RadixJournal - America’s Sanhedrin

00:00:00.000 It's Sunday, September 27th, and welcome back to the McSpencer Group. We are not subject to

00:00:07.780 judicial review. I'm joined today by Mark Brahman. Main topic, America's Sanhedrin.

00:00:16.440 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, and the notorious RBG is set to be replaced

00:00:23.620 by the glorious ACB, jurist Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett's nomination will, no doubt, send many

00:00:31.360 into hysterics, and the affair will be enveloped in dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and intrigue. 0.81

00:00:38.000 But before we crank out the popcorn, it's important to take a step back and examine the true nature of

00:00:45.040 the Supreme Court. What does this institution, a priestly order of conformist yet immensely

00:00:51.660 powerful midwits tell us about the nature of the American government and who exactly is

00:00:57.620 in control? All right. Hello, everyone. Welcome back. Mark is along with me on this one, and

00:01:05.440 I think you'll see why shortly. Mark, how are you? I'm doing well. Thank you for inviting

00:01:11.680 me on. You kind of are reluctant to come on this because you feel like you're not following.

00:01:19.540 Could you detect that? You're like, okay, if you want to, we can do a podcast. I mean, if you want

00:01:25.860 to. I mean, I... No, no, no. I'm always happy to do a podcast. I just hope that I'm, you know, I can

00:01:31.900 contribute something valuable. I think we... Yeah, I think we will once we... This is the thing. I think

00:01:39.900 you were a little bit timid to go on here because you're not following day-to-day politics,

00:01:45.540 and I'm not following day-to-day politics in the way that many people are who are true junkies.

00:01:52.560 But I'm following it enough to understand what's going on. And I think what we can add is different

00:01:59.740 than what other people can add. If for other people, this stuff is their life and they can give you the

00:02:06.500 ins and outs and who said what and, you know, who's screwing whom and all these, you know, nuances and

00:02:14.460 rumors and whatever, I think we just want to kind of just take a stand back from that and look at

00:02:20.060 what's really happening with this. And then also, I think even more importantly, look at how battles

00:02:26.720 over the Supreme Court are indicative of this just kind of flawed, fundamentally flawed American 0.93

00:02:34.540 system. At least that's my take on this matter. But let's go. I don't think I need to catch everyone

00:02:44.140 up to speed too much on the Ginsburg situation. So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, God rest her soul, she has

00:02:52.440 passed. She's now lying in state in the U.S. Capitol. And she was one of the nine Supreme Court justices. 0.56

00:03:02.520 So, there are three branches of government, a legal judicial branch, the Supreme Court on top,

00:03:14.080 the court that has the final say on, you know, many legal cases. But I think their real power is in

00:03:24.080 what's called judicial review. That is their ability to judge whether a piece of legislation is,

00:03:31.780 in their eyes, constitutional. Then there, of course, is a legislative, the congressional branch

00:03:39.160 where laws are initiated. And there's, of course, the executive branch, the president, the man who

00:03:48.080 executes the law, the kind of bureaucratic system that gets it done. And this is supposedly,

00:03:57.460 from what we've been told in middle school, this is supposedly just a brilliant apparatus, couldn't

00:04:03.440 be perfected on. Amazing mechanism of checks and balances where no branch becomes too powerful and the

00:04:14.200 other branches can overrule it. Well, I think that's a lot of hokum, but I think we'll get to that a little 0.82

00:04:21.060 bit later. But there are some interesting politics about this. And so, just four years ago, Antonin Scalia,

00:04:32.120 who was a famous conservative judge, you could say libertarian in some ways, but also was

00:04:41.520 someone who was integral in the kind of unitary conception of an executive and certainly was

00:04:54.460 integral in granting George W. Bush war powers and so on. He was also a big Catholic. We are in a 0.61

00:05:03.440 situation where, I think it's six to three of Catholics and Jews. There is not a wasp on the

00:05:11.180 Supreme Court. So, this remarkable trend will continue. And I don't know if we have anything

00:05:19.420 to say about that. I don't even quite know what to make of it, to be honest, other than there does

00:05:27.700 seem to be attended. I mean, the Jewish interest in law and just basically being high IQ and successful

00:05:38.820 and so on, that doesn't terribly surprise me that Jews are overrepresented. The Catholic aspect is

00:05:45.180 interesting. I think it probably has something to do with this Catholicism that infects the conservative 0.89

00:05:52.060 movement, which really, ever since the mid-century in William F. Buckley, has been, to a very large

00:05:58.400 degree, a Jewish and Catholic movement. There were kind of older versions of the right previous to

00:06:07.020 National Review and so on, but it's definitely kind of Catholic-tinged American conservatism that has

00:06:16.760 won out and that is still winning out to a very large degree. It's remarkable. I don't quite know

00:06:23.900 what that means about Catholics, but it probably doesn't mean anything good.

00:06:32.460 Yeah, and I don't think that that's very threatening either, the fact that there are

00:06:37.180 or to the current establishment. The fact that there are two Jews on there or even one Jew on there

00:06:43.800 and the rest Catholics is pretty meaningless. And I mean, at this point, if it were eight wasps and 1.00

00:06:53.840 one Jew, it would be pretty meaningless, right? It operates on the basis of consensus and precedent. 0.98

00:06:59.760 And the Supreme Court on so many issues will just slowly edge their way towards something. If the

00:07:09.120 overwhelming majority and elite opinion believes that a runaway slave who gets to the North must be

00:07:18.340 arrested and returned to his master, the Supreme Court will determine that that is in the Constitution

00:07:24.580 somewhere. In 2020, the Supreme Court will discover that transsexual rights are part of the civil rights

00:07:34.580 movement. Ginsburg actually had a famous decision on marriage. And she actually put this, you know,

00:07:42.700 marriage has traditionally been, you know, with a, has been about a dominant male and subordinate

00:07:51.060 female. And now we're moving beyond that. And this is all part of the Constitution and this, you know, 0.68

00:07:56.580 check that we haven't yet cashed at the basis of American history, which is this, you know, dream of

00:08:02.020 equality, this injunction towards equality that we're inching ever closer towards. So, I mean, the,

00:08:08.640 the whole legal profession, again, is a kind of, it's like the ultimate midwit profession. It's about 1.00

00:08:16.560 being smart, you do your homework, you cite your work, you, you know, use evidence to support a case,

00:08:25.500 etc., an argument. But it, it's ultimately just kind of slowly moving with the tide of elite and

00:08:33.680 majority opinion. And just kind of, you know, use interpreting this text and kind of digging

00:08:40.020 something out. And I would say this for both sides. This is not a, a, you know, an insult towards

00:08:48.340 liberal jurist or whatever. It's, it's pretty much the entire profession. But anyway, I, there's,

00:08:54.600 you know, there, there've been some, some, you know, a tumult going on. I don't know if we need

00:09:01.620 to go into this too deeply, but after Antonin Scalia died in 2016, the Republicans were in charge of the

00:09:11.540 Senate. They actually increased that lead in 2018, but they were in charge in 2016. And they made up

00:09:19.860 this precedent of, I mean, I guess it's kind of a rule, but it's just a thing they did that

00:09:25.720 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, who are Merritt or Merrick, I can't remember Garland.

00:09:33.260 And from what I've read, he's a, you know, a liberal jurist, but, you know, kind of a neocon as well.

00:09:39.600 I mean, you know, what's really the huge difference here? He was by no means some like left-wing

00:09:44.120 fanatic. And he's the kind of person that I, you know, wouldn't be surprised if, if conservatives

00:09:50.680 liked on many issues. But they decided they wanted their own guy in there and they made up this

00:09:56.180 justification of, we won't do that. And in a lame duck term of a presidency, the American people have

00:10:05.100 to decide, which again, you know, fair enough, but that's really not what the court is about on its own

00:10:11.760 terms. The court is about not letting democratic opinion decide anything. It's about looking, you

00:10:19.100 know, just, you know, overruling or overseeing legislation to see if it's constitutional or not. 1.00

00:10:25.540 So, I mean, the whole thing was, was bullshit. I mean, they did it for political reasons and, 0.99

00:10:31.100 you know, might as well just admit it. And then now we get to this point where we have a, you know,

00:10:35.960 all but identical situation in which a justice dies and they are not waiting. And a lot of people

00:10:42.460 thought they were going to, in their words, cuck and not, you know, follow the rules. And Lindsey 0.85

00:10:48.900 Graham would be like, well, God, you know, dagnammit, I said, I wouldn't do this in four years. And well,

00:10:55.640 I won't. But no, they, they are just simply going to go forward with it. They have the votes

00:11:01.100 to, um, uh, to endorse or confirm, uh, anyone that Trump nominates. And, um, I, I think they're

00:11:11.200 going to do it. Um, unless there's, you know, some new drama that occurs, uh, they're going to do it.

00:11:17.600 Um, I, I don't even know quite what this means. I, I don't, I don't know. I mean,

00:11:23.040 whether they're going to overturn Roe v. Wade or, or all of this stuff, I maybe, um, I, I think that

00:11:32.720 would create a situation that is somewhat similar to where we are now, where abortion is available

00:11:40.120 across the country. I mean, I can't imagine that most States would make abortion illegal. Um, but

00:11:47.220 there would be some States that would, and we saw, we saw a battle, I think it was in 2019

00:11:52.360 in which Alabama made some strong noise, uh, about making, uh, abortion effectively legal and in all

00:12:00.560 but a few circumstances. Um, but you know, right now in many of these States, um, access to abortion

00:12:08.340 is very difficult. And many of these state legislatures have, you know, kind of effectively,

00:12:15.060 uh, banned abortion to a large degree, if not totally. Um, but it is not illegal. So I, I think,

00:12:21.960 you know, we would probably, even if they overturned what Roe and the federalist society were,

00:12:27.340 you know, slapping each other in the back and breaking out the champagne and, you know,

00:12:32.960 Mitt Romney, I guess would crank out a diet Coke or something, go wild. Um, I don't think anything

00:12:41.080 would change that dramatically. Uh, but go ahead. Yeah, no, it, it goes to like, um, the sort of the

00:12:49.780 old debate in the, uh, alt-right or the, uh, dissident right or whatever we're calling it now,

00:12:54.520 but back when it was called the alt-right, that was, uh, one of the debates is, uh, is abortion

00:13:00.240 even a bad thing? Like having abortion available is, is that ultimately a bad thing? And there is some

00:13:06.020 evidence that it's had a, dare I say, eugenic effect, uh, to one degree or another. And it's kind

00:13:13.360 of disproportionately affected certain, um, disadvantaged populations. You could say that,

00:13:17.980 um, uh, you know, that, uh, probably our, our society is in better shape now, um, as a consequence

00:13:24.800 of abortions being legal in a lot of ways. Right. Um, so.

00:13:29.920 Particularly the South. Ironically, the Republican party, they run on abortion every year. Uh, but then 0.79

00:13:37.140 they, uh, they might be outvoted if abortion weren't available. I mean, it's a weird thing.

00:13:43.220 Um, I mean, it's a religion, it seems like it's a religious question ultimately too, as well.

00:13:48.340 Um, but even there things are ambiguous because the Southern Baptist convention in 1973 endorsed

00:13:55.940 the Roe decision. And they said, um, we, you know, we understand a right to privacy and we're not going

00:14:02.140 to fight this issue. Uh, and it was really the development of the religious right and particularly

00:14:07.720 a Catholic led religious right, weirdly, at least intellectually led religious right that they 0.80

00:14:15.060 adopted this issue in the late seventies. And then by the eighties, they had turned it into this hot

00:14:21.500 button issue that it is today. Um, in which, um, I, I think George Herbert Walker Bush was, uh,

00:14:29.960 pro choice in 1980 or something like that. Then he changed, I can't remember the exact details,

00:14:34.620 uh, similar, uh, story with Reagan. Uh, and, but by the nineties to be a pro choice, like an, a openly,

00:14:43.740 uh, you know, I support a woman's right to choose Republican was very difficult. And by the, 0.98

00:14:51.340 you know, W years, those people were exceedingly rare. Um, I think a lot of people probably have,

00:14:58.280 you know, ambivalent views on this, like you and I do, uh, of, you know, well, it's not something I

00:15:05.760 like, but to make it illegal is almost worse than, um, having it, um, you know, exist right now.

00:15:14.420 And we're just going to kind of, you know, not address this issue. Abortions have been going down,

00:15:21.020 um, due to a number of factors due to the fact that people are having less sex, which is,

00:15:27.820 also kind of sad. Yeah. You can, and you can actually pregnancies are going down. Yeah. Go

00:15:33.200 ahead. You can make an argument for, um, uh, or rather against abortion, uh, from a racialist

00:15:39.960 position in the sense that, yeah, I mean, if, because really what we're concerned with ostensibly

00:15:46.320 is white births. So if there are no abortions, more white people will be born and it doesn't 0.99

00:15:51.500 really kind of matter how many non-whites are born, for example, you know, so I, you, I, 0.90

00:15:57.680 you can make that argument. Um, I don't really, I share your ambivalence. I don't have a, I mean,

00:16:02.980 the problem is the real problem with the society is the society doesn't have a kind of direction.

00:16:08.020 It does have a direction, but it doesn't have a desirable direction from our position. Right.

00:16:12.520 So all of this stuff is sort of kind of random and it's not like, it's not kind of, um, you know,

00:16:18.360 these policies are not directed toward a goal. They're just sort of policies, um, that are part

00:16:24.280 of this generally bad direction, um, that both parties are moving in. Yeah. And I, I, in terms of

00:16:30.820 abortion, I mean, I, I think that you, you could definitely, you could make a racialist case for,

00:16:38.220 to be pro-life, no question. Uh, you could definitely make a traditionalist case in the

00:16:43.020 sense of, um, you know, first off on, on a, based on a notion, even if you made, if you made a mistake

00:16:49.500 or something bad happened to you, um, you know, the child did not make that mistake. And so you,

00:16:56.920 you are punishing him for, you know, uh, under your own discretion, uh, for something that he has no

00:17:04.720 control over. And, and that, that's a reasonable argument. Um, you could also say that you could

00:17:10.820 make a kind of rad trad, uh, argument and say that all these women out there are, um, they, 1.00

00:17:16.600 you know, they're, they're aborting their babies left and right and get, you know, going into careers.

00:17:21.520 And if only, you know, if only we made that illegal, then they'd stay home and have, 0.97

00:17:26.120 you know, productive families and so on. I'm not sure I buy any of that though. Um, I, I,

00:17:33.900 I think the, the kind of higher IQ, the, the kind of women that we would want to have children to be 1.00

00:17:41.320 frank, uh, I think are fairly good at using contraception and avoiding things like, you

00:17:48.420 know, getting raped or knocked up, you know, by an unknown man or, or, or what have you, uh,

00:17:54.180 they avoid those kinds of things, um, much like they generally take care of themselves throughout

00:17:59.360 their own, their entire lives and they kind of live in bubbles, um, to a large degree. So I, I,

00:18:05.420 I think the, the types of people who are, are, are having abortion are not those career gals that

00:18:11.740 you think of. It's, it's something very different. And, um, I, I don't know. I, I think these,

00:18:17.380 these women, I mean, I'm sorry to be just totally brutal and, you know, Malthusian or something here, 1.00

00:18:25.220 but, um, those women who are bragging about their abortions and, you know, like, yeah, 1.00

00:18:32.320 I had a, an abortion and I'm proud or so on. I'm, I'm not exactly that saddened by the notion that

00:18:42.440 those types of people are not reproducing, you know? I mean, I, you know, it's one thing to,

00:18:50.420 for this to have happened to you and for you to kind of make a tragic choice or something.

00:18:55.260 Uh, it's another to make that part of your identity and think it's wonderful and not see

00:19:01.060 that you are, you know, ending life. And, um, I don't know. I, I, I think the, the, the kind of

00:19:08.100 spiteful mutant thesis, uh, seems to apply here. These are, are really bizarre people and they have,

00:19:15.280 uh, really profoundly disordered minds and, um, they're going to pass on those kinds of things 0.67

00:19:23.360 if they have children. I mean, I know this is kind of brutal, but, um, Ed was even talking to me

00:19:27.800 a little while ago about, um, this irony of banning abortions in Ireland, where, uh, you now have 0.79

00:19:34.620 these, you know, ridiculous governments in charge and, um, you know, how many of those spiteful

00:19:42.180 mutants might not be walking amongst us if abortion were legal in Ireland and not insignificant 1.00

00:19:49.040 amount. Yeah, no, I, I, I don't disagree. I mean, to some, I mean, there is a kind of,

00:19:55.880 there's a genetic question with some of these people. Um, but there's also a cultural, a larger,

00:20:01.520 broader cultural question where to one extent or another, everyone is sort of suffering from a kind

00:20:06.820 of mass, uh, psychosis as it were. Right. Uh, in the sense that, you know, sort of the ideas that we

00:20:13.480 hold, um, are, I, you know, you and I believe them to be very sound and rational and fair and humane

00:20:20.600 ideas. Um, but they're, they're sort of roundly, uh, villainized by just about everyone else. Right.

00:20:28.860 Yeah. So, you know, there's that. And, um, so some of these people, uh, some of these mutants,

00:20:35.360 as it were, might have been relatively healthy psychological people under different, uh, cultural

00:20:42.500 conditions as it were. I agree. I agree. Um, well, anyway, I don't, I, and I'm, I'm a little bit

00:20:50.540 ambivalent myself. I won't make a strong prediction. If this, um, justice gets in, whether they will

00:20:55.800 overturn Roe or not, I'm curious about that. I could see someone like Roberts going the other

00:21:03.180 way, but I would say this, that even if it were overturned, um, again, I think effectively we would

00:21:10.300 be in a very similar situation where we are today and where we are today is where abortion access to

00:21:16.340 abortion is, is quite difficult in many States and it is legal and available, uh, and safe, you know,

00:21:25.460 in most areas of the country. And I think actually it would just remain like that if Roe were overturned.

00:21:31.220 And this is one of those things where the conservative movement, I mean, how many billions

00:21:35.080 have been dedicated to the federalist society and, you know, grooming all of these, you know,

00:21:41.140 potential Supreme court justices, you know, we've got to get our man in the white house so we can

00:21:45.920 appoint this judge to overturn Roe and, and you do it and you're kind of ruined by your success and

00:21:51.380 sense of like, well, nothing's really changed. Actually, we haven't fundamentally changed.

00:21:57.160 We haven't won the culture war. We haven't fundamentally changed the environment by doing

00:22:01.640 this. And I, I think this is again, one of those kinds of conservative false victories if they do

00:22:07.300 get it and they might, I think it's actually reasonable to say that, uh, if Trump wins, um,

00:22:13.000 a second, well, if Trump appoints a justice and if Trump say wins, or for some other reason,

00:22:20.140 the conservatives are kind of, you know, feeling themselves and they bring up a case that would

00:22:26.260 directly affect Roe, um, it is very possible that that could happen. But what I really wanted to talk

00:22:33.080 about, um, and why I wanted to have you on is, is the kind of like, what is the Supreme court? What is

00:22:41.080 this thing that is, has so much power and that we, you know, how many votes do the Republicans get

00:22:51.560 every year just on that basis of the possibility that they could appoint a justice? One of these

00:22:59.100 nine, nine humans have this much power and they're appointed by political parties, but they're kind of

00:23:07.020 non-partisan, at least, at least ostensibly. Um, what does this kind of situation, um, and their,

00:23:15.100 their, you know, their job is not to actually make political decisions and make policy. Even the

00:23:20.360 most liberal justice won't, will say, we're not here to make policy, even though they have had

00:23:26.020 tremendous effect on actual policy. But, um, you know, what is this kind of situation remind you of

00:23:32.840 and, and, and how is it problematic? And I, you know, I was thinking about this, um, the other

00:23:38.920 night of, of, you know, who is sovereign in the United States. And, and I'm using a, you know,

00:23:46.500 Schmittian conception of that in the sense of who ultimately decides who in exceptional matters

00:23:52.380 decides who kind of makes the rules and breaks the rules and doesn't just follow the rules. And in the

00:23:59.240 United States, unlike say Prussia or a, you know, uh, tribe in Africa or something, um, this actually

00:24:08.080 is, uh, dubious. It's in dispute. We don't quite know. I think if you ask the average, your average

00:24:14.600 Joe on the street, who's in charge, he would say the president. Well, that's not exactly correct.

00:24:23.480 If you look at the actual mechanism of government. So the, all legislation that is all laws originate

00:24:32.560 and are initiated by the Congress. And so the president doesn't actually have an agenda or a

00:24:41.020 group, you know, a, a big host of laws. He might talk about those things, but those aren't ultimately

00:24:47.700 his. And those come from Congress. He has the ability to veto them, which is a kind of kingly

00:24:54.200 like ability. Um, I believe the, uh, queen still has that ability in parliament, doesn't she? And 0.96

00:25:00.080 the parliament still kind of is, is almost kind of confirmed by the queen. Um, she, she can veto

00:25:06.420 legislation, although she doesn't use that power. Well, the president does use that power and the 1.00

00:25:10.420 president can veto law. So you could say he's sovereign, but, uh, Congress can override a

00:25:17.000 veto. So Congress can just say, no, we're doing this to the president. So the president really

00:25:22.460 isn't in charge. The president is the ex executor of laws. He's the, he's not a lawgiver. Uh, he's a law

00:25:30.880 enforcer and the lawgiver in, in that kind of, you know, traditionalist sense is the Congress. Um,

00:25:37.920 in terms of war making and foreign policy, the president has a great deal of power. Uh, it's,

00:25:44.820 he is the commander in chief of the military, uh, you know, as the executive. Um, so a non-military,

00:25:50.520 usually a non-military person is in charge of the military. Of course, Washington was a military

00:25:55.240 person and other examples, Eisenhower retired officer, but a civilian is in charge of the military.

00:26:01.300 Um, and particularly in the 20th century, the president has had a great deal of just unilateral

00:26:10.880 power. I mean, the last time, I mean, Congress, um, uh, apparently Congress is supposed to be the

00:26:20.500 one declaring war, but that actually hasn't happened since the second world war. And in between that,

00:26:26.700 we've had situations like the Korean war in which that war was authorized by the United Nations,

00:26:32.020 uh, and Truman executed it. So that, that was a kind of tossing over or move, tossing sovereignty

00:26:40.840 over to another entity. Although I've not seen anything, we've seen a few instances like it.

00:26:45.640 We haven't seen anything on that scale like it, uh, since, uh, what usually happens is that, um,

00:26:52.160 Congress passes the buck and the president engages in foreign policy adventures. The president does

00:26:58.640 have powers to engage in adventures with some oversight, but to engage in adventures on his

00:27:03.400 own, particularly in an emergency. So the president is largely sovereign. The Senate will, um, uh,

00:27:10.120 I think they can confirm treaties and diplomacy basically, but the, you know, we, we know that the

00:27:16.600 president does have that charge, but at the same time, I think you could make a very good case that

00:27:22.800 the Supreme court is the sovereign entity in the United States. And the reason I would say that is

00:27:30.540 that while a presidential veto can be overridden by democratic means, um, a, a SCOTUS decision cannot.

00:27:42.780 And the sense, uh, Marbury Madison, um, in like 1803, uh, so very shortly after the constitution was

00:27:53.300 ratified in the articles, the declaration articles of, um, confederation were, um, nullified, uh, the

00:27:59.900 Supreme court has had the ability, at least they don't always use it, but they have the ability to

00:28:05.200 simply say no to any legislation and say, this is not con constitutional. And as we know,

00:28:12.780 um, times change, opinions change, the elites change and decisions change and precedent, you

00:28:20.640 know, the, the, it's kind of like group think, uh, where everyone's just battling to, to, to cover

00:28:26.360 their ass effectively and not be the one who tries to change the paradigm. But then once the paradigm

00:28:31.220 changes, they kind of all get in line with it. And the Supreme court is like, like that, but the

00:28:36.320 Supreme court has judicial review. They can just veto a law effectively. And also as we've seen in,

00:28:43.920 um, the year 2000 and other times, uh, the Supreme court can, I mean, again, I, these are exceptional

00:28:53.380 cases, but again, it's the exception that proves who's sovereign. The Supreme court basically can,

00:28:59.020 uh, has been known to determine who becomes president. I mean, you could really strongly

00:29:04.160 argue that, uh, if, if the Supreme court had been made up in a different manner, that Al Gore would

00:29:10.960 have been president in 2000 and probably not much would have changed to be honest. I'm not even sure,

00:29:16.360 you know, our destiny would go a different way, but that they had that power actually justice

00:29:20.880 Ginsburg herself dissented in that, uh, decision, uh, Bush v. Gore, uh, in which they, I, I, if I remember

00:29:27.540 correctly, they cut off, they cut off the manual recount in Florida and Bush was president, boom,

00:29:33.380 rubber stamp. And so the Supreme court ultimately has power over, uh, the president and thus war

00:29:42.100 making and foreign policy making, uh, decisions, even though they don't always use it, they do have

00:29:47.660 that power. And so you could strongly argue that the Supreme court is sovereign. And so what does that

00:29:54.340 mean? That means that we don't have a sovereign entity who is either, you know, has, has that by

00:30:02.900 right or birth or, or, or by democratic will, uh, we have a sovereign entity at the very highest level

00:30:10.360 that is a bunch of lawyers arguing about this text and they are a priestly class and they dress like it,

00:30:22.260 uh, uh, in these big black gowns that are solemn, uh, but are highly reminiscent of priest and they

00:30:34.280 are, their holy book is the constitution. And much like any good priest, you can kind of read what you

00:30:41.680 want within reason to the constitution that they are engaged in exegesis. And this is what the justices

00:30:48.720 will all say, whether they're liberal or conservative, they'll say, I'm not the batter here. And I'm not

00:30:53.640 the pitcher. I'm the umpire. I call balls and strikes. And, but that's, that's kind of the story they tell

00:31:00.580 about themselves in reality, even though they do it kind of in exceptional instances and they do it

00:31:06.520 glacially slowly, they change policy. They, they are, they aren't law givers, but they're kind of law

00:31:14.020 interpretive. They fetishize this holy text from years ago that is called the constitution in this

00:31:22.740 sense. And so we have a kind of priestly order at the very top of American government. And it's not

00:31:32.360 quite the deep state. It's not the military industrial con complex. It's not big finance, but

00:31:38.040 to underestimate its power is pure folly. It is extremely powerful. And just the fact that that

00:31:47.380 is considered a branch of government and the fact that we have this priestly order, um, you know,

00:31:53.240 at the very top of American government, I actually believe is, is extremely problematic from our

00:32:00.240 standpoint. Um, and I think it also kind of reveals something about the nature of American government.

00:32:08.040 Yeah, well, I, I agree with what you're saying. Um, you know, I think that, uh, there is in,

00:32:17.280 maybe you had the intention of me bringing up this, uh, parable in the Hebrew Bible, but one of the,

00:32:23.660 uh, one of the ways it seems that Yahweh triumphs over other gods or false idols in the Hebrew Bible

00:32:31.200 is the scene at, uh, Sinai where, um, uh, Aaron has, you know, melted all these golden rings into a,

00:32:40.680 uh, false idol, a golden, the golden calf, right? The famous golden calf. Now I, I argue that that is,

00:32:47.760 that represents a kind of Aryan, um, figure, right? It's, or at least at the very least, obviously it 0.90

00:32:53.280 represents a non-Jewish idol, right? Right. So it, in the gold may signify a kind of solar identity 0.79

00:33:00.660 and Aryan identity. So this golden calf has been erected, but it's, it's, uh, overturned or usurped,

00:33:07.380 um, by these laws effectively, right? Because what ultimately replaces the golden calf,

00:33:13.600 it's the 10 commandments that are brought down, uh, from the mountain. And I, I argue that that is,

00:33:20.940 that parable exists, uh, to show that law is a kind of will to power, right? So in other words,

00:33:28.040 if you, if you have a people, uh, who have these sort of tribal gods and are worshiping answer,

00:33:34.960 ancestors, for example, or it's a kind of ancestor worship, you know, that, that, that was going on in

00:33:40.220 a relatively healthy way in this country. Uh, I, I, I'm not going to say until recently,

00:33:45.000 I mean, it's been a kind of slow and steady decline, but we've seen all these kinds of

00:33:48.700 idols very explicitly knocked over recently in our country that the, whether they're civil war

00:33:54.140 monuments or whatever the case may be. Um, and so it's a similar thing that's happening in the sense

00:34:01.940 that, and Solzhenitsyn talks about this too, this legalism, the danger of legalism, but law becomes a

00:34:08.800 kind of will to power. And I think that Jews identify it as a will to power. And that is the 1.00

00:34:13.920 meaning of that parable is that they understand it as a way of usurping, uh, these tribal gods or

00:34:19.800 these ancestors, which is probably a kind of, uh, a more generic and easier way to understanding it,

00:34:24.960 understand it. It's a way of, uh, basically disrupting the tribal, uh, identity of the goyim, 0.99

00:34:32.480 as it were, right? Or it's a way in, right? It's a way to, it's a way to assert this, uh,

00:34:38.640 invisible God, Yahweh, as the God of Israel, right? Because that's what's happening in that 0.91

00:34:44.220 parable. Um, so it's a will to power effectively. And it's a will to power, um, that is especially

00:34:50.560 one that is, um, uh, that Jews are able to, um, use, uh, because it's kind of, it fits their 0.83

00:34:59.620 skill set as it were, uh, in a very close way. Um, because they're very verbally gifted people

00:35:06.660 and they're, they're the people of the book, right? And they're the people of the Talmud

00:35:11.520 and they're the people of like, sort of making these fine distinctions in laws. That word,

00:35:17.360 uh, that adjective, uh, Talmudic is a reference to making these parsing fine distinctions, right?

00:35:24.080 Um, and so they are in a, you might even argue that they're in a way a kind of erasive lawyers

00:35:29.300 to some extent or another, right? Um, so that, that is a kind of advantage to them. I, I mean,

00:35:37.260 I think that the, there are a number of ways that the pagan religion, you know, from my analysis

00:35:42.620 appears to address problems like this. And one of them was, uh, the concept of, uh, nomos

00:35:48.200 in Greece, which means law. Nomos means Greece, but they, nomos was also a God, right? So the nomos

00:35:55.620 was also this God named nomos, right? But the nomos was also Jupiter. Like he was a form of Jupiter

00:36:02.540 or Zeus, right? So you couldn't, so already the law has a kind of racial ancestral character

00:36:09.960 where, you know, and Zeus is even in, in the Hebrew, uh, the words for Zeus mean justice,

00:36:17.180 right? So he's a God of justice and he's a judge on some level, right? Um, and so the whole character

00:36:25.560 and we talk about the spirit of the law, I mean, literally the spirit of the law is this kind of

00:36:30.760 homage to this ancestral, you know, Jupiter, uh, who is a kind of avatar, who is exactly a kind of

00:36:37.780 avatar of, you know, Aryans or the white race. Um, so I think that that is a kind of helpful, uh, 1.00

00:36:45.100 mechanism that they developed in, uh, in the ancient world. Um, and then nomos became an idea

00:36:51.240 that was discussed by the sophists in Greece, right? So you see how this, it becomes undermined

00:36:56.280 eventually. Um, and how, you know, through, uh, philosophy is one way, but these things,

00:37:03.320 these, these sort of religious structures that the ancients developed, they had, you know,

00:37:08.040 they, these problems, they had already encountered these problems and these were some of the solutions,

00:37:11.580 uh, they came up with is what I would argue. And I would give you one more example of this,

00:37:17.480 which is, I think is a, it's, it's an even better example. Well, you have Apollo who's the god of

00:37:21.880 truth, right? So on some level, Apollo represents truth. And what is Apollo? He's the hyperborean.

00:37:28.000 He's a symbol of the Aryan race. So truth becomes synonymous with sort of, I would argue with racial 0.99

00:37:35.460 survival and racial success. So even the definition of truth itself, right? So when pilot in the new

00:37:42.700 Testament, in that famous line, the new Testament, when he says, what is truth, right?

00:37:47.180 I think that that's also signaling that like the Romans had basically lost a sense of truth.

00:37:52.560 They'd lost what truth is. There's another deity, uh, that the Romans worshiped called, uh,

00:37:58.740 Veritas. Her name is Veritas. And which means truth in Rome, uh, in Latin rather, it means in,

00:38:05.480 it meant truth in ancient Rome. And, um, she was understood as either descended from Jupiter,

00:38:12.920 which would make her a daughter of Jupiter, right? Um, or she's descended of Saturn, right?

00:38:18.800 Who is a Semitic God, right? And that's a kind of important distinction distinction because it,

00:38:23.660 it reveals that there were actually kind of two different truths in the sense that, uh,

00:38:28.000 and there, you know, I think you understand what I'm saying, but the idea that truth becomes

00:38:33.360 embodied in effectively something that represents a kind of racial ideal or type gives us a direction

00:38:40.880 or gives us a, an actual kind of, uh, palpable and tangible notion as to what truth is, you know,

00:38:47.820 a truth is survival. It's continuance. It's, it's our race. Truth is our race, right?

00:38:53.660 The health of the people is the Supreme law.

00:38:56.040 Yeah.

00:38:57.060 The Roman concept as well. Yeah.

00:38:59.320 Yeah.

00:38:59.500 There's just nothing you like you, I don't know. I mean, we, I think we, this, this came about

00:39:05.400 in an, an, an, an, an, that sentiment came about, uh, about 20 years ago. And it is somewhat

00:39:10.620 unfortunate context of the Iraq war and, and, and nine 11 and all that kind of stuff. But the,

00:39:15.860 the constitution is not a suicide pact, which, uh, it, you know, was declared by, uh, you know,

00:39:23.720 a bunch of conservatives who wanted to go to war in Iraq, but just because they declared it,

00:39:28.880 uh, doesn't mean it's the sentiment itself is actually wrong. And of course, any good sentiment

00:39:33.360 can be abused and misused, of course. Uh, but that basic notion that there is no law above our

00:39:41.900 survival and our flourishing, just simply put, um, I don't think that is a, that's not a Judaic

00:39:49.760 sentiment or a Christian sentiment. I mean, in the sense that there are laws above your survival.

00:39:55.440 And in fact, you, even if you do not survive, if you are, go extinct, those laws will remain.

00:40:03.240 Uh, it is a kind of reversal of the way that a Roman would understand these things. 0.95

00:40:10.780 Yeah, no, I, I agree with that. I mean, though, I think that, um, you know, I mean, obviously they,

00:40:17.240 I think that they have intelligently, they have a kind of cynical way. I mean, cynical is one way of,

00:40:22.340 uh, thinking of it, but they have a sort of practical and realistic way of looking at some

00:40:27.080 of these, um, these constructs that we often lose sight of, right? So people, there is this whole cult

00:40:34.540 around the constitution, for example, right? And that, that's a common, and those are some of the

00:40:39.420 most ostensibly conservative people in the country are these constitutionalists, right? But so you see

00:40:44.960 exactly what's happening. I mean, they, they basically accepted the, the two tablets from

00:40:49.660 Moses and they're worshiping this, the law as it were. Yeah. Right. Well, it's, it's like a lot of,

00:40:56.300 many people are proud of the so-called separation of church and state, which isn't quite constitutional.

00:41:03.840 I mean, there, there are, um, uh, laws about establishing a national church and so on. I think

00:41:10.360 the separation of church and state might come from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, if I'm not,

00:41:15.280 you can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, but this, you know, there, there shall be no established

00:41:20.140 national church and that, and that's, you know, understandable. You're creating a new country.

00:41:24.800 There are, you know, there are Quakers, there are Puritans, there are some Catholics, there are some

00:41:29.300 Jews around. I mean, you, we're not going to have one national church, um, again, an understandable 0.99

00:41:36.120 sentiment. Um, but I think it's taken in this, in this false way, which is that religion and the

00:41:44.980 state should always be separate. And that is an anti-traditionalist view. But I, I think beyond

00:41:51.200 that, I, I think it's a anti-human view. Um, religion and your national order are always going to be

00:42:00.020 combined. And, you know, these goofy conservatives, as much as we want to make fun of them who kind of, 0.94

00:42:06.180 you know, talk about God and country and, you know, uh, Jesus and the constitution, all that kind 0.94

00:42:10.960 of stuff. I mean, okay, we can smirk a bit at that, but, uh, they are getting at a fundamental

00:42:18.580 traditionalist worldview, which is that the state and the religion are one and they reinforce each other

00:42:25.020 and God is on your side and you, your people as articulated by the state will triumph with God on

00:42:33.320 your side. And that actually is a natural and healthy view. That is the view of all humans up

00:42:39.480 until fairly recently. So, uh, it is an evolved view you could say. Uh, but then I, I would say that

00:42:46.480 the, the whole doctrine of the separation of church and state is a false one. And you hear this from both 0.58

00:42:50.760 sides. So even, I remember it was Rick Santorum was saying that, you know, um, you know, combining

00:42:57.720 church and state is bad for the state, but it's also bad for religion. You know, we need to have 0.99

00:43:02.900 our own kind of private personal God and sphere of, of religion. But I, I think that is a naive view.

00:43:10.100 Um, we, we don't have a separation of church and state. We simply have a different type of church

00:43:17.100 within our state. And that church is, um, you know, diametrically opposed to previous ways of doing

00:43:26.720 things in Europe. And it is basically creating this, um, you know, Judaic textural exegesis system,

00:43:38.740 uh, in which the constitution are the stone tablets or the Holy book. And we have these priestly

00:43:46.500 midwits interpreting it for us. And they have the final say. So on, on one level, we live in a

00:43:54.120 theocracy, but it is a theocracy of the constitution of, you know, natural rights and enlightened humanism,

00:44:01.560 you could say, but that is how our system fundamentally functions. And we, and we have

00:44:07.000 to understand it on that basis and not just go in for the slogans of, you know, Oh, we have separation

00:44:13.980 of church and state in this country or something. We don't. And we never have.

00:44:18.440 Yeah. You know, I mean, it actually reminds me of something too, is that, um, you're right. I mean,

00:44:24.380 politics are effectively religion, right? So, um, and, or they're part of this sort of larger kind of

00:44:31.140 religious culture as it were. Um, and they're, they're, uh, they're, um, indistinct from it. So 1.00

00:44:37.620 they're just part of that fabric. Um, you know, one, one sort of, uh, comparison that comes to mind

00:44:43.500 is that in Greece, um, when the Athenian theater developed, it was a kind of break from earlier

00:44:51.860 cults, right? Because it, it evolved from a cult. It, it evolved from like these, um, uh, you know,

00:44:58.540 these dying and rising cults. Like, and in, in fact, the, the, yeah, yeah, it's, it was called

00:45:04.580 the Dionysia. So it was a, it was a form of worshiping Dionysus, right? But what happened

00:45:12.040 though, is that religion changed on some level with the development of the Athenian theater,

00:45:16.280 it became in some way less formal and less serious, but simultaneously, it also became

00:45:23.140 more cunning and more enthralling, right? Um, in the sense that people,

00:45:29.820 people ostensibly were not taking it as seriously as they would take a, you know, an earlier religious

00:45:37.160 cult or a religious initiation, but I don't think that's the case. I think that they were as

00:45:41.840 enthralled as we see in the media today, we see in Hollywood, for example, uh, which I think is a

00:45:46.640 kind of continuation of the Dionysia. We see a similar kind of cult thing happening where we have

00:45:52.040 people who are, uh, who are getting their sort of morals and their, their identity from these TV

00:45:57.740 shows. Right. These are the parables that kind of inform them morally. Right. I think that that's

00:46:03.840 very clear. So the idea of the cat lady with, you know, the bottle of wine watching, you know,

00:46:09.160 whatever her favorite TV show is, she's being sort of taught what to think about everything

00:46:14.440 effectively by watching those TV shows. So that becomes a kind of more cunning and effective way

00:46:20.500 of religion than a person going to church where it's kind of explicit, like, oh, you know,

00:46:25.220 you have to listen to these commandments. It doesn't, doesn't it kind of appeal to the vanity

00:46:29.080 in the same way that entertainment does. Right. Where in the sense that they don't feel like

00:46:33.580 they're being told what to think, but they are being told what to think. Right. So, and, and I think

00:46:38.580 that that, so I think you can draw a similar comparison to politics in the sense that, you know,

00:46:44.440 sensibly there is this division between, uh, uh, church and politics, but there isn't, it's, you know,

00:46:50.480 the culture is kind of woven into one sort of a larger cult as it were. Um, and the Supreme Court

00:46:57.380 justices will go with the flow, you know, they'll go with the flow of academia. Um, you know, famously

00:47:04.940 in, um, desegregation cases, uh, they were calling upon, you know, the latest in social science and, 0.81

00:47:12.120 you know, how black children are, they prefer a white baby doll or something. I think that's what it 1.00

00:47:19.900 was. It was a footnote, but it was, they were clearly justifying, um, you know, judicial decisions

00:47:26.360 on the basis of, um, elite academia. And they, they just kind of go with the flow of the larger church

00:47:34.540 and they will, you know, they will determine these things. And I guess the alternative,

00:47:40.040 because again, we're just complaining about something, but, um, the alternative, I, I, I would

00:47:45.640 say it is an executive who can take responsibility for his actions, a, an executive who will ultimately

00:47:56.500 wear his power on his sleeve. And, you know, this is again, someone who would be demonized as,

00:48:05.580 you know, a dictator or whatever. Uh, but someone who ultimately has to take responsibility for

00:48:12.280 decisions and does not claim that he's acting on the basis of some holy text or some new interpretation

00:48:18.340 that he's, he's come up with, uh, but someone who simply acts. And, um, that is a real alternative

00:48:28.400 to this system. And that is the type of system that we have in every other way of life. In the military,

00:48:37.000 there isn't a Supreme court. I mean, I mean, there, I guess there kind of is in the actual

00:48:41.860 Supreme court, but no, there are generals and officers. If your football team is going poorly,

00:48:47.580 the coach, whether he's really to blame or not, maybe is, maybe isn't he, he kind of is symbolically

00:48:54.980 beheaded. So to speak, he leaves, you do this in all forms of, uh, corporate society,

00:49:02.280 which are corporations are not democratic institutions. They have to be legal of course,

00:49:07.140 but they, they don't have some, you know, magical priestly class determining what they do. You know,

00:49:14.240 is this new product constitutional or not? No, they just simply act and people have to take

00:49:20.800 responsibility for their actions. Uh, and that is just a more honest way as particularly as opposed

00:49:27.160 to the American system where no one takes responsibility at some level. And it's all of

00:49:33.360 these, you know, this churn of new representatives churn of presidents, uh, you know, whether the

00:49:39.560 president is more powerful than say the media or the military industrial complex or big finance

00:49:45.180 or the Supreme court is questionable. And you just have this, this, so these so-called checks and

00:49:51.000 balances are just this kind of infinite way to pass the buck and cover your ass. 0.99

00:49:55.460 And no one is really in charge except again, ultimately this group of midwits who are 0.99

00:50:04.940 interpreting legal documents. And it's just, I don't know. I, I, I mean, I, I don't want this

00:50:12.060 to sound too dire, but I, I, until we can move beyond this kind of thing, I don't, I'm not sure

00:50:20.320 whether the world we want is really possible because we, we, we, we want a, we, we don't just

00:50:27.580 want, you know, white people, you know, in America, like, um, you know, keep our, you know, 0.67

00:50:32.900 demographics 60% white. That's great. Let's keep it. You know, that's not the ultimate end of what 0.99

00:50:38.420 we want. And we don't just want, you know, the end of, you know, anti-white slander and,

00:50:44.300 and Hollywood and academia or whatever. That's, that would be great to end. No question,

00:50:48.180 but that's not ultimately it. I mean, we, we do want a different way of being a different

00:50:52.820 way of life. And that would, that would entail learning from the past mistakes of creating a

00:51:00.920 system like this and creating a better one. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I, I, and I think that

00:51:07.660 that should be our focus, but at the same time, um, there is certainly with, even within this system

00:51:14.000 as kind of fettering as the system is, as you've described, uh, there are opportunities,

00:51:19.280 uh, for someone in the position of Donald Trump to, to cause a lot of mayhem, which he had,

00:51:25.500 he, he sort of failed to do effectively. Right. Um, so the, the, you know, a lot of hysteria,

00:51:31.520 but he hasn't actually like fundamentally, you know, uh, gone after anything or changed anything

00:51:40.580 fundamentally. Sure. Yeah. And it's a lot of heartache and liberal tears, I guess you could

00:51:46.380 say. But what you're describing though, becomes sort of his, uh, that becomes his alibi effectively,

00:51:52.040 like the system becomes his alibi and, you know, and we still blame him because we don't think

00:51:58.060 that the system, you know, we do actually, even within the system, a strong man could, you know,

00:52:03.200 the golden calf could usurp, uh, could you serve the tablets? Yeah. You know, I mean,

00:52:09.420 that's, sure. Um, anything is still possible on the political level. Um, we just, so far,

00:52:16.900 we haven't seen people that are willing to kind of take those steps. Um, and maybe in some cases

00:52:22.060 it's because of a lack of, uh, sort of, um, you know, profundity, right. Or a sense of history

00:52:28.860 or a sense of, um, you know, what are they actually doing? I mean, what is Trump actually

00:52:33.440 doing? What is his legacy going to be? Yeah. Can you stand outside it? I mean, I've, I, I,

00:52:38.640 I've joked on Twitter, but I, but I, I was serious. You know, you have all of these liberals

00:52:43.460 freaking out about Donald Trump, you know, nullifying the election or some, you know,

00:52:47.780 somehow staying in office and whatever. And, you know, I, they, they see that as like an evil in

00:52:54.160 itself. It's fascist, but it's kind of like, okay, let, let's take this thought experiment and ask

00:53:01.600 what, what would he actually do if he did that? My guess is that he'd do the same stupid crap that 1.00

00:53:07.480 he's been doing for the past four years that even if he did something that dramatic, 0.99

00:53:12.460 and I don't think he will, by the way, but, um, even if he did something as dramatic as nullify

00:53:17.280 an election, we just still be in the same position where we are right now, where, you know, we have

00:53:23.420 these other forces that are more powerful than he is. And, and he can't take a step back and think

00:53:29.720 outside it and, and think that there could be something better.

00:53:35.360 Yeah. I mean, we've seen no evidence that he would do anything interesting. Um, I think that,

00:53:40.980 you know, and I actually don't know if we've actually talked about this, but, um, I mean,

00:53:44.540 it's just a sort of ongoing phenomenon that I'm sure that you've talked about. Maybe we've talked

00:53:48.780 about it offline and I'm sure you've probably touched on it on, uh, other episodes of this show

00:53:54.140 with other guests, but, you know, there is a kind of, uh, and I guess, uh, um, uh, Dutton makes

00:54:01.060 this point actually that, uh, religiosity increases during times of stress, right? And I think that

00:54:06.820 we've seen that, um, in the, uh, former alt-right or in the dissident right, where we've seen people

00:54:13.220 like the, we've seen the rise of the, uh, um, the tradcasts, for example. Um, no, I mean,

00:54:19.760 which I think is an actual kind of real phenomenon, you know, it makes sense that they're, they're

00:54:24.140 like a lot of one, at least kind of at first glance, you know, what's going on here, all

00:54:28.760 these zoomers adopting Catholicism with, with what's, what is that? Sure. But it does make 1.00

00:54:34.920 sense that there were all these kind of young kids in the sense that that's a time when people can

00:54:39.040 really be formed or impressed at a certain point, you know, at a certain formative stage of their

00:54:44.680 life, they can actually be turned in this direction or that. Whereas, I mean, the average

00:54:49.360 person, and I think that there are certainly exceptions, and I think that you and I would

00:54:52.640 count as exceptions to this, is that you and I, I think, have probably changed a lot over our lives.

00:54:58.960 Like, we've had multiple stages of kind of change and growth, as it were. And a lot of that is us

00:55:04.640 sort of reacting to our times, um, and kind of getting over our times, I would say, right? And

00:55:11.340 looking, you know, trying to think beyond our times, as it were. Um, but I think that most people

00:55:17.140 are basically fully formed on some level at the age of like 25 or 26. Yeah. Um, this is an idea

00:55:23.880 that actually, that a friend, uh, gave me, but I think it actually kind of rings true that most

00:55:28.240 people are kind of just fully formed and like in their mid twenties for a number of reasons, you know,

00:55:33.380 they're getting married, their, their career is on its track or whatever the case may be.

00:55:37.080 And they're just who they are going to be, you know? And so I think that that, so it makes sense

00:55:43.960 that we see a kind of radical, a religious radicalization at that zoomer level, you know,

00:55:50.700 and I don't, I don't know what the numbers are. I suspect it's not even that really that larger

00:55:54.880 percentage of zoomers that are going in that direction, but. Oh no, not a large percentage

00:55:59.140 of zoomers, but it's interesting that it's a large percentage of the alt-right.

00:56:02.460 Yeah. And it, it, it has a, um, it does feel like it's where the conditions have become

00:56:11.500 medievalized on some level, right? Where people are really like, it does feel like there's a kind

00:56:16.820 of spiritual desperation as it were in the DR where people are really kind of like looking for

00:56:21.620 something and afraid of being deceived or whatever the case may be. And, um, and so, but it's a,

00:56:29.780 it's a real phenomena, um, where people are lost and, you know, it's a kind of, it's a kind of dark

00:56:37.020 time in a lot of ways, you know? And I think that that really, I think that the future, uh, belongs

00:56:43.120 to those who kind of can keep their, you know, it's sort of like the Kipling poem, those who can kind

00:56:48.280 of keep their heads as it were, and remain sober through this kind of crazy period. I mean, it's a,

00:56:54.620 Gibbon describes this as well, uh, in, uh, uh, the, the, what the decline of Rome, he describes how,

00:57:01.940 um, superstition becomes rife, like during this decline period where all these sort of weird

00:57:08.760 cults pop up and people are just kind of going crazy effectively. And I think that we've seen

00:57:13.080 that in our own lifetime. We've seen this like in the various sort of like sex that even developed,

00:57:18.120 you know, of people that even we know, and some people who we like, um, are kind of like going in

00:57:24.960 that direction effectively. You know what I mean? Uh, they're becoming more religious as it were and

00:57:29.980 things and what, whether something is true or not, it's, it's no longer really the question. It's kind

00:57:36.180 of like, what is going to kind of like take away the pain as it were, right? What is the opiate that's

00:57:42.340 going to just kind of like make it go away? And what, can I just kind of fix myself on this thing

00:57:47.000 and just, that's it. You know what I mean? Um, so, but because, you know, it's unpleasant to,

00:57:53.360 to do what we, you and I do, which is kind of walk through the, the valley, the shadow of out

00:57:58.960 or the shadow of darkness as it were, you know what I mean? So it's better to kind of go to sleep,

00:58:06.500 I think on some level. Yes. Speaking of that, it's getting late. Um,

00:58:13.920 thanks for being on. And, um, yeah, I, I, I hope we were able to get at something. Cause I mean, I,

00:58:23.700 I, I think that's what we can add that others can't, which is that, you know, if you want to

00:58:30.360 just follow the horse race, you can go elsewhere. There are people who are better at that than,

00:58:33.720 than we are. But if you, if you want to take a step back and think about what's going on,

00:58:37.160 that's what we do. All right. Talk to you soon, Mark. Talk to you soon. Bye.

00:58:42.600 Bye.

00:59:07.160 Bye.

00:59:10.600 Bye.

00:59:12.600 Bye.

00:59:26.340 Bye.

00:59:34.580 Bye.

00:59:36.140 Thank you.

RadixJournal - September 28, 2020

America’s Sanhedrin

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript