goes
35:16
beyond a certain size, what happens naturally?
35:19
They start federalizing. I think, I think direction of
35:22
travel is important here. I think if as populations grow
35:26
and they self organize bottom up, then then you know, you
35:32
choose if you're, if you're, you know, if you're sensible and
35:36
clever about this as as a group of people, you will choose the
35:40
best people to be taking on the sort of leadership role.
35:45
The difficulty comes, as we're seeing in the UK with this
35:49
so-called devolution process, when, when the efforts to, to
35:53
create these structures come top down.
35:57
And, and that, that is when you start to see the autocracy
36:03
coming along and saying, right, don't worry, This is all about
36:06
bringing democracy to the local level and making sure that you
36:09
get to no, no, that's not how it works.
36:11
This is about bringing centralized control to the local
36:14
level and making sure that at locally the central controller
36:19
has the right puppet in place. I, I, I don't know enough about
36:24
the development of China to know if that's how that those
36:28
structures actually were created and, and what the effect on the
36:31
ground is historically. That's something that I would
36:35
like to know a lot more about, but I think that's an important
36:39
distinction when we're talking about how how federalised
36:43
structures are created. Timing also is another factor.
36:46
I mean, I can't remember if it's meant to be ascribed to one
36:49
particular Chinese diplomat or whether it's just sort of the
36:53
Chinese view. But but the, the, so the story
36:56
goes within the last in a couple of decades, a Chinese diplomat
37:03
was asked at a state event, a state banquet I think in, in the
37:07
UK, who's asked his opinion of the front of the results of the
37:12
French Revolution. And his, his reply was that it
37:15
was too early to tell. And it's, it's sort of often
37:19
reported as though ha, ha, ha. It's a, you know, it's a funny
37:22
one. It's not funny.
37:23
I mean, I, I think it's completely serious.
37:25
And we, I'd say we all these societies that we talk about,
37:31
whether they be defined by the idea of an ethnicity or
37:36
nationhood or, or a state, they're all at different points
37:41
in the various cycles they go through.
37:44
And I think that's a really important point to make because
37:48
yes, I would agree with you that there you can absolutely point
37:52
to examples to reinforce your point about a federalist
37:57
approach to this, that and the other.
37:59
I would say that what we're seeing in the United Kingdom at
38:02
the moment is being sold as that, but completely mis sold.
38:06
It's it's absolutely the opposite.
38:09
And the point about society, let's say in in the UK is that
38:15
we are at yeah, you know, we're at a certain stage of this
38:22
iteration of our civilization, if you, if you will.
38:27
That means that we are prone to or unable to do or, you know,
38:34
the, the conditions are set for something that that they may not
38:38
be ripe for in even France or China or the United States.
38:42
And I think there's some very interesting, I mean, there's
38:45
something I would like to look at more, but the but to look at
38:48
the indicators, you know, what are the associated factors with
38:53
the sorts of things that we're talking about?
38:55
And one of the things that springs to mind, which again, I
38:58
would like to investigate much more fully, is the you're
39:01
talking about culture, but particularly the way it
39:04
expresses itself in art form. And this is something that
39:07
Camille Paglia, the academic who who who's been controversial
39:13
over the years, but this is something she talks about a lot,
39:16
how the art of the civilization indicates at what point that is.
39:22
And there's every suggestion that are certainly British,
39:25
Western, whatever civilization is absolutely reaching an end
39:29
point. Not not, I'm not saying the end,
39:32
but but an end point in this cycle because of the way that
39:36
this art expresses itself. And she says typically that it
39:41
brings out themes of, say, androgyny or the idea that the
39:46
male form is somehow pathetic as, as compared with, say, the
39:52
types of sculpture that Michelangelo was producing, you
39:58
know, of, of strapping muscular men and that kind of thing.
40:02
So it's, it's just those sorts of things are are really
40:05
interesting, not taken in isolation, but looked at
40:09
alongside. All the sorts of things that are
40:11
happening politically in civilizations.
40:14
And we talked about this the other week, actually, I was
40:15
talking about Brits getting tattoos of stuff that they just
40:19
simply don't understand. Whereas if you think, you know,
40:22
let's look at the former Soviet Union countries where there is
40:25
still this ideal of the sort of perfect specimen.
40:32
I mean, the propaganda posters which go back many years and,
40:36
and are in a way sort of laughable, but actually they do
40:39
still mean something. And I think we've gone way
40:42
beyond that now in, in the UK. So, and, but I think all these
40:46
things are really related and we should bear them, bear, bear the
40:49
whole situation in mind, not just what we might describe as
40:53
the sort of political element of it.
40:55
There are so many other factors at play, because if you don't
40:57
consider the other factors, then you can't see how the population
41:00
has been either brainwashed to ignore or go along with
41:03
something, or indeed motivated to change it.
41:07
Gavin McInnes has often said that everything is downstream
41:10
from culture, and I think that kind of echoes your sentiment to
41:13
some degree, Charles, that politics is not upstream from
41:17
culture, but in fact it is downstream from from culture and
41:20
and. This, that's a really
41:24
interesting point because the question, because if we're
41:27
talking about natural order, the question is, does culture
41:31
develop naturally or is culture manipulated?
41:34
And, and you know, to echo, to follow on from Charles's point,
41:39
when we're looking at the artwork that's being produced at
41:42
the moment and the, and in fact, you look at academia as a whole,
41:46
This has such an influence on culture, not only because,
41:49
because what follows from what's being taught in academia is
41:52
scripts for television shows. It's, it's scripts for plays.
41:56
It's, it's the, the type of art that we're seeing and, and maybe
42:02
perhaps it's a, a feature of a collapsing society that that
42:06
culture becomes something which isn't an expression of that
42:10
society, but is used to as a mechanism of control in and of
42:14
itself. Right.
42:15
And, and I think, I think it's important to to acknowledge
42:18
that. Yes, I mean, sure, I I agree.
42:22
But I also still think that historically, you know,
42:25
everything was down downstream from culture and that culture
42:28
did emerge if it's considered the Zulus, for example, right,
42:31
They emerged out of the various Bantu tribes in Southern Africa.
42:36
And now, yes, what's interesting, they maintain their
42:40
culture thanks to their sort of monarchical structure.
42:45
So, so my, my question is whether that is because of
42:49
democracy or whether it, whether it actually even matters what
42:53
your system of governance is because because you know it, it.
42:59
So this is a question I suppose we're, we're asking in this
43:02
whole discussion is, is democracy in and of itself such
43:07
a weak system that it naturally collapses under, it's a wit or
43:11
is it that no matter what your political system, at some point,
43:17
as, as people Start Stop paying attention or they relax their,
43:21
their guard or whatever, the, the parasitic class moves in
43:26
and, and perverts it to its own ends.
43:28
And, and I think, I think the problem here is that, that, and
43:32
we can discuss whether this is part of the natural order or
43:35
not, whether there is naturally a, a minority within the human
43:43
race which is parasitic by nature and psychopathic by
43:48
nature. And that they will always move
43:51
in and take control. And and once that happens, then
43:54
without whatever your system of governance, see the devolution
44:00
of of our culture, of our societies and and the tendency
44:05
towards conflict and and disgraceful treatment of of
44:11
individuals. Sure, and I think you're
44:14
correct. But I mean, if you think about
44:17
our understanding of modern democracy, I don't think any
44:19
democracy has somehow led to more prosperity and freedom over
44:24
the last 250 years or so. Consider the the civilizations
44:28
that have had the largest historical impact.
44:30
You mentioned China for sure. I mean, they were around for
44:33
thousands of years and as you said, successful.
44:36
And I think the Roman Empire too.
44:37
And that also wasn't really democratic.
44:39
But I mean, OK, that's a whole different discussion, but part
44:43
of its collapse is linked to its its desire to constantly expand.
44:51
Yeah, it's a, it's a really interesting point when we're,
44:53
you know, considering the natural order and the in the
44:56
constant, the constant requirement to search for
45:01
equilibrium like like any system.
45:03
And I, and I think the point about the prevalence of say,
45:06
psychopathy is fascinating because I, I think this is
45:09
where, this is where a lot of people will come unstuck,
45:14
perhaps in that we, in this discussion here, the three of us
45:20
would have, you know, as articulated by these
45:23
conversations, broadly overlapping world views.
45:26
And yet they are very much discordant with the majority of
45:30
people who are out there because they have been conditioned, I
45:33
would say, to think a particular thing.
45:34
I don't think there's anything natural about that.
45:36
I think they've been, these are thoughts that are introduced by
45:39
all the mechanisms that we talk about, whether it be subverted
45:41
democracy or culture that's been again, subverted.
45:47
But there is a a, a, a well recognised, well documented
45:56
quota, let's say of people in any society who have a tendency
46:00
towards psychopathy. There are all sorts of other
46:03
things, but I but I believe that that largely human nature, if
46:08
that's what we're going to call it doesn't, doesn't really
46:10
change. And therefore there will be
46:13
times where the equilibrium is, is upset because a certain force
46:19
will be able to exert itself in an unchecked sense, but not all
46:25
the time. And, and I think therefore what
46:27
we go through is a, is a constant process by which by
46:33
which those those things do eventually self correct, which
46:37
goes back to the point I'm making about timing in that I, I
46:42
would imagine that that the system surrounding us in the
46:46
United Kingdom, I don't mean this in apocalyptic in that sort
46:52
of sense, but but what I mean is that it, it, it will, it will
46:56
collapse at some point. And that's fine because
47:00
something else will replace it. But we don't really know what
47:03
that is yet. But I think we can be quite
47:06
clear on, on why it's happened because the number of people
47:09
that want to behave in such a fashion has to create poor
47:16
conditions for others in society.
47:18
And they do unfortunately have the control, the will and the
47:21
means to do so. We're talking about the sort of
47:23
the, you know, elite oligarchic class.
47:26
Well, it doesn't, doesn't really matter who they are, but the
47:28
point is that the influence they have, I say is, is, is
47:31
absolutely disproportionate and they, they shouldn't wield it,
47:34
but they've been able to. But that, that will only go on
47:38
until a certain point. Quite, quite what will determine
47:40
that? Like, I don't know, but, but,
47:43
but the, the, you know, we'll go back to the natural order.
47:46
For whatever reason, that does seem to be the way in which
47:48
people express themselves across, across the entire
47:52
spectrum of society. So there will be a point where
47:55
that does sort of self correct. And, and I think what we're
47:59
talking about the, whether it be going back thousands of years
48:02
through Chinese history or, or anything else, that there will
48:05
have been points all along the way where that will have
48:08
happened. The same thing with, with the
48:10
fall of Rome and, and everything else.
48:12
So ultimately greed, let's say psychopathy, whatever does burn
48:17
itself out or does, does 'cause that implosion, to what degree
48:25
an awareness of that can mean that people can actively do
48:28
something about it. Whether it has to just run its
48:30
course I I don't really know, but I think it is.
48:33
I think it is absolutely observable.
48:35
Isn't a great way of looking at it.
48:38
Also, if you just take a step back and scale everything down,
48:42
right down, how do you govern your home and your family and
48:46
those who work on your property? I mean, that's the way I like to
48:49
look at it. And then from there you scale
48:51
up. Yeah, to an extent, Although I
48:53
mean, I sort of go back to the the, let's say the prehistory of
49:00
before we're talking about property ownership, land
49:02
ownership, agriculture, whatever.
49:04
This idea of conforming to somebody else's plan will
49:08
whatever I think only comes from a situation in which if you
49:12
didn't conduct yourself in a particular manner, you would
49:14
either starve or die because you there there were obvious ways in
49:19
which you dealt with a particular situation.
49:22
And I think all, all you're talking about now is really just
49:25
an extension of that where there will be in most cases, one
49:30
person that has a vision and an understanding of how to avoid
49:36
starvation and death at one end of the spectrum.
49:40
But but mostly to engender a system that is for the benefit
49:46
of everybody. But it does, but it does, it
49:49
does need to conform to the, the sort of natural requirements, I
49:58
would say. And, and the, the mental side of
50:01
that, you know, happiness and all the rest of it is, it is,
50:03
it's clearly an absolutely enormous part of it.
50:05
And that's the, that's sort of the struggle we have.
50:08
We imagine a, a life where every day is in fact a battle for
50:13
survival, then you're not really at leisure to be considering all
50:18
the sorts of factors that we do consider now.
50:21
And therein lies a massive problem a little bit like the
50:24
whole idea of knowledge and even the very discussion we're
50:27
having. I mean, this, this people who
50:29
would want to enter into a discussion like this or even
50:32
listen to it are in a very, very small minority.
50:37
I wouldn't have it any other way.
50:39
I would, I would not want at all to be in a position where you
50:44
just don't even think about these things because they're
50:46
just, you know, that that's you just go through life and it sort
50:50
of passes you by and you just get what you get that, that I, I
50:53
think that would be, that would be appalling.
50:54
Even if in considering these things, you, you appreciate that
50:59
the situation is not perhaps exactly as you'd have it.
51:04
But but yes, I, I, I think this is, this is sort of what it goes
51:07
back to this, this idea of through cooperation and all the
51:11
rest of it, we've, we've achieved what is regarded as
51:13
sort of development. But but with that comes this
51:17
extraordinary sort of slack in the system and, and, and it's
51:20
kind of what what the, what the heck do we do with that?
51:23
And, and then that leads into what?
51:25
And you know, let's have a monocle, let's have a democracy
51:27
or, or, you know, all the other stuff that you wouldn't have had
51:29
when it was just right. We need to go and get some food
51:31
today. Yeah.
51:34
But I mean, what the point that I was making, I mean, I'm
51:36
agreeing with you, but the point I was making is that nobody sits
51:39
down and and says, right, this is how we're going to run our
51:41
household. It just naturally occurs.
51:44
Yeah, sure. No, no, I mean, sorry, but I
51:45
wasn't trying to disagree. I I all I was doing was, was
51:48
sort of harking back to a time where it's just right.
51:50
Well, you know, if you don't, if you don't jump across the
51:52
ravine, now that bear will eat you.
51:55
And. And we, we, I think that that's
51:57
how I tend to think of it. Now.
51:58
It's not so much with the ravines or bears, sadly, but
52:01
yeah. Also, I just want to point out,
52:05
because I'm fairly certain that somebody will mention this, but
52:09
the anarchy or anarchist view of having no sort of governance
52:14
structure. I used to think that I just see
52:17
it as as silly. Now I think it's just, it's just
52:21
academic. It's what it's what people think
52:24
could work. But I mean, it doesn't happen in
52:26
reality. Human nature needs hierarchy.
52:31
Well, I think that goes back to the we are where we are based.
52:33
And, and so it's, it's largely A hypothetical, but I, but I, I, I
52:39
think, I think I would say there's a pretty strong case for
52:42
it in conditions where there's, if we talk about what the, the,
52:47
you know, will Keats preposition that that you're at liberty to
52:53
do whatever it is you would like to do until that encroaches on
52:57
somebody else's ability to do the same.
53:00
And if you're if, if people are in such a situation where there
53:05
is an availability of land, resources, et cetera, and
53:13
therefore there is no need for people to necessarily come into
53:16
conflict with one another. I can see exactly how that would
53:19
work. And that, I mean, I, I do need
53:21
to just turn this into a kind of cyclical conversation, But, but
53:25
I do think that that there is absolutely a way in which that
53:29
can work without there needing to be any sort sort of formal
53:33
hierarchy. Because look what you've just
53:34
described, you've just described a family unit working, you know,
53:37
having a natural hierarchy. Well, no, as you say, you don't,
53:40
you don't draw some document up and pin it on the House notice
53:43
board. You just, you just do it.
53:45
And I, and I think that that's sort of the way I look at it.
53:48
So I think the terminology is confusing.
53:49
I think I think people are people have this idea that
53:52
anarchy and chaos are are the same thing.
53:55
I don't that's not how I see it at all.
53:56
No, exactly. They're not they're not the
53:58
same. So the the trouble is, you know,
54:01
largely in this day and age, it is of course, hypothetical.
54:03
There are there are society. I can't, I can't speak of one
54:07
off the top of my head, but there are definitely some
54:09
societies in various parts of the world that do exist more or
54:13
less on that basis without there being a, a rigid structure and,
54:17
and any idea of a sort of defined leader that must be
54:20
followed. But but yeah, they are few and
54:22
far between and that and that's because of all the factors that
54:24
I think we've talked about. I well, I mean, I think, I think
54:28
to a certain degree what we have been discussing is slightly
54:33
academic. I think that that or whatever my
54:39
question at the end of the day would be the reality of, of our
54:44
lives at the moment is, you know, 70 million people in the
54:49
United Kingdom and whatever the populations of, of other major
54:53
states are at the moment, that that's how we're organized at
54:56
the moment. What what comes next in the, in
55:01
the event that this democracy experiment has failed, which
55:05
undoubtedly it has, how are we going to self organize to keep
55:14
ourselves in one piece? Because when societies collapse,
55:19
that can be quite a violent act. Now, maybe, maybe that's maybe
55:24
that's part of the natural order, maybe that's something
55:27
that's required. I don't know, but I'm sure it's
55:30
something that most people would prefer to avoid.
55:33
And I am, I am, I am most concerned at the moment that
55:38
that people are so demoralized and disengaged that actually
55:44
they're just going to sit and wait to see what's coming.
55:48
And I think that's the best policy.
55:52
I, I think these kinds of conversations are completely
55:54
fascinating because I think they provoke all sorts of ideas and
55:57
thoughts that we really should have, but largely don't.
56:00
Sometimes they're, they're, they can be a little bit sensitive.
56:04
Sometimes, of course, exactly like we said, they're very
56:06
nebulous because we just, we don't really know.
56:07
We don't we don't know what really what happened in the past
56:10
and we certainly don't know exactly what's going to happen
56:12
in the future. I think in looking at the United
56:15
Kingdom in particular in what would be described as Western
56:19
civilizations, Western democracies, I think yes, for
56:22
sure there probably will be conflict, violent conflict in in
56:25
some places as these systems collapse.
56:27
But I think actually probably to a far lesser extent than we
56:30
imagine. And I think that is it, it, this
56:32
is exactly what I'm talking about in, in so far as the
56:35
system sort of implodes rather than explodes, because I think
56:38
that populations now, the UK in particular, has become so
56:44
weakened. This is sort of how we finished
56:46
last week. But but the, the actual
56:49
condition of the humans that are operating within this system is
56:53
so far below what it was that I don't think that that sort of
56:59
level of activity is really even possible.
57:02
So either mentally or physically.
57:04
So I don't think they'll be, they'll be sort of catastrophic
57:10
and cataclysmic result. But I do think that that things
57:15
will break to such a point where a new system must emerge.
57:21
And what form that takes, I don't know, but it should.
57:24
But you know that I, I don't think that should be regarded as
57:26
a negative. It should absolutely be a a
57:28
positive because it it does return to the idea of there
57:33
being a natural order and there being a proper understanding of
57:36
people having liberty, which by and large people just have no
57:40
idea about. I'd very much like to see South
57:43
Africa break apart into various kingdoms.
57:47
I think we'll have a more successful future than we do
57:49
right now. Yeah, but that's my personal
57:51
view. Yeah.
57:53
OK. Charles, Mike, thanks for the
57:55
discussion, for the banter. I'll catch up with you guys next
57:57
week.