RadixJournal - Conservative Anti-Capitalism？

00:00:00.640 Hello, everyone. Good evening, at least where I am. Good morning, good night, good afternoon,

00:00:07.740 wherever you are. We are live on Odyssey and on Twitter, and we are going to talk about

00:00:15.040 conservatives discovering a critique of capitalism, or in fact, that. And Mark Brauman and I were

00:00:25.780 just talking about this offline. We decided this is probably a stream, so we decided to put one

00:00:33.220 together. And anyway, hopefully this will be a joyful use of your time before you hate watch

00:00:43.960 SNL and Elon Musk and the evil billionaire mastermind who's oppressing you. But Mark,

00:00:53.020 how are you doing? I'm doing well. Yeah. Good. Even Elon Musk couldn't convince me to watch

00:00:59.980 SNL. I don't think anything could convince me to watch SNL. It's just so abysmally unfunny.

00:01:09.760 It is really unfunny, and it's tedious. And I don't know, maybe it's I'm just getting older. I don't

00:01:16.420 think it was always quite this bad. I think there's just a certain shrill, midwit shrill 1.00

00:01:24.440 quality that seems to infect the age of polarization. Whereas 30 years ago, you could actually make fun

00:01:32.340 of people. It's related. It's certainly related to political correctness, and it's sort of increasing

00:01:40.500 that fervor. To dilate a little bit on this, do you know one thing I noticed is that comedy famously

00:01:53.220 doesn't age well. And that has something to do with just the changing times and things that are

00:02:00.100 relevant. It has something to do with just changing kind of mores, or if you want to call it political

00:02:04.940 correctness. You can call it that. Things that were made 20 years ago are now shockingly racist,

00:02:09.740 whereas they were funny in the 90s, or you know what I'm talking about. But I think it also, comedy,

00:02:18.380 there almost has to be a certain unified nation for comedy to be funny. You have to allow everyone to

00:02:28.120 be in on the joke for it to be funny. And I think in hyperpolarization and just fragmentation of the

00:02:36.200 United States, cultural fragmentation and then political extreme polarization, there's no coherent

00:02:44.060 public that is in on the joke and can laugh at it. And so you're kind of making fun of the other side

00:02:53.000 in a really tedious manner. I think that's how I would describe it. Perhaps I'm being overly theoretical,

00:02:59.080 but that's why I would describe the fact that it's just simply not funny. Even if I were an urban liberal,

00:03:04.640 I don't think I would actually find it funny. Because it's the kind of things you would hear from regular

00:03:11.080 old urban liberals at a coffee shop. It's just tedious, shrill, political junk. 0.99

00:03:19.120 Yeah, no, I would agree with that. I mean, and I think that probably, it's also the sort of tone or ethos of the 0.97

00:03:28.600 country has changed a lot since kind of the heyday of Saturday Night Live. And there was, you know, to your point,

00:03:36.400 there was a greater sense of commonality. We had the three networks at one point, and we all had a kind of,

00:03:43.480 we're all kind of sort of being indoctrinated by the same propaganda. And the internet, yeah,

00:03:49.240 the internet hadn't really kind of allowed these other perspectives to emerge. But at the same time,

00:03:55.520 too, things were, I mean, I think that the internet accelerated things on both sides. So it accelerated

00:04:01.740 both liberalism and a kind of reactive conservatism, and ultimately white nationalism. But I think that

00:04:08.780 back at that time, when we were more, we were less of a divided country, and I think that that's not

00:04:16.000 just a meme, I think that we were, at some point, less of a divided country. Yeah, it was,

00:04:22.660 humor was more accessible to everyone. And so I think that that's a good point.

00:04:30.740 I, we as a nation could make fun of George Herbert Walker Bush or Dukakis, you know, like we as a nation

00:04:39.880 could do that. Whereas now, it's like, if you support Donald Trump, then, you know, you might as

00:04:48.060 well be living in the handmaid's tale, like you are an evil, religious fascist, you know, and so we can't 0.99

00:04:55.900 be in on the joke anymore. It has to be one sided. And I think some of the few times that SNL has been 0.99

00:05:03.180 somewhat funny, is when they kind of make fun of someone like not being politically correct yet,

00:05:11.780 like being five years behind, I actually saw one and I think on YouTube, where there was like a mob

00:05:17.640 boss that had been, I, if I remember correctly, he was like a mob boss, but he had been in prison for a

00:05:25.480 decade or something. And he was like back and he was like, all right, I'm taking, you know, I'm

00:05:29.320 reestablishing myself on the throne. And, and then he was confronted with, like members of his mob,

00:05:37.420 violent mob gang who were like transsexual. So it was actually kind of funny, because they were, 1.00

00:05:43.040 they were transsexual or gay or whatever, or they needed a mental health day or whatever. 0.72

00:05:47.660 But then they were also talking about like knocking people off, you know, like selling drugs. It was, 0.92

00:05:53.340 it was kind of funny, but the whole joke was that like, oh, he's been, he's been away for 10 years.

00:05:58.600 So he's not up to date with political correctness. Like that, that was the joke. And that can be

00:06:05.600 marginally funny, but I think it's, it kind of, it's telling of like why humors died, you know?

00:06:12.840 Yeah. Go ahead.

00:06:14.020 Yeah. And also because, because of the polarization, everyone is on edge and everyone is offended.

00:06:20.000 Yeah. Right. I mean, I guess these are sort of obvious points that people have made, but,

00:06:24.540 but yeah, as a consequence, and this is people, people in the comedy industry talk about this as

00:06:31.060 well, is that humor is kind of being squashed because of this political correctness.

00:06:36.740 Yeah. I mean, I guess it's, it's, I mean, you know, I guess it's sort of a tragedy in a way,

00:06:43.680 but it's on the other hand, I mean, life goes on, things change and, you know, things have changed

00:06:49.660 in our lifetime and will continue to change and things have to change because they weren't sort

00:06:55.060 of healthy before. Right. And in fact, it was kind of when, when we were, when we had these sort of

00:07:01.880 more finite media sources and everyone was watching the three networks, the indoctrination was stronger

00:07:08.860 and we were headed in the same direction ultimately, but we were kind of headed on a slower boat

00:07:13.940 effectively. Whereas the internet has kind of accelerated our kind of speed toward this sort

00:07:21.360 of ultimate kind of leftist demise. I mean, that's one way of articulating it. And so I think that the

00:07:30.040 internet has been responsible for accelerating a degeneration and decline certainly. Um, but it

00:07:37.740 also has, um, you know, not to use all the cliches of the, uh, all right, but it's also sort of awoken

00:07:43.800 a lot of people to kind of these dangers because, because of that sudden rapid speed, right? We use

00:07:49.640 this metaphor of, uh, the frog in the, uh, um, in the boiling water. Yeah. And that was more the case.

00:07:57.020 That was more the case, um, back when, uh, legacy media ruled the day, right? Now it's less the case.

00:08:04.020 Now we, we, of course are in very imperfect conditions now. Um, but, uh, but at least there

00:08:11.480 is some portion of us that are both kind of aware of the dangers, uh, that face civilization

00:08:17.920 and also are, are somewhat intelligent and competent. Right. Um, so it's ultimately this

00:08:25.060 acceleration is a good thing, right? So, well, it's, it, it, whether it's good or bad, it's

00:08:31.460 happening. Um, we, we, it's just, it's this wave is coming into store and you can go like

00:08:38.720 yell at the wave or you can go maybe, I don't know, throw sand at the wave or something, but

00:08:44.920 the wave is going to come. And so this, this is tide of history. It's coming to shore. And

00:08:49.720 the question is like, can you surf the wave or not? Um, one thing I would also just mention

00:08:55.640 we're of course off topic, but that's fine. Um, is that I, I have a little bit of a nostalgia

00:09:02.420 for 2016, all the 2016, all right, because all of these things are now even more intense

00:09:10.680 now, but they, they were definitely present in 2015 and 2016. And I, I think there actually

00:09:16.140 was something pretty great about the alt-right just kind of bringing back humor, although 0.61

00:09:23.460 in this like totally outlandish, ridiculous, indefensible, often scatological form, but there 0.54

00:09:32.060 was something kind of funny about that. I remember I was just, um, browsing through things a couple

00:09:38.260 of weeks ago and, uh, I saw this Dave Rubin video from 2016 where he was actually praising

00:09:44.340 the alt-right. He was like, well, I don't like the gas chamber memes. And, uh, you know,

00:09:49.200 they, they're a little too edgy for me, but, uh, you know, they're, they're pretty funny

00:09:53.080 guys, you know? And I think maybe that like that impossibility of humor, the alt-right was

00:09:59.580 trying to like smash through that with, you know, outrageousness. And I would say that the

00:10:05.140 alt-right in general has gotten a lot less funny. Um, it's not that funny anymore. Uh, the jokes,

00:10:13.840 the jokes, it's over, the jokes old, you can't tell it twice, certainly not thrice. Uh, but,

00:10:19.740 and I think maybe that's kind of telling as well about where we are, but there, there was something

00:10:24.480 to that just totally insane 2016 humor. I kind of miss it in a way. I mean, yeah. And I think that

00:10:34.380 it might've been related to, uh, I certainly was related to, um, the attitude and the sense of like

00:10:41.380 possible victory or even like a kind of delusional sense of imminent victory. Right. Um, so which

00:10:48.560 puts people in a good mood and puts them in good humor as it were. Um, yeah. So, I mean, I think

00:10:54.060 that that was part of the reason that we found those jokes funny, which looking at the jokes kind

00:10:58.320 of more objectively, maybe they weren't really that funny to get with, right?

00:11:01.680 No, they, they make you cringe when you see them again, but, and, but regardless, um, okay. Uh,

00:11:10.960 first off, let me just do this. Um, if you want to ask a super chat, uh, you can do so via entropy.

00:11:19.800 So it's entropy stream dot live slash radix live capital R capital L radix live. Um, and we will

00:11:31.080 read, uh, your super chats on air, no matter how, uh, insanely 2015 they are. Uh, I'll just leave

00:11:39.720 that up for a little bit. So what we're going to talk about is this interesting trend that of,

00:11:48.780 of conservatives kind of discovering a certain critique of capitalism. And I took note of a

00:11:57.340 Lauren Southern video, uh, which I sent to you, which came out five days ago or so. And, um, I mean,

00:12:06.040 with all due respect to Lauren, I mean, whenever Lauren Southern is picking up on a meme, you know,

00:12:12.080 the, uh, the, uh, the lemon has kind of already been squeezed and, uh, it's already kind of losing

00:12:17.820 something, but, uh, regardless, uh, she said some fairly interesting things. And I, I think it's,

00:12:28.020 but I, I think it's worthwhile to kind of look at this issue more broadly, look at why the right,

00:12:37.100 particularly the American right. But I, I think this certainly holds in, in Europe as well,

00:12:41.200 especially Britain, uh, aligned itself securely with capitalism, at least post-war. When we go

00:12:51.540 before 1945, there start to be there, you, you start to find kind of different strains. You find

00:12:57.760 hyper-libertarianism in, in the United States and what Murray Rothbard kind of, uh, somewhat inaccurately

00:13:05.780 called the old right. You'll also find the eugenics movement, Madison Grant, and so on. You can find

00:13:11.480 fascism. You can find all these, all these sorts of things, but I want to focus on post-1945, uh,

00:13:17.120 and in America, particularly the Buckley-ite movement. Um, and that was from the very beginning,

00:13:24.440 uh, aligned with capitalism. It was also aligned with a big government to an extent. I mean, Buckley

00:13:31.740 somewhat infamously wrote in a, at, in an article for the Catholic common wheel or something, I believe,

00:13:39.520 um, which is, we, we need to accept big government, totalitarian government for the duration. He said

00:13:46.960 something like that because the Soviets are doing it too, in a kind of Machiavellian way, you have to be 0.77

00:13:53.240 just as evil, if not eviler than your adversary. Um, so it, it accepted the cold war. It, it accepted

00:14:02.380 to some degree, the kind of security apparatus that would have to be built alongside the cold war. You

00:14:09.140 could call that the deep state if you want. Um, but it also was firmly aligned with capitalism.

00:14:16.580 And, uh, this was known as fusionism. Uh, the, I think that term was coined by Frank Meyer, but

00:14:25.620 who's probably not very well known anymore, but you can see this throughout. I mean, there, there,

00:14:32.240 you know, Russell Kirk might've been a little more mystical than the others, but he was right in that

00:14:38.700 window, right in that channel. Certainly Buckley was, um, you know, you know, this became a kind of

00:14:44.800 ideology and some utterances of Margaret Thatcher with, you know, pronouncements like there, there

00:14:51.260 is no society, there are only individuals and families and, and, and so on. Uh, you know, that,

00:14:58.440 that was a bit much, but I, I think that kind of logic actually, uh, ruled the right, uh, at large to

00:15:06.260 a very large extent. Um, they were accommodating to the welfare state. They never actually rolled back

00:15:13.460 the welfare state in any country. You, you have certain interesting instances with say Margaret

00:15:19.620 Thatcher in Britain or Ronald Reagan, but the growth of government might've slowed arguably maybe a little

00:15:27.100 bit, but that was continuing to go on. But there was this kind of ideological or emotional attachment

00:15:33.360 with capitalism, big corporations, et cetera. And I think there was a lot of good reason for that.

00:15:41.900 Um, first off you had all of these, uh, marvelous inventions that were coming online. This is when car

00:15:52.720 culture entered the world, uh, et cetera, after the destruction of Germany in 1945, America was,

00:16:00.960 you know, the only game in town to a large extent. And this idea that you would go against

00:16:09.020 what is clearly, you know, improving the lives of millions of people, uh, it would be odd from the

00:16:18.560 right wing. The right wing kind of is about the status quo. It's also about hierarchy. A certain

00:16:23.080 new hierarchy was developing, um, that isn't about land or titles or military prowess, but is about

00:16:31.360 wealth. Um, and it, I think it would be odd for the right to really, uh, critique that in a way that

00:16:39.260 that would be kind of anti right. And I think it is still is actually to a, to a large degree. Um,

00:16:46.740 and, uh, I, I think there, this started to change really not, not that you couldn't find the

00:16:56.600 occasional oddball who was a early a winger, but someone who would critique capitalism and kind

00:17:04.280 of sound like the left and quote, you know, provingly quote the left. But I think this became

00:17:10.520 a kind of popular phenomenon really with Trump and whether Trump himself caused it or whether he was

00:17:17.140 a kind of expression of it remains to be seen. But I think that's when it became new because Trump

00:17:23.440 was an odd president. And if you, um, I mean, it seems weird to even say that, but he, he was

00:17:30.980 something new. And if you look back at his 2015, you know, coming down the golden elevator at Trump

00:17:37.460 tower, um, it's most famous for his discussion of the wall. Uh, and, you know, we're losing at the

00:17:44.280 border. They're laughing at us in Mexico city. Uh, but there was a lot of, you could say kind of

00:17:49.980 eighties and nineties, uh, national, national liberalism that was thrown in there. It was a lot

00:17:57.000 about the Japanese are killing us. The Chinese are killing us. All the manufacturing's going overseas. 1.00

00:18:03.340 And then Trump himself and many of his various utterances that said things like, well, you know,

00:18:09.100 I'm a, I'm a conservative on most things, but I'm pro-life and I support national healthcare.

00:18:15.000 And he said at some point, we're not going to just going to leave people in the streets. So he was a

00:18:18.960 different type of president. And I think a lot of conservatives have come in his wake and they've

00:18:25.620 kind of picked up on that. Now they've done a lot of complaining and I'm thinking of Tucker Carlson,

00:18:32.580 you know, most prominently, a lot of complaining about the excesses of global capitalism. Uh,

00:18:39.900 what they, what two things, what they actually mean, what they are actually complaining about

00:18:47.560 is extremely ambiguous. And then what they would replace it with, uh, is also very ambiguous.

00:18:56.200 And the way I would think about it is this way. What, what is the problem with capitalism? Is it

00:19:03.960 capitalism's success or is it capitalism's failure? Or have we now, and I think this is actually a

00:19:11.880 really important thing to define. Are we now mad that our industry has been hollowed out

00:19:20.840 and that, you know, the Midwest is, is now the, you know, truly the rust belt. Um, and we aren't

00:19:30.000 achieving that kind of universal middle-class lifestyle that many people thought we could

00:19:36.000 achieve in mid-century, really mid-century going into the 21st century. Is it that it's failing and

00:19:44.860 we need to kind of help it out or is the critique that capitalism is in a way all too successful that

00:19:53.800 the opposite of a miseration that by giving you too many luxuries, um, that it leads to individualism,

00:20:04.740 um, sexual perversion and degeneracy, um, just the, the hollowing out of culture, commercialization,

00:20:12.480 et cetera. Uh, they don't really say that they, they don't define which one it is.

00:20:20.240 Maybe it's both to a certain extent, but the fact that they're not able apparently to define it

00:20:27.920 kind of makes their critique rather hollow. And I think it is actually entirely hollow. I haven't

00:20:35.480 heard any, I mean, Lauren Southern or Tucker or any of these other people, I haven't really

00:20:39.340 heard anything that struck me as an, you know, an important critique of capitalism and just putting

00:20:46.840 forth welfare socialism as a, you know, alternative, I think is also, you know, equally naive or, or blind.

00:20:57.920 In the sense that welfare socialism is a derivative of capitalism. Uh, the welfare state can,

00:21:07.180 you know, smooth out the edges of capitalism, help you if you're unemployed and so on. The welfare

00:21:14.160 socialism does nothing in, in, in terms of, you know, reducing the dominance of these big corporations,

00:21:22.180 reducing the commercialization of all aspects of life. Um, it does nothing in terms of these,

00:21:30.420 you know, really serious demographic issues that we're facing life expectancy, uh, birth rates,

00:21:37.880 uh, and so on. It is entirely derived from capitalism. It just kind of smooths out the edges and the notion

00:21:46.640 that all these things would be fine with UBI or more welfare or something I think is entirely naive.

00:21:57.440 And it's just, I mean, I'll, I'll start us out on a kind of polemical note. I, I find the so-called

00:22:04.960 conservative critique of capitalism to be in amount to amount to little more than whining and it's hollow

00:22:13.240 whining. Now that doesn't mean that a real critique isn't necessary or can't be made, but you need to

00:22:22.120 first recognize that when you start complaining about say, you know, this, this family can't afford

00:22:31.000 a big screen TV anymore. You're, you're kind of within the chamber of capitalism. You're not

00:22:37.840 really critiquing capitalism. You're basically saying we need some more welfare to smooth out

00:22:44.200 this capitalism. Um, in terms of whether, uh, you know, we need to support the family or something.

00:22:52.420 I mean, keep in mind birth rates across all ethnicities and across all income levels are

00:23:01.000 declining. Uh, so this notion that, you know, we, we, they just need a little more money and then

00:23:09.040 we're going to have all these kids or whatever just does not hold the notion that they would be more

00:23:14.480 trad or religious if they had more welfare or something simply does not hold none of this stuff

00:23:21.840 holds. And so I'm kind of left with the fact that it is vague whining on the part of conservatives.

00:23:30.000 Now is a actual critique necessary? Of course it is. Uh, but an actual critique really would amount

00:23:38.240 to a proposition. You are demonstrating why, why this phenomenon is occurring because of a larger

00:23:46.600 system. And also you're proposing a alter, you could an alternative or the very least you can make

00:23:53.140 predictions. And all of that's lacking in the kind of Tucker, Lauren Southern style critique of

00:24:01.740 capitalism. I find it wanting. Um, do you have anything to add there? Did I, did I light a fire

00:24:09.780 in some way, Mark? Well, um, so I did, I did watch, uh, that video. Um, uh, you know, I, I actually,

00:24:17.880 I, I, I think Lauren's kind of cool. I don't, I don't mind Lauren so much. I don't, I think her

00:24:22.900 views are, yeah. And I don't, and, um, and I, um, I mean, I obviously disagree with her politically

00:24:29.940 and she might be thinking more or ostensibly thinking more strategically than us, which,

00:24:35.840 you know, I, I don't think is, I don't think that that ultimately works in terms of being

00:24:39.780 more implicit as opposed to, um, more explicit, at least in this kind of political realm that we're

00:24:46.660 in. Um, so, uh, but I don't know if that's the best of the alt light in a, and she has in a way,

00:24:54.340 no competition. I would say that I despise every other member of the alt light, but I kind of have

00:25:01.340 a soft spot for Lauren. Yeah. And I probably agree with that. I mean, I can't, you know, maybe there's

00:25:05.700 some exception to that, but I probably don't know who they are, but, um, yeah, so I, so, um,

00:25:13.500 so my critique of her argument is not a critique of her, which I think that she seems like, she

00:25:18.420 seems like actually a kind of decent person. Um, but I, what I would say is the following is I think

00:25:24.300 that, um, she brought up this idea of, uh, you know, you know, essentially she was getting to this

00:25:29.940 idea that there's a kind of a lack of spiritualism or a lack of higher meaning in people's lives.

00:25:34.920 And implicit to that, I think, I think that she's probably a Christian. Um, and, uh, and maybe

00:25:42.340 that's a known fact, it's just not known by me, but, um, she, uh, so implicit to that is the idea

00:25:48.680 that, um, what we're lacking ultimately is Christianity, right? Um, it's, you know, in the

00:25:55.420 difficulty there, and, and on some level, I do agree. I think that the problem is that we're, you know,

00:26:00.340 contrasting communism with capitalism or socialism with capitalism is contrasting these sort of

00:26:07.860 caducean snakes as it were. Ultimately we're dealing with materialism and, and by materialism,

00:26:14.060 I guess that you, you sort of have to be specific with the term, uh, something distinct from like

00:26:18.640 flesh and race, which you could class as material, right? We're talking specifically about wealth

00:26:24.440 and money and who gets to possess wealth and who gets to possess money and ultimately the power

00:26:30.080 that's derived from that. Um, but, uh, so I, I would agree ultimately, but I would, you know,

00:26:37.620 I think that probably both of us have a different definition of what, uh, a spirit is or what

00:26:42.880 spiritualism is. And you and I, I think would probably connect it to, uh, you know, F, uh,

00:26:48.260 ethnicity into race effectively. Um, and I, you know, and, and that's where I think it's bigger 0.51

00:26:57.340 than, I mean, I, I, I agree that there, there's a kind of, uh, nostalgia or, or, or, or naivete

00:27:08.880 of like, um, if, if capitalism hadn't, you know, gone through this town or something like that,

00:27:15.900 then they would all be kind of happy Christians, you know, dancing around the maypole or something.

00:27:20.760 I, I agree that that's fairly naive, but, um, and it's kind of weird in a way to, you know,

00:27:30.180 want there to be greater material success so that people will be more spiritual. Um, although there

00:27:37.760 probably are some connections there. Uh, but yeah, I mean, the, the way I would describe it is that

00:27:44.440 none of these, I mean, capitalism, that that's, it's, it's obviously a huge term, but it is,

00:27:53.280 it is a massive system of wealth accumulation, uh, the accumulation of money through money and the

00:28:02.260 use, use of this vast wealth accumulation to increase production dramatically. I mean,

00:28:08.680 let's use that as a somewhat, you know, cause some kind of definition of capitalism,

00:28:12.720 but it's obviously bigger than that. Um, capitalism. And I think this is what these

00:28:18.020 people are ultimately trying to get at. It is the, you know, like totalizing system where

00:28:25.820 all of life seems to function within this matrix. And so even religion itself would function within

00:28:36.480 that capitalist matrix as maybe a new lifestyle option that you use 2% of your income to pay for

00:28:43.500 through charitable donations and you get a tax break. Like it, it, it's everything is within that

00:28:49.800 matrix. And I would say that, I mean, that is true. Like I don't, none of these people are really

00:29:00.680 offering a kind of radical way out of that matrix because I think at this point, there really is no

00:29:09.120 escape from capitalism. And I think that has a lot to do with just the immense power that, um,

00:29:18.500 these, these corporations hold that this just immense wealth complex of just trillions of dollars

00:29:25.900 in debt and derivatives just flowing around the planet endlessly. But I think it actually is

00:29:33.120 spiritual in many ways. And I don't think that this, this whole process could have been built

00:29:41.460 on top of anything else, but a spiritual basis. And, you know, in the sense that the spirituality of

00:29:49.860 capitalism is to be happy and thus, whenever I hear people critique capitalism for, it doesn't

00:29:57.140 make you happy enough. I think they're, they're ultimately kind of trapped within that cage.

00:30:03.140 Capitalism is based. I mean, the capitalism as a theory of man, as a kind of all encompassing

00:30:10.180 system is based on your desire to accumulate wealth and pleasure. And that, that being the dominant mode

00:30:21.280 of why you are on this planet. And at this point, and, and that would go for, I would actually say

00:30:28.900 the same thing that, uh, you know, that, that, that's kind of like a crude description of America,

00:30:33.080 but I would say the same thing about the Soviet union as well. Um, you know, true socialism,

00:30:38.540 at least to some extent, um, that basically had the same type of ontology as capitalism. Um,

00:30:47.340 I don't think in 2021, there is really any way of escaping this in many ways, because other class 1.00

00:30:58.960 structures, whether it's the peasantry or nobility, et cetera, and even the bourgeoisie of your have all

00:31:08.460 been like, uh, what's the right word have all been squashed together or the class structure has

00:31:16.860 evaporated. And there basically is one class structure. Now that doesn't mean that there

00:31:22.380 isn't radical inequality in the world. I mean, the difference between Elon Musk and some guy struggling

00:31:29.260 to, you know, sell drugs and, you know, feed himself on the streets of Chicago, obviously huge

00:31:37.020 wealth, uh, differences, but in terms of a basic, like who is that person? What is he doing on this

00:31:44.500 planet? What are his motives? How does he gain value? There's really no difference. We are increasingly

00:31:50.780 entering a global totalitarian classless society, you could say. And that the, how we got there is an

00:32:01.900 interesting question. How we can get out of that is a very intriguing question that seems impossible

00:32:09.940 to answer. But I think we just need to fully recognize that, that all of these critiques of

00:32:16.720 capitalism are all within capitalism. They're basically, you know, the, the Tucker critique is

00:32:22.600 like, we're not paying truckers enough or something like that. We, we need UBI so that people can afford

00:32:28.940 their Netflix subscription. That's all it is. It's a, it's a kind of endless loop of capitalist

00:32:34.500 critiquing some of the excesses or inefficiencies perhaps, or, or just ravages of capitalism. But there's

00:32:42.380 not any real attempt to get out of it because I think some real attempt to get out of capitalism

00:32:48.340 would have to entail a new theory of the world and a new theory of who human, who humans are and

00:32:57.340 what we're meant to do on this earth. Yeah. I, yeah, no, I, a good, uh, good monologue. Um, so,

00:33:07.020 um, you know, the trolls on the internet won't pat us on the back, so we've got to do it ourselves,

00:33:15.180 right? Yes. But, um, yeah, no, I, I mean, I, I would say that, um, geez, my train of thought,

00:33:24.120 I was making a stupid joke and I, my train of thought kind of derailed. Um, yeah, I, I,

00:33:30.580 anyway, we'll do a super, we'll do a super chat. Yeah. Yeah. Well, uh, also I'm going to go run and

00:33:35.940 just read a paragraph. I was reading this cool essay last night. Okay. Um, Shulgi Shulgi for 50.

00:33:44.580 Whoa. Thank you. Hi, Richard and Mark. Um, is the cattle and cowboy thesis refuted by China, Cuba,

00:33:51.180 uh, the DPRK, Venezuela, Iran, et cetera, because these countries have populist leaders who rely on mass

00:33:59.620 mobilizing the pop, the populace. Keep up the great work. I'm a big fan of both of you. Hail

00:34:04.420 Apollo. Um, nice. What do you, why don't you take that? I'm going to grab something real quick.

00:34:10.820 Cow is the cow cowboy and cattle, um, theory, uh, uh, questioned by some of those notorious rogue

00:34:19.660 regimes. Wait, wait, repeat the question. I thought you were going to answer that. I'm sorry. I get,

00:34:23.600 I get distracted, please. Hi, Richard and Mark is the cattle and cowboy thesis refuted by

00:34:29.600 China, Cuba, the DPRK, Venezuela, Iran, et cetera, because these countries have populist leaders

00:34:36.320 who rely on mass mobilizing the populace. I'm not familiar with the thesis, so I can't really

00:34:42.200 answer the question. Well, for there to be, for there to be cowboys, you need cattle. And in a way

00:34:47.920 for there to be cattle, you need cowboys. There's, there's going to be a kind of certain elite segment

00:34:53.540 that is, you know, wrestling all the cattle. I presume this is what he's meaning. Um, you can,

00:35:01.260 you can send a free super chat or send me something on Twitter if you mean something else.

00:35:05.100 So are any of those rogue regimes like Iran or China, are they actually getting away from that

00:35:12.700 through a kind of authoritarian populism? Oh, well, yeah, I don't, I don't know. I mean,

00:35:21.000 I think that the problem with these, I think that the problem is that they ultimately, um,

00:35:25.760 don't have a ton of power in, uh, geopolitically, um, so that they are hamstrung by this sort of

00:35:32.820 larger, um, you know, uh, uh, political world, which is, um, which is dominated by America and the

00:35:41.480 people that dominate America. So I think that they're ultimately, to the extent that they're

00:35:45.280 getting away from it, they're getting away from it in a kind of unmeaningful way because they are

00:35:49.680 these sort of isolated States in the world that are effectively powerless. Right. And declining in

00:35:55.700 their own way as well. Well, not China, but yeah, but yeah, I think certainly like North Korea that 0.73

00:36:01.180 yeah. Well, China. Yeah. But I don't, I think that China, I'm not even sure if that's ultimately the

00:36:06.040 case with, I think that China is kind of a better integrated into the world than people think.

00:36:11.020 Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't think that they are. So I think that that is a kind of

00:36:15.240 misconception about China. I mean, China, China is very different from the West. There's no question

00:36:20.960 about it, but it's also, it also interacts in a capitalistic manner, in a highly capitalistic

00:36:26.440 manner with the rest of the world. Um, and in, in some way, you know, so in, in some ways it's,

00:36:31.960 it's highly integrated, but it, it also does have its own autonomy. Um, is that based entirely on a

00:36:38.440 kind of authoritarianism that makes it distinct from the West? Um, I don't, I think it's also,

00:36:44.520 it has to do with the kind of ethnic and racial characteristics of the Chinese themselves. I mean,

00:36:48.660 I guess that you could say that they are more authoritarian as an ethnic group, as it were.

00:36:53.460 And I don't think that they, I don't think that the modern world has really kind of changed them

00:36:58.120 in any fundamental way, but they're, they're just kind of adapting to, and not even adapting in

00:37:03.940 a meaningful way, they're temporarily adapting to, um, uh, sort of current, uh, conditions as it were.

00:37:11.260 Um, so, um, I think the, but, you know, if the, if the West, as it, the trajectory now is that, um,

00:37:19.720 Western civilization will kind of decline into a third world and become irrelevant in the world

00:37:24.940 scene, if that trajectory continues, um, China will sort of kind of go back, will kind of remain

00:37:32.680 the same on one level, but kind of just sort of return to a more dormant, dormant state where

00:37:38.080 there are less kind of, you know, capitalistic opportunities in the world that are ultimately

00:37:42.300 generated by the West. Right. Yeah. I don't, I, I, I'm, I'm dubious about like Chinese global 1.00

00:37:51.080 hegemony idea. Um, I, because I don't, I don't, I simply don't know if they're able to get beyond

00:38:01.320 the Chimerica relationship. Now there's been some interesting things that they've been doing,

00:38:09.360 um, that, that, that are moving away from the planetary dollar system. They're actually buying

00:38:16.140 less U S debt from what I understand. Um, you know, there was this Chimerica relationship where

00:38:21.660 it's like the Chinese buy consumer debt and then, then Americans with their credit card purchase, 0.50

00:38:27.460 uh, Chinese goods, uh, Chinese goods, you know, in Walmart. And so, and I, and there, I think they

00:38:32.320 are kind of moving away from that, but whether the Chinese are able to build a world system is, 0.96

00:38:41.740 you know, a question that's yet to be answered. And I don't know if they have that type of

00:38:51.280 imperial will to be big daddy, as opposed to little brother to the West. Yeah. I mean,

00:39:00.300 they've struggled to have a hegemony for Vietnam. I mean, I, the idea that they're going to take the 0.57

00:39:06.400 planet or take America or something. I just find this a little bit dubious, not that it can't be

00:39:11.060 done. And maybe there's something really crucial that I'm simply not seeing. Well, I, their plan would

00:39:15.980 be just sort of outlast the West as it were. Right. So yeah, that, that would be their strategy. I 0.73

00:39:21.980 don't, I don't, but I don't think, yeah, I don't think that they're going to kind of overtake us in

00:39:25.540 any sort of aggressive way. Um, neither militarily or economically really ultimately, you know? Yeah.

00:39:32.620 I think that they are, we're the West has always kind of been the leader in that relationship.

00:39:37.000 Yeah. Yeah. Um, let me talk about a few things. These are some other, some ideas that I've had in

00:39:49.360 terms of, you know, conservative critique of capitalism and why it's currently wanting and

00:39:56.500 maybe how we could get to a real right-wing critique of capitalism that is fruitful. And actually I'm going

00:40:04.740 to say things, uh, that are going to be, uh, extremely shocking and elitist. So, uh, um, buckle up. Uh, so

00:40:14.520 let me start off this way. If every nation or system has a kind of mythos and for America for a very long

00:40:28.980 time, it was the American dream, you know, what is that song from Miss Saigon? What's that? I smell

00:40:38.940 in the air, the American dream sweet as a chocolate eclair, the American dream. I don't know that one.

00:40:51.040 Like I'd sing the other part if I did. Okay. Um, but what is the American dream? I think it can mean

00:40:59.160 a lot of different things. I think it probably had a certain, um, essence in a front, more of a

00:41:06.200 frontier society, um, in which it was about expanding to kind of an open, endless, seemingly continent,

00:41:14.380 uh, and kind of almost going down levels and civilization. I think, I think there, there was a certain

00:41:20.140 kind of American dream. It's very interesting, very uniquely American and, and also selected for a really

00:41:25.880 rough type, uh, uh, uh, an American type that was tougher and, um, more, even more, more ruthless, even 0.92

00:41:36.880 individualistic to some extent, but also hyper bonded with his family and community in a battle

00:41:44.800 against the wilderness and in some ways against foreign races and other things. Um, I think if

00:41:51.040 the American dream has any essence now, it's basically as upward mobility and, you know, you hear all

00:41:59.600 these stories, you'll, you'll hear these stories, uh, you know, on television and state of the union

00:42:04.720 addresses by the president, et cetera. And it's like, you know, my grandpappy was a coal miner and

00:42:10.940 he just always hoped that one day his kid would go to college or, you know, I'm the child of immigrants

00:42:16.920 from Vietnam and I'm a doctor now. Uh, or, you know, I was working as a janitor up, up until I was 40

00:42:24.360 years old and then I just got my life together and now I own the, the, the janitor company. And there

00:42:30.940 are real stories like that. There, there, there's a lot of reality to, to all of that, but what the

00:42:36.200 common thread is upward mobility. It's not downward mobility. Cause I hate to tell you, there's some

00:42:41.580 other examples of people who I was born in a trailer park and I died in a trailer park and my

00:42:47.920 children live in a trailer park. There are also some upward mobility of, I lived in a middle-class

00:42:53.820 suburb and now I can't pay rent and I'm on drugs. There are a lot of those stories that they don't

00:42:59.840 tell, but the story that is told is upward mobility. Now, what are some of the implications

00:43:06.700 to upward mobility? And if I could be so provocative, why might we want to start to adopt

00:43:12.620 downward mobility? Um, because in a good way. So there's this great series of books,

00:43:21.520 farewell to alms. And the sun also rises by Gregory Clark. He does these Hemingway theme titles,

00:43:29.240 the bell, the, for whom the bell curve toll tolls should probably be next. And what he talked about

00:43:36.480 was this downward mobility in societies that preexisted the industrial revolution. And so

00:43:44.140 what he meant by that is that the rich, the most successful, the most high born and the most

00:43:51.540 intelligent were having by far and away the most children. And indeed the peasants were getting 0.94

00:43:59.880 screwed and were not having children. Um, I, the, the, the, the noble kind of had prima nocte rights, 0.54

00:44:09.740 you could say over everyone first night privileges. He was having the children, his line was expanding

00:44:16.840 and what that type of situation led to was downward mobility. But what does that mean? That sounds bad.

00:44:26.060 What does it actually mean? Well, it means that if you're the second or third son in a noble line,

00:44:32.380 you or wealthy line, or just an intelligent, successful line, you might very well have to go

00:44:38.160 be a kind of yeoman farmer, gentleman farmer. You might even go into the city and be a shopkeeper

00:44:45.080 and so on. But what happened was a kind of, you know, genetic replacement, slow, but steady over the

00:44:53.880 centuries of high born, uh, people replacing low born people in those professions. And it was downward

00:45:03.440 mobility. And so what this ultimately means, because all good things come from on high, it means that

00:45:10.320 good, intelligent, good looking, um, put together people began replacing the criminal element,

00:45:20.360 the low IQ, um, you know, proletarian element were actually replaced in society. And we all became

00:45:30.280 more noble as an organism. And, you know, everyone loves the idea of upward mobility, but isn't it maybe

00:45:39.840 a bit horrifying to imagine that the sons of coal mining workers are doctors? Is that really a good 1.00

00:45:52.760 thing? Or would you rather hear that your doctor is the son of a noble line, a noble family? I would

00:46:01.360 much rather hear the latter, although, you know, I don't quite buy into any of these myths. And I think

00:46:08.840 there's on another level, there's a kind of inherent problem with upward mobility in the sense that you,

00:46:17.320 you are going to kind of run up against a brick wall of technological innovation and, uh, intelligence

00:46:24.800 in the sense that we can, you know, one of the things that seems to be assumed or implied by

00:46:32.240 upward mobility is that fewer and fewer people are going to be, you know, coal miners. Certainly 1.00

00:46:38.280 fewer and fewer people in the United States are farmers. Farming is, uh, industrialized to a, you know,

00:46:45.160 to a magnificent degree so that you don't need all of these small landholders. And so farming,

00:46:52.820 now they make up a small single digit percentage of the population farmers. They used to make up a

00:46:58.080 huge percentage of the population, probably closer to 50. It's now five or less than, probably less than

00:47:03.940 five. Um, and so we kind of think of these ideas of replacing some of these older, um, occupations and

00:47:12.260 kind of everyone moving into this, these higher levels of, of postmodern, post-industrial

00:47:18.640 information work. Well, at some point that's going to hit a dead end there, there, there it's going

00:47:26.840 to hit a, it's going to hit a wall in two ways. First off, the degree to which we can continue to

00:47:32.720 kind of, you know, enter the outer realm of, of, uh, information manipulation is limited at some level.

00:47:43.560 We can't just continually get away from the root, you know, aspects of an economy, like farming and

00:47:51.420 industrial production, et cetera, and the, in the major professions. Um, but also you hit a brick wall

00:47:59.220 in terms of intelligence and the sense of this learn to code meme. I think everyone, including

00:48:05.560 probably most liberals, uh, uh, just cringe or laugh at the, the learn to code meme. Not everyone is

00:48:13.100 going to make a successful iPhone app. Not everyone to be Frank can handle that kind of mathematical

00:48:20.880 grammar that you would need to code a computer, a computer program. It is ridiculous to expect that

00:48:29.440 from most of the population. Uh, and so we seem to be kind of hitting this wall of both. We've,

00:48:35.720 we've touched on the outer limits of post-industrial of the post-industrial economy. I mean, actual

00:48:41.920 innovations and inventions are declining. We've also hit the outer limits of intelligence. And I think

00:48:48.920 all of these things kind of lead towards a UBI conception. UBI by no means is a critique of

00:48:58.580 capitalism or socialism. Socialism is that word meant something that days of the Soviet union.

00:49:04.140 It's, it's not, it's a way of softening the rough edges of capitalism. It is basically saying we are

00:49:10.920 producing unbelievable amounts of wealth through these digital monopolies like Google or Amazon

00:49:16.640 or, or Apple, even though Amazon and Apple have physical products, of course, you know, you,

00:49:22.980 you get the point. The digital age leads to this massive wealth centralization.

00:49:28.220 And so on. And we need to just soften that out and help out the people who won't ever be coders

00:49:35.520 and who are probably born not to be coders. Let's be frank here. Um, so I think that's where we're

00:49:45.120 headed. I think UBI is here to stay. I think we're going to have UBI actually within well within our

00:49:50.620 lifetimes. But I would suggest this, that if we are to form a kind of, uh, conservative critique of

00:50:00.300 capitalism, if you want to call it that, we have to think of it in terms of downward mobility. And we

00:50:08.120 have to think of it, uh, dare I say it as the great replacement. Um, that is, we will replace you. Uh,

00:50:16.420 high born, good looking, intelligent people are going to move downward on the social stratum and begin

00:50:25.340 creating a more noble race. And we've done this experiment after the industrial revolution of

00:50:33.480 upward mobility and look where it's led us. There you go.

00:50:39.560 Well, that's optimistic. That's optimistic. We can do it. We've done it before.

00:50:48.860 Yeah. I think it, I think it will require some, uh, conscious direction though. I don't,

00:50:53.620 I don't think it's something that will just happen. Um, but you know, in, in, I, you know,

00:50:59.660 to, that's why I'm talking about it explicitly. Sure. Sure. You need to fucking do it. Yeah. Yeah.

00:51:04.580 And, and relating, and I think relating back to, uh, Lauren Southern's point that there's a,

00:51:09.720 a spiritualism that's absent, you know, one of the great deficiencies of Christianity, um,

00:51:15.340 at least certainly as it manifests, uh, in the modern world. And also to an extent as it's

00:51:21.100 manifested, uh, historically is that, um, though, I guess, especially in the modern world is this idea

00:51:27.120 that there is a kind of separation between, uh, you know, uh, the state and the church between

00:51:32.940 the cosmos and the, uh, the corporal world versus the spiritual world. Um, and that Christians are 1.00

00:51:39.680 not really supposed to be kind of involved ultimately in, you know, the cosmos or in the,

00:51:44.660 their destiny is in the hereafter. That's kind of the orientation of, um, of their energies. Um,

00:51:52.940 so, and I think that the, um, so I think that part of, uh, the problem lies with, or the way that

00:51:59.760 we sort of kind of connect these threads and we solve this problem is through, um, having religion

00:52:05.300 that is a kind of state-based religion. So the state takes control and starts giving, um, it starts

00:52:13.660 giving, um, man a sort of higher destiny or higher mission, which he lacks now. Right. So, and now it's,

00:52:22.420 now we are concerned with materialism using that sense as referring to wealth, especially. Um, we are,

00:52:29.240 because that's all there is, there is no kind of purpose that's been given to us by the society

00:52:33.680 aside from, uh, this, um, uh, this kind of bacchanal direction that's given to us through Hollywood.

00:52:41.680 Um, and, and everything is ultimately materialist in that wealth sense of the word, whether it's,

00:52:49.240 you know, it's all about kind of dividing up the, uh, dividing up the pie as it were. Um,

00:52:56.220 so I think that that is the kind of missing component.

00:52:59.240 And I, what you're describing, I think can occur. Um, but I think it does, it has to occur,

00:53:05.340 uh, through the assertion of, uh, power through people cohering and working toward a goal and

00:53:12.300 toward a direction. Um, it can, it's not just going to occur on its own is, is, uh, what I would argue,

00:53:18.480 you know, because I, I, Oh, please.

00:53:21.540 Well, what I described might occur on its own in a kind of collapse-like situation. Um, I mean,

00:53:28.940 this is something that Ed is, Ed Dutton is, is talking a lot about. And, you know, I, I, I think

00:53:36.160 he would agree with a lot of what I just said. I mean, there, we seem to be, we seem to have squeezed

00:53:42.140 the lemon until the pipsqueak at this point in terms of debt finance, consumption, debt finance,

00:53:50.480 government debt, debt financed, everything. I mean, we, we're just at this point where we're

00:53:55.000 getting less and less GDP output out of more and more debt. And this just kind of can't go on.

00:54:02.520 And are people due to just, you know, degeneration, are people kind of not intelligent enough to run

00:54:09.720 this thing? I think these are real questions. Um, so I, I do think that there would be a cleansing

00:54:18.260 purge as it were, um, with some, a collapse scenario that resembled the bronze age collapse or the collapse

00:54:27.000 of the Roman empire, et cetera. Um, and that some of the downward mobility, well, actually a lot of

00:54:34.000 the downward mobility that I was talking about would kind of naturally occur that way through kind of

00:54:39.180 the reinstitution of Darwinian selection, basically. Um, so I think that that might very well happen,

00:54:47.020 but I, I do agree with you that if we just, if we want to avoid these cycles of, you know,

00:54:56.060 growth, degeneration, collapse, growth, degeneration, collapse, then there has to be a

00:55:03.180 spiritual center that is connected a with the here and now, but, but also with the state that is the,

00:55:10.900 the body, the, the strong arm of the sword of any people or race. And that just disconnecting those

00:55:20.160 things, I think was really a original sin as it were, um, within the American system. And I, I, and, and you

00:55:31.560 can see this occurring across the Western world as well. Um, but that lack of a connection of, of, of

00:55:38.040 spiritual impulse and the, the state, which is the, the way of protecting the population. I, I think that, um,

00:55:47.160 um, nothing, we, we can't avoid the cycle of collapse until we reintegrate church and state.

00:55:57.060 Yeah. Um, no, I, I, I, I, you know, I, the, the only thing I would say is that, um,

00:56:03.260 I think it is the case that the strong will go on. Right. So I think that that is true who, who the

00:56:09.640 strong are, um, I, I becomes the question. Um, I think the strong, you know, historically, certainly

00:56:16.640 we see that, um, Jews, for example, have been strong and I think that they will remain strong.

00:56:21.760 I, you know what I mean? I think that they will end up kind of adapting in a way in ways that they've

00:56:26.040 adapted in the past. Um, I argue that they will become post-Jews, right? So in other words, I think 1.00

00:56:32.340 it's possible that the cult of Judaism will become so unpopular at some point that it will be abandoned

00:56:38.360 and something else will kind of be developed in its stead that more or less resembles it. Um,

00:56:43.540 but that's just a theory, but I think that they, they are people that show resilience in conditions

00:56:49.720 like this. Um, some of these noble families, um, are, I mean, I think that, you know, I agree.

00:56:56.960 Yeah. And, and, and, and really, uh, you know, uh, to kind of speak frankly here, uh, Aryans as a race,

00:57:03.040 you, you generally, the kind of the tendency in this sort of, um, uh, in the kind of civilizational

00:57:10.200 process of both founding and settling civilizations and developing civilizations, we in a way are the

00:57:17.500 people, we become the civilization, we are the people. And, um, and what you see in the decline

00:57:25.080 of civilizations is sort of the degeneration of this Aryan gene typically, right? Um, we, we see that 1.00

00:57:31.540 in India, for example, and I would argue, we see that all throughout the, uh, the Middle East,

00:57:35.960 for example, those were formally, you know, whether they were speaking a Semitic language or they were

00:57:40.640 speaking an Indo-European language, they were whiter people, right? I mean, those were, were kind of 0.99

00:57:46.060 these powerful potent civilizations, right? Um, and so I, I, maybe I, I have less optimism now. I think,

00:57:55.300 and I think that ultimately this sort of Aryan founding thesis, I think there is a kind of like,

00:57:59.100 we see on a kind of macro level, we see white flight, right? So in other words, we see a racial 0.82

00:58:05.600 migration away from these, these civilized or urbanized centers that start to become, uh, non-white 1.00

00:58:12.820 effectively through, uh, you know, as part of a kind of urbanization process. And you see whites moving 0.81

00:58:19.240 west into Europe, for example, uh, you know, into the Mediterranean and, and into the Europe. Um,

00:58:25.440 so, you know, I, so that, that is a problem in now, and I, and I think that really, and so that,

00:58:34.460 the question of religion becomes a question of maintaining these civilizations and expanding

00:58:40.600 and developing these civilizations, religion in the way that you and I understand the term religion.

00:58:45.320 Um, but will, I think, I do agree with you to the extent that I think that the strong will survive,

00:58:51.960 right? So the most noble of us will survive. I agree with that certainly. Um, but I think that,

00:58:57.860 I, I think that, uh, the white race itself will suffer a lot of, uh, will suffer demographic loss

00:59:04.100 in the short term, because if we can't like sort of hold and control, uh, civilization and whether

00:59:10.140 kind of implicitly or explicitly impose a kind of a racial criteria, uh, you know, as our, our founders

00:59:18.480 did effectively for a while, even though that they were, you know, uh, our American founders did for

00:59:23.240 a while, even though that they were Christians and that is kind of against ultimately a Christian

00:59:27.860 creed, um, then, you know, civilization falls, it declines. Um, so it's not, you know, and we would

00:59:36.060 obviously want to avoid, uh, becoming a, uh, diaspora. We would want to live in civilizations,

00:59:41.960 uh, where we had a genetic similarity to, uh, the peasants or the people that were not necessarily

00:59:50.600 high born. Right. So I, I think, I think that there are, there are big problems that we have to

00:59:56.380 deal with. Now, I think that, I think, I think what you're saying, and I like that you are taking a

01:00:00.820 kind of optimistic note. So I'm not, I'm not being, um, what I think many people hear what I

01:00:06.800 just said and describe it not as optimism, but as entirely sinister. Oh, like an elitist. Yeah.

01:00:13.080 Well, it is elite. Downward mobility is elitism and upward mobility is peasantism. I mean, it just

01:00:20.380 is what it is. Sure. But I, I would say, I would say the following, I, like, I do think that there,

01:00:25.260 you will encounter these sort of mixed elements in the classes. Like you'll, you'll encounter,

01:00:29.620 obviously degenerate elements in the upper classes. And then you'll, uh, you'll encounter

01:00:34.460 sort of eugenic and healthy, uh, elements in the lower middle classes that just through whatever

01:00:41.140 kind of, um, fluke exists there and can rise up in a kind of legitimate way. You know what I'm saying?

01:00:47.360 So I, I, I, but to your point, I think that that's, that's probably not the general tendency

01:00:53.900 or trend, right? We're talking about general trends and tendencies. Um,

01:00:58.500 you know, so, uh, yeah, I think the strong will survive and that, that, that's something

01:01:04.520 that, uh, Nietzsche said as well. And then, but that once the strong survive, uh, they have

01:01:09.140 to find a way to kind of secure themselves and protect themselves from other and sort

01:01:13.100 of regrow a civilization as it were.

01:01:15.080 I mean, I think how, what we will do after the collapse is, is really the question that

01:01:20.640 we should be talking about now. And I think just, you know, whining about problems with

01:01:27.220 the current system, I think it's, it's important to understand it and point them out. But I

01:01:31.680 think we would kind of all agree that this thing is, um, uh, not, not too long for this

01:01:38.840 world. I mean, we are living through a degeneration cycle and just the idea of like, let's go back

01:01:50.580 to an earlier stage of this degeneration is, is luckily impossible and, and, and totally

01:01:57.700 fruitless. So I, I do think we need to better understand the system and better understand

01:02:03.500 in the past and then start to think of where we want to actually take this thing in the

01:02:08.200 future.

01:02:09.480 Yeah, no, I, I agree with that. And, um, yeah, I think that, and I, you know, it's funny because,

01:02:16.360 you know, we obviously are in this sort of milieu where we're adjacent to these people who are

01:02:22.460 extensively related to the, we're not really the old light, for example. Um, and people like

01:02:27.640 Nick Fuentes, uh, but I do feel like that there is a kind of sense that like the, the

01:02:33.380 chamber is empty that like, really there is nothing left in the right. There's just nothing.

01:02:37.820 I mean, it's just kind of like, you know, however, like unpopular I am, or, you know,

01:02:42.460 however your popularity has suffered since 2016 in these circles, it's kind of, it's kind of

01:02:48.840 irrelevant because, you know, people like Nick Fuentes might have a kind of, they might have a

01:02:54.300 greater sort of popularity. The hatred of me is so immense that it's almost like its own form of

01:02:59.260 popularity. Oh yeah, no, no. I think that we have a kind of underrated, like, I feel like I'm known

01:03:06.340 by many more people than I'm followed by, right? I mean, I'll see like people, you know, many people

01:03:12.080 who don't follow me talk about me and, you know, this guy's the, a lol cow or whatever the fuck 0.99

01:03:17.380 they're saying, whatever cope they have. Right. But, um, uh, so I are, yeah, I, I don't think that 0.99

01:03:24.660 Twitter accounts for infamy. I don't think Twitter, I don't think social media accounts

01:03:29.940 for infamy. Infamy is actually, uh, is not recorded in social media, but, um, in any case,

01:03:37.120 but yeah, so I, I just think that they're kind of just running, they're running on an empty tank.

01:03:41.160 I just feel like there's, and it is a kind of like elephant in the room sense where like,

01:03:45.880 we're done guys. The whole thing is done. It was kind of a joke and we have no actual plan,

01:03:50.280 you know, trust the plan. We have no actual plan or like legitimate sort of realistic will to power.

01:03:56.180 And we're just kind of going through this sort of grifting motions, these grifting motions. And,

01:04:01.400 you know, they, they are sort of adopting some of the more benign ideas that you, uh, you and I

01:04:06.800 and other people in the alt-right have been discussing, you know, for five years now,

01:04:10.300 using the, using, uh, the instance of, uh, Lauren Southern, you know, bless her heart. She seems like a

01:04:15.420 good girl, but yeah, but it's like, you know, you understand what I'm saying. There's nothing there.

01:04:19.780 She picks up the football after it's been spiked. It's just a metaphor. Like it's, it's over.

01:04:26.420 Yeah. And yet they were unwilling to kind of cross the Rubicon to real solutions, which real

01:04:31.660 solutions that you and I are talking about. They're unwilling. So they're kind of stuck in

01:04:35.900 this kind of a limbo where it's not going anywhere. Yeah. You'll, you, so you're grifting and you're

01:04:42.140 kind of like, uh, you still have audiences that are, uh, are trusting the plan or that are kind of

01:04:48.640 still, you know, hoping that there'll be some kind of solution. Uh, but there is no solution in

01:04:54.680 the offing. It's just this kind of dying, declining thing. Uh, they grew, uh, from, you know, 2015,

01:05:02.240 2016, uh, and not, and not to a small extent from stuff that you started, but it was just kind of

01:05:09.340 sort of parasitically grew from there. Um, and now it's kind of dying. I mean,

01:05:13.960 it's just sort of dying and there's, and there is a kind of sense that it's over.

01:05:18.440 Well, I think even the, even the Trump movement was kind of like a, a death

01:05:25.080 scream or something, whatever the right term is. Uh, you know, it's, we've been, you've seen this

01:05:34.100 discussion in the mainstream media and people are understandably and rightly wringing their hands

01:05:39.960 about declining life expectancy in the United States. It is flat lining effectively. Life

01:05:47.060 expectancy is going down and that is not just a matter of COVID. This actually started in 2016.

01:05:56.740 And I, I think in, in some ways, the Trump, the whole Trump phenomenon and this kind of new

01:06:04.700 conservative critique of capitalism and so on, it, it did kind of emerge out of this sense that

01:06:11.740 this just isn't going to work anymore. And we're this, this is the, the cost benefit ratio is,

01:06:19.420 is over. We're, we're, we're all dying. We're dying basically. And the make America great again,

01:06:25.840 which is this kind of inherently retroactive look, you know, was, you know, it wasn't so much

01:06:32.480 discovering one's youth. It was almost like an old man discovering like middle age or something.

01:06:37.640 He was like trying to just, you know, take it back natural human response. Um, but all of it,

01:06:46.160 all of this stuff, the, the reason why it is so reactionary and kind of so incoherent

01:06:51.500 is because it's like there, there's a certain awareness that the game is up, that the chamber

01:06:57.660 is empty, as you said, that this can't go on and we've just got to do something. Now there

01:07:02.300 was no plan. There was no real serious, even critique of the system. There, there was only

01:07:07.580 vague whining, but just the fact that it happened did express something, uh, very important.

01:07:16.360 And, and I think we should kind of recognize that, but, but also recognize it for what it is.

01:07:24.020 Yeah. I don't, I don't think they have the will to kind of, uh, do what needs to be done.

01:07:28.580 Um, and I think that they, so it is just there, it's a kind of dying beast, this whole, um,

01:07:33.980 all light phenomena and, uh, you know,

01:07:38.580 Well, let's do this. We have a couple of super chats. We have, uh, four more actually. Um, so yeah,

01:07:44.340 we've got in about a hundred bucks. That's pretty fun. Um, Travis hammer. I just want to support the

01:07:50.880 cause. I think you two have the most viable and forward looking vision of any of the dissidents.

01:07:56.220 Thank you, Travis. I appreciate that. Uh, Bartimu, um, for 10 man is too noble a being to have to

01:08:05.000 serve merely as an instrument of others for men are not made for positions, but positions are made

01:08:12.100 for men. It is never permissible to degrade a human soul for the benefit of others, nor to make

01:08:18.660 a villain, uh, for the service of honest people. Can you name the man who said that? I'll give you a

01:08:25.980 hint. He's French. You're quizzing me. Yeah. Well, it's okay. It's Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

01:08:34.220 Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't have gotten that. I mean, I, now it makes sense that now that you've

01:08:39.580 said it, he's just simply wrong. I mean, I don't know what to say. The pyramids could only have been

01:08:46.520 built with slaves. And, you know, um, I would say philosophy could not have existed outside of a

01:08:57.640 stratified slave owning social order, because that is the only way to create a certain type of 0.72

01:09:04.160 breeding. Um, so I don't know if you were just quoting that as a criticism of me, or you're quoting

01:09:09.780 that to show how naive Rousseau is. Um, but yeah, I mean, the, the question is not whether

01:09:17.400 we're going to use mankind as an instrument. The question is for what end are we going to use

01:09:25.140 mankind as an instrument to, to help us get to a higher goal, a noble goal that is beyond us.

01:09:33.120 That's superhuman. Um, or are, are we going to use him for an instrument of evil? Um, or are we just

01:09:41.720 going to kind of allow degeneration to occur? I mean, it's just something kind of, it's a problem

01:09:47.080 of America where there's the, it's a liberally defined state. And so, you know, you have rights

01:09:56.260 and we, we actually have greater free speech rights. I think that's a good thing. In fact,

01:10:01.900 so we'll give the devil his due, but there's no real essence in a, in a liberally defined

01:10:08.320 order. It is a kind of empty shell. It doesn't actually stand for a people. It stands for a

01:10:14.100 kind of legal mechanism that is the constitution or the political system. And that's a big problem.

01:10:24.240 Okay. Um, so Frederick McKenzie, he's given us two super chats, um, 20 bucks in total.

01:10:31.900 Um, have you read Karl Marx on the Jewish question? He has an account of Judaism employing 0.99

01:10:37.980 Christianity and the development of capitalism. Um, I have not read that essay in some time,

01:10:45.200 so I don't want to comment on it. I was actually reading another book this morning and it, um,

01:10:52.900 I remember going on Amazon. There's a good collection of Marx and Engels on religion. I was kind of

01:10:57.700 thinking I need to maybe get my mind turning on these. Do you want to, do you have anything to

01:11:02.260 say on Marx and the Jewish question? Because that's kind of, uh, no, I mean, it's more up your

01:11:07.640 alley, maybe a little bit. Yeah. I mean, it's, well, I, you know, I, I, um, I haven't read that

01:11:13.840 in a while either. I, you know, uh, but I think that, um, I mean, it is in a way, uh, you know,

01:11:19.920 to the extent, uh, that we understand Marx as an anti-Semite or Marxism as anti-Semitic

01:11:25.960 on some level, which you could, which you could conclude from some of the, yeah, some

01:11:30.740 of the language used, uh, in this way, it does resemble, uh, Christianity. Um, you know,

01:11:37.600 though Christianity, I don't think is anti-Semitic. I don't, I, you know, you know, you know,

01:11:41.820 I, and I actually, I have a video that, um, explains why it is not anti-Semitic. It's

01:11:46.140 just, um, that doesn't mean. It's kind of like the way that, you know, like, um, the

01:11:54.100 book of John, the gospel of John is anti-Semitic because it is chastising Jews for not accepting

01:12:01.720 Jesus in a way. And, you know, it, which is a, a very certain type of anti-Semitism. Let's

01:12:09.020 put it that way, whether it's anti-Semitic at all. Or anti-Judaism, you might say it's

01:12:13.060 an anti, it's a form of anti-Judaism. Right. In the sense that it is going beyond Judaism,

01:12:18.760 which Christianity clearly is, you know? Yeah. Yeah. So maybe a bit like, I don't know,

01:12:24.000 Stalin killing the old Bolsheviks or something. I mean, like, you know what I mean? It's got 0.94

01:12:28.680 a, they're all communists. Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, and you have to wonder though, if this

01:12:33.760 is, uh, you know, in this, the same way, and I would argue too, that, uh, that to the

01:12:37.800 extent that anti-Semitism or, um, kind of implications of anti-Semitism exist in the

01:12:44.380 New Testament, they exist as a kind of, uh, tantalizing bait. Right. Because in other

01:12:49.540 words, anti-Semitism was so widespread in the ancient world at that time that Christianity

01:12:54.360 gains credibility by making these Jews and these Pharisees effectively villains in that 1.00

01:12:59.460 parable. Right. Yeah. So it could be, there could be a similar kind of tact applied there

01:13:06.040 with Marx and it's not even, you know, you could argue that Marx was a sort of self-deceived

01:13:11.220 and he was doing it kind of unconsciously. I mean, it's possible also that he was being

01:13:15.080 very conscious. I mean, we, you know, we know that Marx was, uh, friends actually with, um,

01:13:20.960 uh, some very famous and powerful, uh, capitalistic Jews that were, you know, that, right. So in 1.00

01:13:28.000 other words, um, I think that they, it could be a little bit of a, he could be sort of pandering

01:13:33.460 to an audience with those anti-Semitic remarks in the hope that they are, will, are interested

01:13:40.220 in adopting, um, communism or, or what would become a communist Marxism. Which in a way

01:13:45.320 is a kind, right. Which it's a kind of Christian like move, you know, where it's like, we're,

01:13:52.100 we're going beyond Judaism, you know, in a way. And, and I think Marx, Marx was in a way

01:13:58.820 kind of arguably is kind of going beyond liberalism. Like this is, this is like super

01:14:03.600 liberalism. It's identical in a lot of ways. I mean, all the early communists were Jews, 0.92

01:14:08.600 right? Yeah. And, uh, you know, Marx is not a reviled character, uh, among Jews generally.

01:14:14.600 I mean, uh, and, uh, you know, up until relatively recently, I mean, that, that's, uh, you know,

01:14:20.040 Jews have, uh, in, in fact, Jews generally have a somewhat favorable view of communism still

01:14:25.780 to this day. I mean, it's, it's the meme that it like real communism hasn't been tried.

01:14:30.820 Right. So the, the early, uh, just like the early Christians were Jews, the early communists, 0.89

01:14:36.720 you know, were Jews. Right. So I don't, you know, I, I think that, um, so I think it's a,

01:14:44.300 I think a good analog or rather a good comparison is Christianity.

01:14:48.060 Yeah. All right. We actually have a good super chat that I'm really glad was asked because this,

01:14:54.760 this gives me an opportunity to kind of launch against, uh, Lawrence Southern and all these

01:15:00.060 other people. It's about the modern architecture question. Um, we have seemed to have lost beauty

01:15:05.780 in modern architecture. Was this capitalism's fault? Um, I would not blame capitalism for this.

01:15:13.080 Although I, I certainly believe that it has played a role and, and you can kind of, in, in a way only

01:15:21.660 understand this decline in architecture that way. But I just find this to be this naive American 1.00

01:15:30.100 tourist who wants to go look at pretty architecture in Europe as a tourist and wants to basically go look

01:15:39.300 at architecture. That's no longer really functioning in the sense of, you know, how beautiful is Notre

01:15:46.200 Dame's cathedral, et cetera. Um, now that doesn't mean that we can't make life better. Um, I think that

01:15:55.080 there is a certain kind of uniform drudgery nihilism, you could say about the suburbs of cookie cutter houses

01:16:05.280 and everyone kind of separated equidistance socially distancing, you could say. Um, and, and just this

01:16:12.660 beige on beige uniformity. I, I agree. And I think a lot of things could be done, um, easily, uh, to make

01:16:21.780 those kinds of things more communal and they actually are done. Uh, most new big suburban developments,

01:16:29.660 they've actually kind of created a certain kind of new urbanism. So you'll have like a, a little bit

01:16:35.900 of a town center and a kind of Potemkin village of a small town America kind of recreated within the

01:16:42.120 suburb. But the fundamental issue of all crying to get all that efficiency is it's something bigger

01:16:51.400 than capitalism. It's not just capitalism in the sense of like wanting to be efficient and money

01:16:56.460 grubbing or whatever, because capitalism can also create, um, extremes and luxury. You know,

01:17:03.900 like, would you say a Frank Gary museum, whether you consider that ugly or not is up to you. I'm a

01:17:10.400 little bit, I'm kind of on the negative side, but I'm actually maybe more ambivalent about that than

01:17:14.580 most, whether you consider that ugly is, is that just made out of pure efficiency in mind? No, it's a,

01:17:21.080 you know, grossly luxurious type of thing, luxury products. There, there are, they are,

01:17:28.100 there's a Renaissance in a way of, of fine, you know, leather handbags or, um, art Swiss made watches,

01:17:37.820 et cetera. They're huge auctions going on right now, which people are massively overpaying for these

01:17:43.540 things. So capitalism does not create uniformity. I think that uniformity is one aspect of it that

01:17:50.800 is, is, is often given, it's often, it's, it's given to the proletarian elements and it's often

01:17:57.560 kind of, um, a necessity of, in a, of, of effectively bringing them up to a higher standard of living,

01:18:05.820 giving them a suburban home, as opposed to having them live in some kind of squalid,

01:18:12.200 you know, place in the, in the burb, not in the burbs, in the, in the, uh, cities, um, or living the

01:18:19.240 peasant life. It's about bringing them up to an order and how you do that, how you basically bring

01:18:24.620 billions of people up to a new standard of living. That's a huge problem. Uh, I, I wouldn't just blame

01:18:32.420 capitalism for that, like blaming efficiency. I think the fact that we don't build, uh, great

01:18:38.560 architecture is actually deeply cultural in origin. And, you know, I would just suggest this,

01:18:46.620 um, of all those beautiful European places, uh, what kind of oppression went in to creating those,

01:18:55.180 you know, uh, amazing, uh, ancient, uh, you know, marvels of the ancient world. You're probably not

01:19:01.980 quite willing to go there to understand the kind of oppression. Uh, there was also a certain in,

01:19:06.960 once you get into a, you know, closer to the modern age, um, there's a certain kind of craftsmanship

01:19:12.360 and masonry and so on that, that, that has, has certainly been lost and maybe it's worthwhile

01:19:18.340 bringing that back, but you know, you, you have to understand what that would actually entail.

01:19:23.620 If we're going to build buildings like that, we aren't going to have a universally middle-class

01:19:28.800 society. You, you cannot build like stone carved stone facades, um, hand done. And for,

01:19:38.280 you know, 300 million people living in the United States, it's just, it just can't be done. And just,

01:19:44.360 again, to just kind of be like, Oh, you know, capitalism did this. I just find it very cheap

01:19:49.920 and, and, and pretty much of a, uh, a hollow critique, uh, overall, why can't we build monumental

01:19:57.020 architecture? I think this is entirely cultural and you can kind of look at what are the monuments

01:20:02.320 now in those European cities that people like to go visit? What are the ones that have been created

01:20:08.320 over the past, say 50 years, as opposed to monuments that were created in the age of capital,

01:20:14.300 you know, throughout the 19th century, early 20th century, their Holocaust memorials.

01:20:20.000 Does that kind of tell you something about that? This is a cultural and spiritual issue

01:20:25.900 of why things are so ugly and not really an issue of capitalism, wealth and equality, et cetera.

01:20:40.260 Yes.

01:20:45.500 Also, yeah, the state should go ahead on these issues. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I would just be

01:20:50.920 repeating the same rule. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's true. Um, the state did lead. Yeah. Let us straight

01:20:56.920 to hell. But, um, but, uh, there's also, I mean, just to give the devil his due, there's a certain,

01:21:06.320 there is a certain aspirational quality to high modernism. Um, I, uh, I generally,

01:21:15.740 I, I generally get inspired going on like the riverboat tour of, of Chicago and seeing these,

01:21:25.180 you know, the sky, the history of the skyscraper, which you can kind of, you know, read that textbook

01:21:30.960 just right in the skyline. Um, there is actually something really interesting and cool and aspirational

01:21:37.680 about modernism. I don't think we should just discount that. It's not just all drab.

01:21:42.740 Yeah. Well, yeah. I, I, and actually, I think, especially in the, uh, the field of architecture,

01:21:47.440 there's some interesting, I mean, not all of, some of it's hideous, of course, brutalism or,

01:21:54.040 you know, but there, uh, but there are, there is, there are some modern buildings that are

01:21:58.840 striking and are very creative and beautiful. Um, you know, it's, so I, I, I, yeah, I, I don't think

01:22:08.420 it's possible to entirely discard, um, elements of modern architecture in particular of all,

01:22:14.940 of all the fields, you know, of painting and music and stuff. I think that architecture,

01:22:19.180 there might be some innovations there that are, that are interesting and worth considering.

01:22:24.280 Yeah. And architecture in particular, whereas modern art music is, you know, almost like cacophony

01:22:32.860 and it's, it, it's totally dissociated from most people, most all people. In fact, modern architecture,

01:22:40.420 when it's done well, actually speaks to people on a, on a kind of visceral level. It's one of the,

01:22:47.340 and in a way that fine art doesn't as well, you know, contemporary painting is just, you know,

01:22:52.040 your average Joe, or even your average, like, you know, professional intelligent person 0.97

01:22:59.460 looks at modern art and they're just like, all right, what the, what the fuck is this? 0.98

01:23:03.780 I mean, it's, you know, yeah, well, this is complete bullshit, but, but a cool, like new 0.99

01:23:08.520 skyscraper in Chicago, whatever that actually does speak to him, kind of communicates with him 0.95

01:23:13.820 on an artistic level. That's one of the few, uh, serious art forms that actually does that.

01:23:20.380 Yeah. I mean, it, it, it probably is. I assume it is, uh, uh, connected to the fact that,

01:23:25.780 buildings actually have to be functional. They have, they actually have to stand, right? So they,

01:23:30.220 they have to have some basic form. Uh, so they're given some basic form and then the, uh, the sort

01:23:36.960 of creative artistic innovation has to take place within a functional, um, in, within this functional

01:23:43.920 form. Yeah. So, um, maybe that, uh, you know, maybe that helps. I mean, again, some, some modern

01:23:50.640 architecture is absolutely terrible, but, um, some is, is good. Yeah. Yeah. What do these

01:23:58.420 conservatives want? Yeah. I would be curious. Like, what do you want to see? Well, some of

01:24:04.340 it is like sort of futurism, right? You would imagine the RKO futurism. You would imagine some

01:24:09.540 of these cool, like sort of modern, like science fiction looking buildings. That's what we want

01:24:13.960 to see. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know what they want to see. Like, what do you, what do they want?

01:24:18.460 Like we're going to like, they, I, they probably want the night, some like 19th century French 1.00

01:24:24.200 department store or something. They're like, Oh, they just, they don't like these two.

01:24:28.540 They're just doing what they always do. Yeah. It's like they're, they complain. That's what

01:24:32.040 they do. That's, that's all they do. They don't generate new ideas. They just complain.

01:24:37.980 Right. I would want to glass and steel like Parthenon. Like I, I want to, we, there, there has

01:24:47.500 to be some kind of old and new fusion that goes, that goes forward. So it's, it's not

01:24:54.000 reactionary. It's not also pure modernism, you know, Mies van der Rohe or something. It's,

01:24:59.440 it's, it's finding a way between that. Yeah. And it doesn't necessarily, it doesn't even

01:25:04.660 necessarily have to be kind of strictly, you know, for example, I mean, obviously we, we're

01:25:09.740 already kind of describing this idea. It doesn't have to be strictly sort of neoclassical or though

01:25:14.600 that should be something that it has also developed, of course. Sure. Um, but I think

01:25:19.320 that, um, I think that maybe one good key or one good requirement is that it has some

01:25:25.220 symbolic value, right? So in other words, the architect is thinking symbolically in the

01:25:30.600 way that, uh, you know, the classical architect was thinking, he was thinking, he was making

01:25:34.980 a temple, right? The idea that you're making a temple and what, you know, what are your choices

01:25:40.480 signifying as an artist? Yeah. So I think that that, that would be, um, I think that that

01:25:47.120 could improve architecture, even modern architecture, um, is if, if the, the architect is thinking

01:25:53.820 in symbolic ways, right? How, how is he venerating a God through this building, for example?

01:25:59.200 Right. Um, so I agree. I think that's a good starting place. Yeah.

01:26:04.620 Is to think of it as like a temple in the sense of it's sacred in some ways, or, or to think

01:26:11.000 of it as a kind of communal gathering place. Yeah. You know, Ayn Rand, you know, she, uh,

01:26:18.260 what is the book she does about the, uh, the architect? It's Fountainhead, right? Yeah. And

01:26:23.640 I think that that's the one, I think that that's the only Ayn Rand book that I've read. Um, though

01:26:28.420 I've read, uh, essays and excerpts of other stuff, but, um, I just like to reread the rape

01:26:33.920 scene. I'll, I'll, uh, yeah. Oh, sorry. I shouldn't have said that on air.

01:26:44.000 You caused a couple of women to faint in the audience. I'm sure in a good way. 1.00

01:26:51.340 But, um, uh, so I think that, uh, um, but she has this, uh, there's a scene in that book 0.95

01:26:59.520 where, uh, he's making a temple, like he's making an inverted church. Right. And the

01:27:04.760 idea she develops seems like a poor actually idea for a building, but a, but it's a kind

01:27:10.180 of the thing that's striking about the idea is that it's a completely sort of symbolic

01:27:14.160 and almost both symbolic and also an ideological idea. And so rather than make a church, he's

01:27:20.320 making an inverted church and it's a church to man. Right. Which actually in some ways,

01:27:25.680 you know, if you, if you're looking at the Bible and you sort of, you're looking at these

01:27:28.960 in a, a Brahminian, you're doing a Brahminian interpretation of the Bible, man or Adam is

01:27:34.740 actually an Aryan figure, I argue. Yeah. But, but the way that the temple takes form in that

01:27:40.960 book is that it's a, it's an inverted temple. So nothing is higher than man. I, you know,

01:27:46.120 I, I don't remember it perfectly. I read it a while ago. Yeah. I haven't read it in some

01:27:49.620 time actually. I do remember that scene. Yeah. So that when a man walks into the building,

01:27:53.800 nothing is higher than that. Right. So I think it's actually sort of a depression in the earth

01:27:58.140 or something. I don't, I don't remember how he sort of like, but another way, but what I admired

01:28:03.300 about it is that there was a symbolic consideration to the building. Right. Um, so, so I think that

01:28:11.060 that is something that should be a kind of requisite for architects is that they, um, how that they're

01:28:17.980 infusing it with a symbolic meaning and with a kind of shared understanding of symbols and also with a

01:28:23.300 shared understanding of, you know, the way symbols should be directed, uh, toward inspiring man,

01:28:30.160 Adam would say, right. Um, and rather as opposed to, uh, demoralizing it.

01:28:37.980 I agree. All right, let's do this. Let's check to see if we have any more, uh, super chats and then

01:28:46.000 we can just call it a night. Um, all right, that's it. All right. This is a good conversation.

01:28:53.860 I'm glad we had it. I, I think I'm kind of gesturing towards a lot of newer ideas that I'm

01:29:00.440 going to be talking more about in the future. Um, yeah, thank you, Mark. And, um, I will talk to

01:29:08.440 you soon. Thank you everyone who donated via super chats. Awesome. And thank you everyone

01:29:13.440 who watched, um, ciao. Peace out. Good night. Good night.

RadixJournal - May 08, 2021

Conservative Anti-Capitalism？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript