The Auron MacIntyre Show - Nick Land vs. Aleksandr Dugin Debate ｜ Guests： Nick Land and Aleksandr Dugin ｜ 10⧸6⧸25

00:00:00.000 Did you lock the front door?

00:00:04.080 Check.

00:00:04.620 Closed the garage door?

00:00:05.800 Yep.

00:00:06.300 Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision?

00:00:09.780 No.

00:00:10.620 And you set up credit card transaction alerts, a secure VPN for a private connection,

00:00:14.060 and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web?

00:00:17.080 Uh, I'm looking into it?

00:00:19.600 Stress less about security.

00:00:21.360 Choose security solutions from Telus for peace of mind at home and online.

00:00:25.540 Visit telus.com slash total security to learn more.

00:00:28.520 Conditions apply.

00:00:30.520 Hey, everybody.

00:00:30.980 How's it going?

00:00:31.620 Thanks for joining me this afternoon.

00:00:33.300 I've got a great stream with some great guests that I think you're really going to enjoy.

00:00:37.320 I've had the pleasure of interviewing both of these men previously, Alexander Dugan and

00:00:42.040 Nick Land.

00:00:42.540 I think both are critical thinkers in our world today.

00:00:45.420 Some of the few people doing very interesting philosophy, and I'm excited to have both of

00:00:49.720 them on for the discussion.

00:00:51.380 So Nick and Professor Dugan, thank you so much for coming on.

00:00:55.020 Great to be here with you both.

00:00:56.740 Yeah.

00:00:57.100 Thank you.

00:00:57.460 Thank you very much.

00:00:59.180 Absolutely.

00:00:59.620 So we're going to get deep into this, guys.

00:01:01.640 There's so much to talk about.

00:01:03.040 I think we're going to talk about accelerationism, angels, the possibility of liberalism and extension

00:01:08.680 of the Anglo way of being.

00:01:10.500 But before we get to all of that, we need to hear from today's sponsor.

00:01:14.080 Everyone knows that college is a major investment, so it's really important to do your research.

00:01:18.540 You want to find a school that shares your values, but who has the time to dig through

00:01:21.860 all those college websites?

00:01:23.140 Well, today I've got great news for you.

00:01:25.400 There's a free, easy-to-use resource that does the work for you.

00:01:29.100 It's called christiancollegeguide.com.

00:01:31.900 This online directory of over 250 Christian colleges and universities is a one-stop shop.

00:01:38.820 christiancollegeguide.com lists all the basics, such as acceptance rates, tuition costs, and

00:01:43.780 academic majors.

00:01:44.900 But here's what makes this resource truly special.

00:01:47.960 christiancollegeguide.com will show you the school's faith commitments, its campus policies,

00:01:52.700 and its spiritual life, all the info that you will need to find the college you can trust.

00:01:57.820 This is the definitive college guide for Christian higher education, and it's completely free.

00:02:03.120 So if you or someone you know is considering college, go to christiancollegeguide.com to

00:02:08.160 create a free user profile and start today.

00:02:11.100 It's christiancollegeguide.com.

00:02:14.940 All right, guys, before we get started, I just want to remind the listeners that this is

00:02:18.780 a prerecorded episode.

00:02:19.920 Obviously, I've got to coordinate this across literally the entire globe so we can have this

00:02:23.780 discussion.

00:02:24.520 So we had to do it at a weird time.

00:02:26.040 So unfortunately, we will not be able to take any questions at the end.

00:02:30.500 So gentlemen, I'm just going to kind of try to guide this discussion.

00:02:34.540 Obviously, mainly want to hear from the two of you.

00:02:36.860 So I'll just have some prompting questions, but feel free to step in, ask questions, interact.

00:02:42.320 This is by no means some kind of formal debate or anything of that nature.

00:02:46.660 But I'll just open with, I think, what is probably a easy common area of agreement and

00:02:52.640 see kind of where the conversation develops from there.

00:02:56.480 So I think both of you have discussed liberalism as an outgrowth of kind of the Anglo way of

00:03:03.760 being, as a specific strain of this cultural development that has grown into a more global

00:03:10.100 ideology.

00:03:12.100 In some ways, some people might think that's good.

00:03:15.620 Some people might think that is deleterious.

00:03:17.920 But maybe we can just open up with this basic idea.

00:03:21.720 Mr. Land, can you talk a little bit about liberalism as its Anglo roots and what it's kind of become

00:03:27.920 as it's been abstracted out of that particular way of being?

00:03:31.500 Well, the first thing I would start with a point of agreement in the sense that I think

00:03:42.560 what we call liberalism now as this globalist, universalist, moralistic monster is obviously

00:03:55.440 the greatest problem in the world.

00:04:02.080 And so that's something I'm entirely confident about.

00:04:10.780 Where I think that I will probably be disagreeing is that I don't think that this historical

00:04:20.720 outcome is something that's strictly inherent to liberalism.

00:04:28.460 And I think there is a defensible notion of liberalism, paleoliberalism, that can be essentially

00:04:35.900 defined in a way that is very, very different to what it has predominantly, what the things

00:04:44.280 that have predominantly happened in its name.

00:04:50.100 And I mean, I have a little spiel on that, but I think maybe I should sort of pause and

00:04:56.280 hesitate and, you know, allow the counter position to be stated first.

00:05:06.420 Absolutely.

00:05:07.100 So, Mr. Dugan, do you believe that there is a version of liberalism that can be healthy,

00:05:12.220 that can be operated in the service of the people it was meant to serve?

00:05:18.440 Can I just interrupt, just for one thing, just to say that it can be healthy for the English

00:05:26.940 people.

00:05:28.740 I mean, you know, so I totally am not making a claim that even in the most stripped down

00:05:37.000 paleo form, this is something that is the basis for a global ideology.

00:05:44.560 Sure.

00:05:45.040 You know, that is not at all my claim, and that rather is a point of disagreement.

00:05:51.100 So, yeah, sorry.

00:05:53.940 So, thank you.

00:05:55.200 We could discuss, we could touch the subject from different angles.

00:06:03.300 First of all, I fully agree that liberalism is Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

00:06:09.840 So, we need to make a kind of geology of liberalism, because it started from Britain.

00:06:17.700 And I don't think that always Britain was liberal.

00:06:24.780 So, that was a kind of some historical moment when British people, English people, they turned 0.95

00:06:32.960 into this ideology.

00:06:35.840 And we did, if we delve, if we delve a little deeper, we could see, we could trace a kind

00:06:45.920 of genealogy of liberalism.

00:06:48.260 And what is liberalism?

00:06:49.900 Liberalism is the identification of the human with the individual.

00:06:55.800 That is a kind of absolute individualism that wants to liberate, to liberate the human being

00:07:07.320 from all kind of collective identity, from personality.

00:07:11.920 So, individual is kind of opposite to personality.

00:07:16.520 Individualism is something that you don't share with anybody.

00:07:21.980 So, that is true individual, the individual core.

00:07:26.660 So, you are absolutely yourself and nothing else.

00:07:30.380 So, you have no, no, no, you don't share your identity with the class, with the estate,

00:07:38.380 with the church, with the race, with the ethnicity.

00:07:42.920 So, you are absolutely, absolutely reduced to be what you are and nothing else.

00:07:49.520 So, it is a kind of liberation.

00:07:52.300 So, individualism and liberalism are very linked, in my opinion, because liberalism is the kind

00:08:00.660 of project, it is historical project, scenario, the strategy to liberate individual from any

00:08:08.860 kind of collective identity.

00:08:10.760 And that started, historically, not with Anglo-Saxons, that started with nominalism in France, in Rossellini,

00:08:18.700 that started with Franciscan order in Italy, but it has arrived.

00:08:26.480 It has arrived, it has arrived to England with the same Franciscan order, monastic order, and

00:08:33.560 was a kind of accepted by the people, by Doug Scott, by Ockham, Franciscans themselves.

00:08:46.920 And that has prepared the earth, the territory, for the appearance of the Protestant anthropology, 0.96

00:08:57.140 based on the individual relations to God.

00:09:01.640 So, that was a kind of process, a process of some very special development of theology,

00:09:12.740 of Western Christian theology, that has led to this conclusion, to this liberalism.

00:09:19.460 And the matrix of most active development of that was the Great Britain during the Reformation.

00:09:32.400 And after that, that was, as Mr. Land has described very correctly in his blog, that was the secularization

00:09:42.260 of Protestantism, of Calvinism, Calvinism, Protestantism.

00:09:47.060 So, that was, after that was the kind of capitalistic secularization of the same individualism, first

00:09:54.500 religious and theological, and after that secular.

00:09:58.260 So, capitalism, according to Max Weber, and according to your analysis as well, was as well

00:10:04.880 a kind of application of this theological, anthropological rule to the whole system of the society, of economy.

00:10:16.500 So, in that sense, it is a bit pre-Anglo-Saxon, because before this domination of empirical, nominalist attitude,

00:10:28.340 the English theology was different.

00:10:31.940 Anselm of Canterbury and the other, you had many Platonists, Aristotelians, and different kinds.

00:10:40.260 Nominalism is something different, because according to Plato, according to Aristotle, the man is something

00:10:47.700 much more than individual.

00:10:49.700 So, only to individualistic nominalists, Rosalind Ockham's version, the human being is individual.

00:10:57.700 So, they didn't start with Anglo-Saxons, but that has flourished, thanks to Anglo-Saxon tradition.

00:11:06.580 And that was a kind that became, at the same time, a feature of the Anglo-Saxon identity,

00:11:16.260 as well projected on the United States as well, but at the same time, step by step, it became

00:11:25.300 a kind of global, universal pattern.

00:11:28.820 Recently, recently, because continental French-German tradition fought against this until recently.

00:11:37.460 So, now it is a kind of universal global norm.

00:11:44.740 So, if the man is individual, and that is out of the discussion.

00:11:51.460 And when this Anglo-Saxon philosophical concept became universal one, there will be

00:12:01.220 all the contradictions included in it became open as well.

00:12:07.220 So, now, if we compare the old English high style, very ethnically limited understanding,

00:12:20.260 exclusive aristocratic understanding of liberalism, if we compare that with this globalist, very vulgar,

00:12:31.780 of the mass version of liberalism, we could have a shock.

00:12:38.260 Because comparing this paradigm that was ethnically marked with this, the process of globalization,

00:12:47.620 of massification, first of all in the United States, it gives the very, very, very special image of all that.

00:12:57.140 So, that is the kind of terminal station.

00:12:59.940 So, you started with something more or less noble, more or less interesting, stylish, I would say,

00:13:07.220 and you have arrived to some parody, to something that is totally abhorrent.

00:13:16.100 So, in that sense, I could agree with Mr. Lance's concept that there are different phases.

00:13:24.500 If we compare them, so we see the huge difference, the abyss between them, because a gentleman,

00:13:33.140 British gentleman, proposing himself as individual in something totally independent is one thing.

00:13:41.300 You can find very, very literary good examples of how it works.

00:13:47.540 So, that is something very, very high and stylish.

00:13:54.820 So, you could bear your identity as English man did in the history and the culture.

00:14:03.380 And now, when we distribute that among all the population, that is a parody.

00:14:08.580 That is something extremely, extremely awkward, that's horrible.

00:14:15.460 That is the kind of, that inspires the kind of,

00:14:23.140 kind of the sense of, we deal with something shameful, with something completely

00:14:34.020 opposite to the beauty, to the dignity. So, we should not distribute that among everybody else.

00:14:42.420 And being localized, this individualistic attitude, being put in the normal, normal limits,

00:14:52.900 it could be very sympathetic and attractive, but projected on the global level, it seems horrible.

00:15:00.340 For sure, I think maybe we, I think we'll get onto the whole globalized side of it for sure.

00:15:10.980 And it's where everyone here is beginning in terms of the problems that they're facing and

00:15:18.420 contemporary politics. I mean, there's, there's two immediate responses that I would make to what

00:15:25.620 you've just said. One, very quick, which is just to say, at the anthropological level, I think one of the most

00:15:35.460 most fascinating and persuasive basis for this, like ever seen is the work of Immanuel Todd on family structure,

00:15:46.980 where he has different family categories and says that the basic ideological tendencies of different people

00:15:56.660 are very explicable on the basis of their kind of normal family type. And one of his family types is what

00:16:06.900 he calls the absolute nuclear family. And it's very restricted. It's basically English and Dutch.

00:16:15.540 And he says that this is associated culturally with tendencies to liberalism in what we would now call

00:16:24.740 this libertarian variety. So I think, you know, I'm saying this just to say, I think people are different. And,

00:16:34.420 and, and, you know, just underscoring this thing that this is, I think, an English problem initially,

00:16:40.980 and it becomes a completely other type of problem when it becomes globalized and generalized

00:16:47.940 as a pattern for all human societies. Just to stick to the, I'm not saying Immanuel Todd is the

00:16:55.780 alpha and omega of this question, but, but he brings out the absurdity of that globalistic project

00:17:03.460 of that it's implicitly saying all the peoples of the world should pattern their social existence as if

00:17:11.380 they had an Anglo-Dutch family structure. I mean, it's a, it's ultimately a nonsensical and unsustainable, 1.00

00:17:21.540 an absurd assumption and an assertion that, you know, seen in those terms of cause cannot lead anywhere good.

00:17:30.820 And the second thing I'll say is in individualism, I think for sure is crucial and, but it has

00:17:41.140 different aspects to it. And I think that aspect that is truly crucial and which ties up with the

00:17:49.460 theological structure of paleoliberalism, which I 100% agree is Protestant. You know, I, I talk 0.60

00:17:57.460 consistently about the Anglo-Protestant weak tradition, an ethnicity, a religion, and an ideology. And they,

00:18:08.340 all three of those are the same thing seen from different positions. And the, a way into this,

00:18:18.100 because I think that, um, there's been this bizarre amount of Satanism discussion recently. And so I

00:18:27.220 thought, I, I know this is a text that is very important to Professor Dugan and, uh, which is in

00:18:35.540 Faust, part one, I think the Faustian spirit is very much part of this discussion, where, uh, Faust

00:18:42.820 Faust summons, uh, Mephistopheles and asks him, who are you? And Mephistopheles says,

00:18:52.660 A portion of that power, which always works for evil and affects the good, which evil, that's

00:19:06.580 sorry, this is the translation, I don't think it's good, which always wants evil, which always works

00:19:11.460 for evil and always creates the good. So that's Goethe's, if you say, well, what is Satanism? And

00:19:19.540 that's Goethe's answer to that. I think it's very interesting. Mandeville's, the, the, the consolidation

00:19:29.060 of paleoliberalism in England really takes place in the Scottish Empire. You know, perhaps the single

00:19:37.620 most perfect distillation of it is found in Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees, um, which I

00:19:46.340 don't think I can summarize very easily with a quote. I think it's just to say he goes on to

00:19:53.780 influence Adam Smith. And if I could just a very quick, uh, citation from The Wealth of Nations,

00:20:02.420 where, uh, Smith says he generally, and he, he means the individual. It's actually said before,

00:20:09.700 every individual. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows

00:20:16.580 how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic than a foreign industry,

00:20:22.420 he intends only his own security. And by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may

00:20:27.140 be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain. And he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an

00:20:35.140 invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. And that, to me, is the essential

00:20:45.620 ideological aspect of individualism as it relates to paleoliberalism. That's to say, the fundamental

00:20:56.260 assumption is that there is an empty position, what I call the empty summit, which would be an

00:21:07.140 instantiated public morality. And instead, that function is delegated to the invisible hands. I will

00:21:19.140 insist on pluralizing it. Um, the invisible hands are the, the key theological and economic

00:21:31.860 and, you know, maybe, in a sense, even ethnic access on which paleoliberalism determines itself.

00:21:40.580 And there are huge consequences to that. It is, I mean, I'm, maybe you should just at this point just

00:21:48.660 stop there to say, you know, that Mephistopheles' speech and Adam Smith's statement on the invisible

00:21:56.820 hand are almost identical. They're both saying that the common good is not a deliberate intention at the

00:22:08.580 level of the individual. Um, and it creates the good because of a higher power, because of the fact

00:22:16.820 that it's guided by this religious axis, the empty summit, the fact that there is to some degree at least

00:22:25.460 massive constriction and delimitation of what would be an authoritative public moral authority. Um, so that,

00:22:34.420 to me, that's what paleoliberalism is. That, that is not at all what I think we're seeing now among

00:22:41.060 people who call themselves liberals. Um, yeah. Okay. I, I should pause.

00:22:52.100 Right. Right. Very interesting. Very, very pertinent point. So if we, if we prolong a bit this comparison

00:23:01.220 between Faust and Mephistopheles and Adam Smith, we see a kind of Ophitic understanding as all Gnostic

00:23:11.860 Gnostic Ophites who, uh, who have revised the kind of the role of the evil in the history. So the history, 0.99

00:23:22.740 uh, the role of the history in the evil was misinterpreted, uh, according to Gnostics. So, uh, it, uh, it, uh,

00:23:32.660 it was always, uh, always wanted, uh, it, uh, has always wanted to, to, to, to make, uh, an evil or indifference

00:23:42.180 toward the good. And at the same time, this, that was the kind of, um, kind of introduction of,

00:23:50.580 or, uh, of secret way to, to the good. So, uh, in that sense, I, I totally agree with that. So, uh,

00:23:58.820 that this comparison is absolutely genius, I think, because the capitalism in that Scotland,

00:24:07.940 law church, colonists, uh, part of Protestantism was something like, um, evil, uh, regarding the 0.53

00:24:19.300 common God of community. So that was a kind of nihilist, nihilistic attitude that finally, when it

00:24:31.700 was a kind of, uh, enlarged, that was enlarged and projected, uh, on a global level, that has prepared

00:24:43.700 the way to something, uh, something, uh, the kind of alternative results. So the expansion of the evil,

00:24:52.500 of individualism, egoism, narcissism, nihilism, has led to some contrary, contrary, uh, conclusion.

00:25:01.700 Uh, so that, that is very interesting. So that, it partly, partly, was the, uh, the thought of

00:25:08.740 Karl Marx, that more capitalism will prevail, the more conditions for revolutions, uh, revolution,

00:25:18.980 proletarian revolution, socialism, will be, will be prepared. And the Marxists, Trotskyists above all,

00:25:28.420 they criticized the kind of Soviet or Chinese will to stop this, to say, we have enough of the evil, 0.68

00:25:39.460 now we are going to, to, to establish, uh, some common goods, uh, with this prepared terrain of the, uh,

00:25:50.340 capitalist, uh, Mephistophelian, um, demonic, demonic expansion. So let's stop here. And now we are coming

00:25:59.220 to create something really, really good. And that, that failed in the, in the, in the case of the

00:26:04.980 Soviet Union, uh, because, uh, we, we tried to say enough with capitalism, but we had not, we had not

00:26:12.660 enough of capitalism, of capitalism. So we were much more traditional society. So, and that

00:26:20.180 was the, the, the, the, the maybe, maybe the reason why we have failed with socialist experience. But what

00:26:28.580 is interesting, so in Chinese, in Chinese case, uh, capitalism, uh, it considered to be evil that could

00:26:40.180 be turned into the good. And because of cultural, I think, identity. So Chinese society has, has, uh,

00:26:48.420 has succeeded in that. So using, using Mephistopheles, uh, as the, as the kind of horse to, to, to bring

00:26:59.620 to the goodness. So, and the prosperity. So I, I think that, but nevertheless, the main idea that

00:27:05.380 capitalism is evil and that could bring the good is very, very important, I think. So we could interpret

00:27:14.580 that with the Marxists or outside of Marxists. We are not obliged to follow them. We could just,

00:27:21.060 just point out that there is a logic very, very close, I think, uh, near to that. And, uh, but idea to,

00:27:31.620 to reduce the liberalism to paleoliberalism and to unite it with ethnical Anglo-Saxon ambience,

00:27:41.620 I think that, that will, that will, uh, inscribe where, inscribe very well in a multipolar

00:27:50.100 process. If English people, English men prefer to be such, that, that is, it is your decision,

00:27:57.540 it is your destiny. It is your, your free will to, to, to, to, to build your society on the principles

00:28:04.740 you share. So that is absolutely, absolutely legitimate case, I think. The other thing,

00:28:10.980 if you oblige the other to follow the same example against will, that is something completely different,

00:28:18.020 I think. Uh, and, uh, so, uh, uh, maybe, maybe this idea to, to, to reduce the liberalism to its paleo

00:28:30.660 origins, the paleo, uh, paleo liberal form, it could be very, very, very, very, very good acceptance

00:28:39.860 in the world. But more exclusivist liberalism is, the better for the humanity, I think, and the better

00:28:47.540 for, for Anglo-Saxons, uh, British people as well. It's your destiny, it's your culture, it's your

00:28:57.700 particular response to the, uh, to the answer or challenge or history. And you could, you could

00:29:09.380 defend it, you could insist on that, but it, when it comes outside some normal, normal organic,

00:29:19.380 natural limits, it became something different. That is my point.

00:29:24.180 Sure. Sure. I mean, as a side note on this, I think the Chinese case is very interesting,

00:29:34.660 because they also have an indigenous cultural matrix that is very comparable. You know, it's, I mean,

00:29:44.980 the empty summit in Chinese culture is nothing like as, uh, clearly vividly asserted as it is

00:29:56.100 among Anglo-Saxons, but, uh, the, the Dao legalist tradition has a very strong vein of this. You know,

00:30:07.700 that the, the best emperor is invisible to society, um, is a very strong notion and the, the Cantonese and

00:30:18.180 the, and the coastal sort of mercantile populations very much have this notion, the mountains are high

00:30:26.820 and the emperor is far away. I mean, it's, so it's this notion that you, you have a sort of nominal

00:30:34.260 deference to central authority on a massive scale, but it's precisely its virtue is found in its, at the

00:30:45.380 the limit in visibility in its, in its recession from the, the realm of actual micro social interaction.

00:30:56.100 And, and I think that that's why the Anglos and the Chinese have actually practically always 0.95

00:31:03.060 got on with each other very well on this level. I mean, they've always, they've probably both

00:31:08.020 misunderstood each other. And in terms of thinking that they were actually sharing the same cultural

00:31:14.260 matrix. That's not at all something I'm suggesting, but it has enough, uh, analogies that it's allowed

00:31:21.540 very productive commercial interaction across history and, and certainly compared to others where

00:31:30.420 obviously the, the, uh, transportation of Anglo style individualist capitalism has just met vastly more,

00:31:40.420 more, uh, friction and resistance understandably from cultures where it is entirely an alien in position.

00:31:50.020 I totally agree with, uh, your analysis about Chinese culture, uh, and what you have said

00:31:55.620 about the empty summit, it's very important concept. I think that we need to understand that empire,

00:32:02.580 uh, classical empire, sacred empire was precisely defined by transcendental nature of the summit.

00:32:11.540 So the summit is not, um, filled with some positive meaning. It is open. The summit is open. That is the

00:32:19.860 very, very, very, very natural sacredness. The same with empire, who is high, who is hidden, who is

00:32:26.580 outside. So the same for the classical, traditional, philosophical empire. Empire is ruled by empty space,

00:32:36.420 empty summit. Empty summit is apophatical political concept. That, that is, uh, that is very, you, you're

00:32:45.620 absolutely right about that. So it should be, it should be held open, open to the, uh, to the spiritual influence,

00:32:55.060 to be open, to be, uh, to be filled by some extra human presence. And that is very functional element.

00:33:05.780 So, and in my opinion, I have made my suggestions in my XCOM account concerning the, your concept of

00:33:14.900 cathedral, your, uh, concept of Curtis Yermin. So I think that there may be, maybe the much, uh, more correct

00:33:24.820 concept would be for cathedral republic. A republic, it's something close on the summit. The summit is

00:33:33.620 totally closed. So it is purely profane, nothing sacred, nothing, no openness to, to the high, and only

00:33:42.660 self-reliance on the same imminent rational organization. So everything great comes from empire, from the,

00:33:52.740 the, the, the, the, the, the, the political concept, social, philosophical, uh, uh, concept with empty summit. That is the, the, the, the, the, the key element.

00:34:03.940 Empty summit, apophatical, uh, apophatical top, apophatical faith of the political organization, uh, makes the society to, to, to make society open to the presence of transcendent influence.

00:34:21.700 That is sacredness. And republic is always profane. So, uh, kingdom, monarchy, empire could be sacred.

00:34:31.060 And, uh, when you are, uh, you, you, you choose the republic, you are closed on the, on the top. So you, you put something, you, you put the mirror on the top.

00:34:42.100 So mirror that should mirror some, uh, these, uh, mainstream, uh, uh, desires, all, all this, all, atomistic, uh, atomistic creatures.

00:34:55.700 So that is, uh, a kind of, uh, what you have called the other very, very, very, very, very genius, uh, concept, uh, uh, degenerative wretched. 0.52

00:35:07.700 So degenerative wretched, it is precisely republic.

00:35:11.700 So because republic is self-centered, it is closed on the, on the top. 0.55

00:35:17.700 So that is important. So when we, when, when we try to, to save the state, the politics, we, we, we should open that.

00:35:28.420 So we should work through dictatorship come to the empire before, uh, before republic there is kingdom, uh, in the, the Roman case.

00:35:38.260 After the republic comes dictatorship, dictatorship, and after that, the empire.

00:35:43.380 So empire is something open as, as in Virgil, Virgil has described it.

00:35:49.780 So that is return to Apollo, the return of the vertical line that should, uh, and the place for that,

00:35:58.100 that should be preserved for that.

00:36:00.980 And, and maybe in the early Protestantism, pre-Protestant region of, uh, Wycliffe, for example,

00:36:08.820 or German, uh, German, uh, German mystics, uh, as, uh, Buster Eckhart, they preserved this, uh, empty space

00:36:20.820 in the heart of, of, of the human heart, in, in the core of the human heart.

00:36:25.620 So this, this, this empty space where the Christ should be born is, is, is a kind of apophatical, apophatical terrain domain.

00:36:36.020 So, uh, empty, empty summit, I think that is great concept.

00:36:40.820 So I agree with that.

00:36:41.940 I mean, I was thinking that, uh, people might need a little, um, a little framing in terms of, um,

00:36:59.540 um, it seems to me like looking at your work and looking at these questions that there's two

00:37:09.380 sort of frames that interact.

00:37:11.780 I mean, one is actually folded within the other, which is there's a theological frame and there's

00:37:19.220 critical German, particularly critical philosophy.

00:37:23.460 And, and both of them share, uh, uh, insight that's very close.

00:37:28.340 I mean, obviously in a way, critical philosophy, maybe you could say actually secularizes this

00:37:34.420 inside, but the theological basis is the fundamental role of, um,

00:37:47.140 the, the attack on idolatry as being the fundamental gesture of the religious tradition.

00:37:52.900 That's to say that an idol is in the place of the divine and the role of, uh, the, the

00:38:08.820 religious process is to strip away those idols.

00:38:13.460 And you get it obviously right to the, I mean, Nietzsche's twilight of the idols, you know,

00:38:18.020 he's still within that tradition and that becomes the critical tradition where in Kant's version,

00:38:27.060 um, which leads on the main line to Heidegger, who of course is crucial figure to you, but in Kant's

00:38:38.500 initial formulation, it's the confusion of an object for the conditions of objectivity.

00:38:47.220 So transcendental philosophy is trying to recover the conditions of possibility for objectivity

00:38:54.180 from idols of objectivity that have been put in their place.

00:39:02.100 Um, and you, I think that you can see that these, the, the problems with that and, and its opportunities

00:39:13.300 are also at work in the liberal tradition.

00:39:16.740 I mean, probably at work, um, everywhere, um,

00:39:25.300 and holding open empty summits to put, to formulate it in that way is, is a very similar gesture.

00:39:34.180 It's to, it's to, it's to take away the idol

00:39:38.340 that is occupying that position that should be the open transcendental sacred position

00:39:45.860 that is actually the common religious direction of, of society.

00:39:52.340 Um,

00:39:53.220 Um, yeah, I'll, I'll, I'll take that as a, as a complete, as a complete thought.

00:40:02.500 Um, but no, sorry, I won't, I won't take it as a complete thought.

00:40:07.780 At the risk of a slight digression, maybe I can just actually relate it more directly to your work

00:40:13.140 in the sense that it seems to me that your fourth political theory

00:40:20.980 is in this, in actually in a double sense, Heideggerian.

00:40:27.620 Like it is, it's Heideggerian because you're, you talk about Heidegger a lot and, and Heidegger

00:40:32.820 is the key to you to actually kind of organizing what is going to be substantially and positively

00:40:37.460 for the fourth political theory.

00:40:40.260 But it's also that your work is structured very similar to Heidegger's in the sense that actually

00:40:49.620 it's question, you know, the, the structure of the book is a question and, and the substantive

00:40:56.580 work that Heidegger's doing in terms of eliminating metaphysical ontologies, idols of being, and in terms

00:41:06.820 that are more, most interesting to you, idols of the human, um, you two are spending, you know, the, the, the

00:41:17.620 substance of the book is clearing away these idols of the, the position that would be the fourth

00:41:26.740 political theory. And the, and the, and to understood correctly, the fourth political theory,

00:41:33.540 like the question of being for Heidegger is actually a question being posed articulately

00:41:40.420 by your book, not something that can be just understood as another object level claim that you're,

00:41:49.540 you're proposing some model of politics as a substitute for these,

00:41:56.500 these idols that you're wanting to demolish. And so, I mean, I guess I'm saying on that, do you think that

00:42:03.700 that is a sound approach to, to, to what you're doing in that work and on that line of inquiry?

00:42:12.420 You, uh, you, you, you have, uh, you have grasped the very, very, very, very core intention of fourth

00:42:24.500 political theory. It is exactly as you have said, it is just the question. It is not the answer. It is

00:42:31.540 clearing, uh, preparing the terrain for something to come. It is open summit concept. So, absolutely, it is,

00:42:40.500 uh, uh, it is liquidation of idols of the modernity of political modernity with, uh, this limited liberalism,

00:42:51.940 communism, or nationalism, and a kind, uh, kind of invitation to put the question of the politics

00:42:59.700 in the open. So, it is questioning. It is not the model. So, uh, and, uh, when, for example,

00:43:07.300 when, for example, I have spoken with my friends, a very interesting philosopher and thinker, Alain de

00:43:12.820 Vinoa, in Moscow, 20 years ago, maybe, maybe a little less, 20, something, something like that,

00:43:20.180 we have spoken about, uh, what could replace the main figures of the classical political theories,

00:43:29.860 class in Marxism, individual in liberalism, and nation or race in the third, third political theory.

00:43:40.900 They are, in our opinion, idols, idols. So, they are just something that is accepted uncritically.

00:43:50.580 That is, uh, uh, closed, uh, closed, uh, closed summit concept. So, you should do that because of class.

00:44:00.020 You should do that because of individual. You should do that because of nation or race.

00:44:05.540 And what could replace them? And we have simultaneously came the conclusion that we should, uh, uh, let this,

00:44:17.700 this subject to be something indefinite. So, something open. And we agreed with Alain de Vinoa, uh, about the

00:44:26.500 concept of Dasein, Heidegger and Anser. So, the, the main, main figure, the subject of the fourth political

00:44:34.420 theory should be Dasein. And that creates a new, new geometry, the new, uh, uh, approach, man,

00:44:46.580 to the field of the politics. So, we should construct the institutions, uh, economies, social relations,

00:44:55.060 basing on existence, existence before it is, uh, it is, uh, shaped as, for example, class or this kind of

00:45:06.740 subjectivity or other class, uh, type of subject. So, it is, uh, but this absence of the concrete project

00:45:16.820 is not, uh, just defaults and not just something we miss or lack. That is a kind of richness. So,

00:45:26.660 the fourth political theory is open-end theory. So, it is, uh, the concept with, uh, open source theory. So,

00:45:36.660 you could, uh, you could, uh, follow all, all the elements, rich, rationally, rationally,

00:45:43.300 because it is based on the philosophy, on political philosophy, on the history. And you

00:45:48.340 could combine or try to transcend that, that you can, uh, uh, you can answer this open question as you

00:45:58.420 wish. So, when I have spoken very interesting elements with a disciple of Heidegger, Professor

00:46:07.300 Hermann in Germany in Freiburg, he was his last pupil and follower. And he was the head of the

00:46:15.620 cathedral of the, uh, uh, uh, ethnonology in the Freiburg university. And I have said to him,

00:46:25.700 to, to, to, uh, he was very close to Heidegger, uh, to Hermann, that I think that there are

00:46:33.060 multiplicity of designs. There is not only one design, human design, but there are so many designs

00:46:40.500 as the civilizations, as culture, he started to think, and he said Heidegger would deny that.

00:46:51.000 So for him, the design was unique, and that was the relation to the death.

00:46:55.520 And I have found an argument, but if you consider how the death is perceived in Japan, in Russia, in China, in the Western world, in the Islamic world, in India,

00:47:12.740 there are so many different relations to the death.

00:47:16.540 That is not one universal relation of being to the non-being.

00:47:23.000 So that is culturally defined.

00:47:26.160 And he would say, you should discuss that with Heidegger, but it is impossible.

00:47:33.440 So multiplicity of designs, that is the principle that we should not have only one fourth political theory,

00:47:43.140 but so many fourth political theories as we have civilization.

00:47:48.360 So I think that this plurality is embedded in the concept.

00:47:54.280 And open source, that doesn't mean that I, as Russian, I know what should be placed on the empty summit.

00:48:04.120 No, but our understanding of absence of something on this empty summit is as well Russian.

00:48:14.240 So we have some, we have our intuitions, our suggestions, our approximation of something that should be put there.

00:48:23.860 And you could have totally different answer, different answer, different to that.

00:48:31.660 So that is very, very important to accept in fourth political theory, the plurality of the civilization answers.

00:48:40.840 Not to impose a new idol, forced political theory has no name because we try to avoid to create new idol instead of capitalism, socialism, or nationalism.

00:48:55.620 So we try to enlarge the field of freedom, I would say.

00:49:01.060 I'm wondering whether Orin's got some questions.

00:49:10.120 Yeah, let me jump in here and just lower everything by a standard deviation.

00:49:14.080 So both of you gentlemen have, I think, said in your own way that there is a version of liberalism that could be bound to its particular ethnos and operate in this paleoliberalism and could ultimately be fruitful.

00:49:33.620 I wonder, however, if that is entirely true, because, you know, we've talked about the difference between kind of the modern globalist ideological project as opposed to perhaps a classical empire.

00:49:47.740 Rome was brought up several times and in one sense, yes, of course, Rome was a classical empire in that it could not go in and completely change the way of life and ideology and religion of every one of its peoples and therefore had to allow them to operate in their own way.

00:50:03.540 But I wonder if that was more of a choice of ability rather than one of ideology.

00:50:09.700 You know, famously, they said, you know, Rome created a desert and called it peace.

00:50:14.500 So it's not as if the Romans were not familiar with the idea of imposing their will, their overcode upon any given peoples. 0.68

00:50:22.600 And so the question, I think, ultimately is, was liberalism simply the ideology that was around when scale met this ability to impose itself globally?

00:50:32.680 Is it the fact that Anglo liberalism simply was the most successful ideology at the time in which the ability to scale and force a way of life onto the globe happened to be available?

00:50:45.860 Is it a technological was it just the the the ideology that was driving the car when the technology to do this arrived?

00:50:54.180 Or is there something very inherent to liberalism where it must become the it must become the idol at the top of the summit?

00:51:02.940 It has no choice. But if it's going to expand, if it's going to go through its its way of life, must it assume that particular role?

00:51:10.040 Or is it just a happy accident of the technology catching up with the state of empires at that time?

00:51:14.720 I'll respond quickly to that.

00:51:23.780 Two sort of germs of what could be sort of threads to follow.

00:51:28.440 I mean, the first and most basic one is to say that modernity and by that, I mean, I don't mean what we've got now.

00:51:39.980 I mean, again, paleomodernity.

00:51:42.460 That's to say capitalism, technology, modern science, I think are integral to even paleoliberalism.

00:51:53.380 I mean, I think it's in the 17th century, the liberalism came together, modern science was initiated, capitalism.

00:52:03.620 I mean, I get you trace capitalism back to Venice, but industrial capitalism, I think, is English and and belongs to the same thing.

00:52:13.360 I mean, the motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba, I think is, again, the empty summit.

00:52:21.740 I think it's like basically a liberal social technology that initiated modern science.

00:52:31.880 So in that sense, I don't think there's a coincidence about it.

00:52:35.900 I think there's a tragic necessity that this liberal formation unleashed enormous power, technical, military, industrial power.

00:52:55.720 And that that fueled its globalization and its globalization, as I think we're all agreed, led to its catastrophic demise.

00:53:10.900 So, you know, I think that there's these deep forces of necessity.

00:53:15.580 And the only other thing very quickly I say is I think that there are strands where it persists and where you should look for it is, again, in social technologies.

00:53:30.780 I think, you know, what is what is the paleoliberalism that persists in the modern world?

00:53:36.500 I think it's the Internet. I think it's the Internet.

00:53:39.660 I think it's cryptocurrencies. I think it's AI on the machine learning model to do with distributed neural nets.

00:53:50.900 The model for AI that's, again, been explosively successful.

00:53:55.640 I think that those are liberal technologies.

00:53:58.080 They require a liberal mindset to do with decentralization, the empty summit.

00:54:03.840 And without those things, you know, sort of notoriously, the Internet began because they said, look, in a nuclear exchange, any central command node would be exterminated.

00:54:17.180 So we have to build a system out of military necessity that is intrinsically decentralized enough to survive a nuclear attack.

00:54:25.620 So, you know, it's exactly programmatically a liberal social and technological project.

00:54:36.980 So maybe I'm drifting a little bit off your question with that second part.

00:54:40.180 The first part, I would say, yes, there's deep necessity about the way this is all played out.

00:54:45.960 So I have some remarks, but if we consider how great the technological achievements were in the alternative ideological ambitions.

00:54:59.820 So, for example, some technological breakdown of the Soviet society based on totally different ideological premises.

00:55:14.040 So that was a totalitarian state obliging the traditional Russian people that didn't want to get into these technological trends. 0.54

00:55:30.240 That was very balanced, the society without this special will to dominate, to develop, to discover something new.

00:55:41.740 But that was obliged by the totalitarian system.

00:55:46.500 And that has given huge results.

00:55:49.620 For example, the rockets, the space technology that we use now.

00:55:56.640 So we have, during this common era, have developed much more than during capitalist three decennies, three decades of the liberalism.

00:56:07.740 So that was total destruction in our country.

00:56:10.180 Liberalism has brought with itself the total, total devastation of the economy and not the kind of the impulse to create something.

00:56:23.280 Everything was created during the during Soviet time. 0.79

00:56:27.520 And if we compare that with the technological achievements of Nazi Germany, so Soviet Union and West, we will look very, very modest comparing with this huge and very crazy breakdown of German racist Nazi technology. 0.76

00:56:54.520 So we never confess that, but the impact of their huge expansion during 12 years, 12 years, so they gave much more impulse to the technological development than liberals.

00:57:12.800 So that is just a remark.

00:57:14.800 And the second point, I think that, that modern, paleomodernity, the concept, very interesting, paleomodernity, so there is two ways to interpret the modernity as such.

00:57:33.320 So, as maybe I'm wrong, but you, Mr. Land, you have different, different phase in your, your philosophy, I've tried to study your texts and books.

00:57:46.340 So, in the first stage, so in the first stage, maybe I'm wrong, so you was a kind of advocate of this new modernity and acceleration of modernity, paleomodernity, until the last, the last results of the passage from the humanity to this hyper, hyper technological order.

00:58:14.280 And that was a kind of concentration of the same impulse, but led, or brought to the logical consequence.

00:58:26.280 That was very, very consequent and very, very complete and metaphysically, metaphysically beautiful, I would say, very nice vision.

00:58:38.400 And in the last phase, maybe I'm wrong, so you advocate much more this kind of moderation and that, so the liberalism, paleomodernity, that was right, I think.

00:58:55.520 And new globalist development, this internalization, universalization is something exaggerated, some outside kind of hubris, in Greek hubris, so when you come out of the limits, natural limits.

00:59:17.520 So, but there are, in your personal case, we have two forms of the interpretation of the modernity, and I am rather, I agree rather with your first phase when there was a kind of description of the modernity as the project of the complete dehumanization of humanity.

00:59:46.520 And the way to come to some outside of the earth, of the humanity, of the history, to some very, very ominous, a bit frightening, frightening perspective of the future, with the total replacement by the humanity, and by life on the earth, by something else.

01:00:13.520 And that was very, very, very beautiful explained, I think, I think.

01:00:20.520 So, in your early version of your philosophy, there was the kind of line of modernity pointing to total self-destruction and self-overcoming of the life, of the history, of the time.

01:00:43.520 And that, in that sense, the paleomodernity served just as the first stage of the same project.

01:00:54.520 And that, as traditionalists, I agree, so it seems that you were completely right.

01:01:01.520 But there is the other version, and that I think is very close to MAGA, so Make America Great.

01:01:11.520 Again, movement tries to separate poli-liberalism, poli-modernity, poli-capitalism from the neo-capitalism, neo-modernity, neo-progressive.

01:01:25.520 So, both positions of yours are very pertinent, I would say.

01:01:32.520 I mean...

01:01:34.520 Oh, sorry.

01:01:35.520 Oh, yeah, sorry.

01:01:36.520 I'm just going to say that, insofar as there is that separation, it's because...

01:01:44.520 OK, there's an interference pattern because of the fact that modernity is meaning for us simultaneously these very different things.

01:01:54.520 And by paleomodernity, I would...

01:01:58.520 I'm trying to hold...

01:01:59.520 I'm using exactly the same thing, paleomodernity, in the sense it's the empty summit, it's decentralized systems, it's decentralized social technology.

01:02:07.520 It's...

01:02:08.520 And from that, acceleration.

01:02:11.520 And in that sense, I think all the things that now are objects of enthusiasm for accelerationists, techno-accelerations, are the same.

01:02:23.520 You know, I mean, AI is accelerating, blockchain technology is accelerating, you know, the internet, I guess, is accelerating only in the sense that it's passing over into those things.

01:02:34.520 And that's because it still is essentially on this model of decentralized systems without authoritative over-coding by some higher instance.

01:02:50.520 And so, on that level, I have totally not become a kind of advocate of moderation.

01:03:01.520 It's only that there's a whole bunch of these other things that we mean by modernity, which I think you predominantly mean when you talk about modernity, to do that I don't think are at all liberal in any sense other than wearing it as a skin suit. 0.95

01:03:18.520 And the one, to do with the hypertrophy of a state, the hypertrophy of bureaucracy.

01:03:23.520 In his final phases, this woke lunacy that's complete, the most culturally ruinous process that's ever happened in our history.

01:03:33.520 And, you know, obviously, insofar as that's what one is meaning by modernity, then it's not only a question of slowing it down, but of trying to completely

01:03:47.520 get off that train. So, yes, sorry to interrupt.

01:03:56.860 No, thank you very much. But it seems that you interpret yourself from the present states.

01:04:03.880 So, late Nick Land interprets early Nick Land by the position of late Nick Land.

01:04:12.300 Thank you very much for your... So, it's very important, I think, in the first stage and the last stage,

01:04:20.460 always you are very pertinent. So, we could start with one point, with the other point, we could

01:04:29.340 get back in your thoughts. So, I think that first stage that I have read your book on

01:04:42.300 Fendt, Naumena. That was a kind of... I was very, very astonished by that. That was kind of global

01:04:52.860 confirmation of traditionalist Gannonian, Evolen, Heideggerian vision of how the world ends. So,

01:05:01.740 the technological development, this liberation from the human presence, from the design precisely,

01:05:13.100 and this passage to the artificial intelligence, totally technological structures, and liberation of

01:05:22.940 the core of the core of the earth, in order to put the end to the life on the earth. That was precisely,

01:05:31.180 as we traditionalists, we interpret the will or the very being, very essence of the modernity. Modernity,

01:05:43.980 it is Antichrist in our eyes, traditionally. So, and before you was a kind of some very brave...

01:05:56.540 You were considered by us, not you were. So, sorry. So, you were considered by us as the most brave,

01:06:04.220 most brilliant, most consequent philosopher, the thinker, who is not hesitating, who was not hesitating

01:06:16.060 to give the whole picture, what is going on. So, the modernity was a kind of interpreted as the kind of

01:06:27.420 the will of the God's ideals of Lovecraft, old ones, a kind of point of special attractor, the strange attractor, that is outside.

01:06:39.820 So, outside of the of the conceptual being of humanistic culture. And this attraction,

01:06:48.220 it is attracting precisely the humanity to this post-human, post-historical

01:06:55.660 Paul. And that description was was fantastic, developed by Rezane Gerestani, and we could read

01:07:03.820 something very, very, very, very, very similar in Mayasu, in Kharman. So, that was confirmation of the

01:07:11.500 most radical presumptions or the intuitions of the radical traditionalists. But now you

01:07:22.620 rather share some moderate, conservative, multipolar attitude to what is going on. So, that as well

01:07:36.780 that demands the big respect. So, no problem, that is much closer to our own position. But I could not

01:07:46.300 get out of the difference. So, there is early Wittgenstein and later, late Wittgenstein, totally opposite. There

01:08:00.460 is Lot Ramon of the Sean de Maldoror, the other late Maldoror of the Poesie. So, we are knowing

01:08:12.140 global philosophy and culture. We should be accustomed. So, it is not something new. But there is

01:08:26.300 very important and very, very interesting change, in your opinion, that I, with great pleasure and

01:08:33.500 interest, I am discovering just now, in the online, online conversation.

01:08:42.620 All right, gentlemen. Well, there's a couple other topics that I think

01:08:48.700 Nick had laid out there. We've already covered liberalism, ethnic and social differences, I think

01:08:54.700 universal humanism. You also discussed the possibility of wanting to get into the nature of time

01:09:00.940 or angels. So, both are going to be pretty out there. So, I guess I'll just kind of let you

01:09:06.300 tee up. What aspect of either of those would you like to explore, Mr. Land?

01:09:11.980 Actually, if I could interject one of the topics that I think is kind of maybe a transitional one.

01:09:20.300 Which, maybe because we've actually

01:09:23.340 not been very at each other's throats, actually, I've noticed in this thing. So, maybe there's something

01:09:32.140 that would be more contentious. Which is to say that one of the things I have the most problems with of

01:09:41.340 your analysis of modernity and where we are and liberalism

01:09:47.420 is your identification of what you identify as the Cartesian subject. Because I think that

01:10:01.020 again, the paleoliberal, the Anglo subject is almost the opposite of the Cartesian subject.

01:10:08.700 I mean, it's like, if I just take the example of AI, the top-down model of artificial intelligence,

01:10:20.460 Marvin Minsky, all these guys, that was in control, that was Cartesian. And the machine learning model

01:10:28.620 is, I mean, I would almost say is liberal. It's decentralized. You know, it's like the Cartesian

01:10:38.460 model is French. Cartesian social engineering is again top-down. It's completely not the empty summit.

01:10:47.500 It's, you know, so I sort of, I think there's a, I'm very reluctant to accept that description as being

01:10:58.700 a very accurate pinpointing of the problem with the subject that you have. It seems to me, I mean,

01:11:07.580 maybe, maybe the dominant subject of global liberal hegemony has become more Cartesian. I think that's,

01:11:15.260 that's extremely, that's extremely possible. But I think that essentially, the liberal trend that has

01:11:25.660 led to where we are is something that has been in competition with the Cartesian model of subjectivity

01:11:32.780 and has, at least in its own mind, prevailed over that Cartesian model of subjectivity.

01:11:41.900 So, but if we consider Scotland's tradition of Raid or Ferguson or Hume, for example, that was

01:11:56.380 a kind of rationality, individualistic rationality, but that was the kind of sound reason. So the reason,

01:12:04.140 common reason, common reason, it is not just something totally individual, it should, should

01:12:14.140 correspond to something general. So I think there are just two approaches, in my opinion. So there is a

01:12:23.420 universalistic approach of French continental rationalism and that is much more individualistic approach of

01:12:30.140 Scottish and British individualism, but they come more or less, in my opinion, to the, to the same. Because

01:12:41.820 there should be, there should be something common, or you could induce it from starting from your own

01:12:51.260 individual position as the concept of common sense of Raid and Ferguson and founding fathers of the United

01:13:00.380 States. That is pluralistic understanding of the something common, something general. So you, but you

01:13:07.740 construct that something general starting from the different divergent sometimes points, or you impose

01:13:16.940 that as in Cartesian subject, strictly speaking in the narrow sense, from the top down, as in the French

01:13:26.780 tradition. I agree, I agree. So, but in my opinion, the problem is in Cartesian subject that is closed, as well,

01:13:39.500 is closed on the top. And when you try to ameliorate the situation, to save the situation, proposing to the multiplicity,

01:13:52.380 to the plurality of the subjects, to make their claim on the something common, I think that you could not avoid

01:14:04.700 the same republican logic. So, in order to solve the problem of the openness, I think, we should start

01:14:13.740 from understanding of the human, and we need to open the rationality to something other than rationality.

01:14:25.020 Not by this deduction or induction. So, in both cases, I think, in Cartesian, strictly, in a

01:14:38.060 stricto sensu, Cartesian subject, or this common sense approach, we are still doomed to some closed territory. So, we need to

01:14:51.100 open the human, we need to find a way how to make the rationality to be led to the pre-rational

01:15:13.740 rational, rational, rational, rational element. That was called by phenomenologists, by Brentano,

01:15:22.700 active intelligence and active intellect. So, there is something that is not rational, it is pre-rational

01:15:30.700 inside of us. And that is openness, that is apophatic dimension. And that could not be reduced neither to

01:15:38.060 to this unique Cartesian, Kantian rationality nor to this multiplicity of subjective individualistic

01:15:51.260 rationalities, as in the Scottish version. So, in my opinion, this problem could be solved

01:16:00.780 and the opening, by the opening of the human mind to something more than human and the mind. So, and that will

01:16:09.980 create the new, the real, real dimension of freedom. And that will create a kind of totally different access

01:16:21.660 to organizing society. And that will be open summit, but in different interpretation. So, that is my opinion. So,

01:16:32.940 Cartesian subject is a strict and a narrow acceptance. I agree with you. It matches much more

01:16:43.580 the continental philosophy, but in my opinion. And the realistic plurality of the reasons doesn't solve the

01:16:55.500 problem. That's my opinion. So, maybe we should move on to the eschaton.

01:17:06.300 Um, if there's a way of doing that without a hugely massive leap.

01:17:15.820 No, by all means, go ahead.

01:17:18.140 Um, I mean, I always find myself in these situations wanting to do, get involved in extremely sort of

01:17:28.620 elaborate discussion about time. Um, and, uh, I don't know whether, what we're like in terms of time. I mean, um,

01:17:45.180 but, but, uh, I think a lot of things open up. I mean, if I, again, to start in the critical mode,

01:17:52.780 um, which I think I can probably get sort of consensus on quite quickly, it's that,

01:18:02.140 um, whether we're looking at the biblical frame or we're looking at the critical philosophy frame,

01:18:08.620 we're led in both cases to, uh, to, uh, uh, critique of the standard common-sensical model

01:18:24.060 of progressive temporality. And everything that follows from that in terms of our notions of agency,

01:18:32.220 uh, our notions of historical process, our notions of, uh, the outside and, and whether

01:18:44.140 the, the actual deep influences on historical process. So, um, you know, whether it's Kant saying

01:18:53.900 time is a condition of possibility for objectivity, the, the most interesting one and complicated one

01:19:00.780 by far. Um, and therefore, if you're thinking of it as an object, you, that is a pre-critical

01:19:09.020 metaphysical error. This is obviously something, again, that's taken through to Heidegger, obviously

01:19:15.260 being in time is called being in time because that's stripping down the problem of transcendental

01:19:21.660 philosophy to its, its, its basic elements, or whether in the, in the biblical context, we're talking about

01:19:31.820 what, what is summarized as providential history of what is named as trust the plan, um,

01:19:40.700 what is the time organized by the eschaton. So that the notion of, uh, common, ordinary

01:19:54.380 human agency as something that is basically affecting, uh, a causal process from the present on the future,

01:20:05.340 and therefore will bring about whatever future is volitional for those subjects, that they're in a

01:20:11.820 position where basically how the future turns out is being decided now by us. Um, that's obviously

01:20:19.900 theologically and critically, uh, disruptive by the, by, by these two frames. And, and so I guess that's,

01:20:29.580 that's a lot of this is very relevant to the discussions that we're having about history,

01:20:39.020 what is happening in history. It's, it, it cannot simply be the case that at a certain point in

01:20:46.460 history, certain mistakes were made that led to bad things happening. It's like, that is a kind of,

01:20:54.060 there's an element that is inescapable from that, but that can't be, that simply can't be the story

01:20:59.420 because that is a, that is a sort of secular history story that is inconsistent with any

01:21:05.020 sophisticated understanding of time. So, so that seems to me to be the kind of introduction to maybe a

01:21:12.620 phase of conversation.

01:21:17.180 So, um, first of all, I would like to say that I have dedicated to the problem of time, uh, 47 lectures

01:21:25.340 and two volumes. It, it will be published, uh, soon. And so I thought many, many, many years about that,

01:21:33.180 as you, uh, uh, and, uh, so, uh, first of all, I think that, um, uh, according to my, uh, exploration

01:21:41.660 of the metaphysics of time, I have, uh, come to the conclusion that, uh, there was, there are many, many

01:21:49.900 types of times. So there is not only one time. So we have a Christian time, we have biblical time,

01:21:57.260 we have Iranian time, modern time, historic time, Newtonian absolute time that, that has nothing to

01:22:04.380 do with the progress. So that is much more entropical. So Newtonian physical time, um, it,

01:22:14.380 it was united by evolutionary theory and Bergson's idea, uh, to, they, they, they put them together,

01:22:23.900 they put them together, but, uh, originally, Newtonian time has nothing of, of kind of amelioration

01:22:30.940 of, of the quality or conditions. So that is just continuation of the mechanical laws. So in modern

01:22:38.060 science, in modern physics, in classical physics, there is one time, Newtonian time,

01:22:44.300 on the social level, in the modernity, there is totally different time. And the history before

01:22:50.300 them, in the Christian Middle Ages, that was different time. So we have the plurality of time,

01:22:58.300 of times. And, uh, first of all, there is the time with the eternity, that's Plato's on Aristotle,

01:23:06.220 as well, Aristotelian time is the time that is moving around the eternity. There is the eternity

01:23:13.740 center, and there is a kind of movement outside of it. So the rotation of, and that is totally

01:23:21.980 different time. That, that, that, that is, uh, just reflection of eternity. That, that has nothing

01:23:28.220 special on it. There is no history. That is just repetition of the same as maybe as an Indian, uh, vision.

01:23:35.420 So there are cultures of civilization without time at all. So time is, as well, depends on the civilization.

01:23:43.180 So, uh, what we, uh, are dealing with, it is a kind of Iranian time, Zoroastrian time, where there is the line,

01:23:51.580 there is the process. And that is, uh, explained in the Zoroastrian tradition by the existence of the absolute

01:24:00.380 evil and absolute, absolute good. And only existence of absolute evil makes the history, uh, something

01:24:11.500 meaningful. So without that, that will be just the play. But if there are the real fight, so, uh, who

01:24:19.500 will win the god of ill or god of good. So that makes the history, uh, something really that, that, that, that,

01:24:30.940 does matter. And that was accepted by Christianity. Maybe by after Babylonian, post-Babylonian Judaism, 0.93

01:24:38.380 as well, as preparation for Christianity. So we have inherited, we Christians, we have inherited this

01:24:45.340 story of the Zoroastrian time, uh, historical time with open ends and coming to the, uh, uh, from the top to

01:24:55.580 the bottom. So that is declining time. So the, the time that is going from the paradise to the hell. And in that

01:25:03.580 sense, I recently, I have recently discovered your concept, Mr. Land, about, uh, generative wretches. So there is

01:25:13.660 something in this linear time, a scene from Ahremanic, from evil points of view as some degenerative

01:25:24.780 wretches, something that you could not reverse. You could not return the tradition because you are

01:25:31.020 obliged to get only one way down. So that is a kind of attraction of the Paul of Antichrist in the history.

01:25:40.140 Uh, but, um, um, the end of this, uh, of this degenerative wretches, as you have pointed out as well,

01:25:49.020 could not be achieved coming back because there is no, no way. This linear time is metaphysical time,

01:25:57.420 is very important time. So, but we need to, to, to, to, to, uh, not to reverse this line, but we need to

01:26:06.460 say no to this, to this, to this process, to the, to this modernity, to this, to this, uh, trajectory,

01:26:14.620 to, to, to this, to this orientation. We could say no, and we could make an effort to, to, to, to deny

01:26:25.180 the logic of this, uh, unilateral, uh, orientation. That is spiritual eschatological revolution. And I think,

01:26:36.460 speaking about Eschaton, we are approaching the point when the result of the negative elements of

01:26:46.540 of the history, uh, um, uh, assembled. So we are approaching the point of absolute night, the

01:26:55.580 midnight. And Heidegger was very attentive to that. Once he, he said, we are already in the midnight.

01:27:02.940 Oh no, not yet. Not yet. There is the kind of, of, of, of, of some smallest element, some distance,

01:27:12.220 smallest distance, that separates us still. Not yet. Not yet in the midnight. So we are approaching the

01:27:19.500 midnight. And the concept of Eschaton is precisely like that. Because inside of immanent version of it,

01:27:28.620 so the time will never end. Because if you, in total solidarity with, is the time going down,

01:27:37.100 it will, it will last forever. It is the eternity of the hell. So you are going down, down, down, and

01:27:43.980 that has no end. And if we, we say stop, stop here. So if we have enough, so let's, let's, let's stop it. So

01:27:54.620 we, we have achieved the midnight, the point of midnight. It is about not yet. It is about how we

01:28:04.940 consider the situation we are in. So already or not yet. So it is not objective element of historical time.

01:28:15.180 It is a kind of metaphysical, metaphysical judgment, uh, to it. And if we say, so we have enough, so it is midnight.

01:28:29.180 Just now, right now, right now, is one, uh, one, one point. If we say, oh, not yet, not yet. We, we didn't

01:28:38.300 explore the other forms of transgender culture. We need more, more technological devices. We need more,

01:28:47.740 more, uh, body positive women. So we didn't, we don't have enough. So we need to progress, uh, further. 0.94

01:28:56.220 So it is not yet. So that is, but it is not in the objective, uh, uh, structure of time when we

01:29:04.780 achieve or not achieve yet the point of escape is my, my, my vision. So I've tried to explain it.

01:29:15.420 Um, I mean, obviously the way you're talking about this confirms the fact that there's the question of agency

01:29:26.220 and the philosophy of time are completely interconnected in a way that you, if you're

01:29:35.500 talking serious about one, you move over onto the other. And so I'm sort of wondering about this thing.

01:29:46.140 When you say we say no, um, I mean, obviously there is a reading of what that means that would be

01:29:57.180 uh, you know, it would be the most kind of idolatrous mode of, of humanistic subjectivity and, and the most

01:30:07.340 unsustainable notion of progressive time where

01:30:12.940 time is moving forward. We're moving forward. The way it moves forward is, is in some fundamental sense,

01:30:19.820 our decision. And there's not historical structure that is organizing the decisions

01:30:30.940 in any way that, that we make. And it seems to me because I know that you, uh, appeal to the language of

01:30:41.100 eschatology. And I, I'm assuming with that, that you, um, are invoking the entire theological framework

01:30:49.100 of time that's relating time to eternity through eschaton and, um,

01:30:55.020 um, and complicating agency through, through providence, through angels. Um,

01:31:04.780 um, so yeah, so what I'm trying to say is, you know, uh, are you not a little bit worried that this

01:31:14.700 sort of decisionistic claim could be misunderstood very much and, and fall below the level of sort

01:31:23.740 of critical transcendental philosophy or, or sort of, uh, biblical framing that, that I think

01:31:30.860 you, uh, you want to invoke. So, uh, uh, thank you. Uh, I, I, I, I, when I, I'm speaking about the decision,

01:31:42.300 decision is decision, so I don't, don't rely on the capacity of the human person to, to get rid

01:31:53.980 totally from, uh, influence or to decide that the logic of history. There is something that is much

01:32:02.620 more than us. But I think that the problem of time, it is, uh, as well a kind of intervening, intervening

01:32:14.300 times existing in our heart. So we could every moment, every moment go this way or the other way,

01:32:23.340 inside of us, not, uh, uh, on the superficial of our existence. So inside of us, there are two times,

01:32:31.900 the times, the time of angels and the time of, of, of, of the history or this, of this ratchet or this,

01:32:44.540 degenerative ratchet. So, uh, that, uh, being human, in my opinion, we are absolutely free. We are free

01:32:53.020 as gods. We are free as gods. So, but we are not omnipotent as God, but we are free exactly at the

01:33:01.100 same level as himself. So he could, the God who creates everything we are not, we could not do what

01:33:07.660 we want. We are not omnipotent, but we are free. Uh, the freedom is the kind of divine element of us. So,

01:33:17.340 we could be in solidarity of the time that goes in different ways, in different directions. So,

01:33:26.220 we could, uh, we could get to, to the river, uh, uh, in every moment that brings us to the different

01:33:35.100 ocean, to the, to the different sea. So, that is the, this decision that affects us,

01:33:43.340 but it could affect as well the whole ontology. And beside or outside the, this degenerative

01:33:52.460 ratchet that's coming only down, we could choose the way to not, to, to not to be solidary with that.

01:34:00.940 And there is ontological possibility included in that, in us, because the real nature of time

01:34:08.220 doesn't coincide with this scientific, capitalist, uh, modernist, uh, technological, modern,

01:34:17.100 linear time. There is the dimension of the eternity embedded in time. It's very difficult to discover.

01:34:24.780 It is very difficult to, to, to, to find, but it is, it exists. It is, uh, it is hidden. It is not

01:34:32.460 absence. And the, the, the, the vision or the, uh, uh, kind of, uh, uh, absence of it. It is just the cover.

01:34:44.220 So, if we, if we discover, if we, uh, this, uh, this, uh, the entrance inside of us, of our heart,

01:34:53.660 we could find the way and the access to the other time, the, uh, the authentic time, the time linked to

01:35:03.900 the eternity, angelical time. And this time, uh, is in a radical contradiction with the time we're living in.

01:35:13.660 So, that is a kind of revolutionary time. A time of spiritual, spiritual transfiguration.

01:35:22.140 And that is not mystical. That is not about some, some, some individual or subjective experience. That

01:35:30.540 is something, something critical. And I think when Heidegger, uh, spoke about the, um, the time as

01:35:41.340 the future. Because, uh, according to Heidegger, interesting, the time is going from the future

01:35:47.980 to the past. Not from the past to the future. He is dealing in Zion on sight and his time and being 0.93

01:35:53.660 with totally different concept. The time coming from the future into the past. As well as Aristotle,

01:36:00.780 or Aristotle, the same. Because Antelechia, and taking the, the, the Talos, the goal inside,

01:36:07.660 it is precisely that gives the totally different pathological dimension for the history of, of the

01:36:14.700 being. So, we are attracted by both poles. By the pole of this doom, uh, of negative, the demonic, uh, time.

01:36:28.220 It is how, it is how I interpret your, uh, degenerative, wretched, or, uh, the end of history of

01:36:36.780 Genon, or, uh, kingdom of the quantity of Genonia. So, that is a kind of pole of attraction, of subhuman, 0.97

01:36:46.540 sub, uh, infracorporeal attraction. There is one side, and we are going precisely there. Welcome to

01:36:53.980 Hell. We are already there. So, and there is the kind of, uh, other, other fluid, other direction,

01:37:01.420 inside of time. And inside of the same time, the very, the same, very same time. And we discover that,

01:37:09.420 we could, could grasp it, uh, in a moment. So, there is totally different history. We are changing the,

01:37:16.780 uh, the, the, the direction of the history, not on the subjective way, but, uh, in a general,

01:37:23.180 in an integral way. That is about, uh, what, uh, uh, is, uh, a point of attraction to us in the future.

01:37:31.500 And that is Heideggerian concept. So, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, Schatten, according to Heidegger, was

01:37:38.300 a regnes, the event. So, if we are attracted, if we are attracted by the event, we, uh,

01:37:46.380 fighting with, uh, in the same camp as the angels for the end of time. Because there is a fight

01:37:54.220 about the end of time. Because there are two opposite interpretations of the end of time. We

01:38:02.460 are approaching it anyway. But interpretation differs. Not the same, the very moment. The moment is

01:38:09.340 common. But interpretations are opposite. Uh, so, that is the kind of, to, to, to be on the side of

01:38:16.620 the angels, not on the side of the demon, in the moment of the last judgment. And that depends from

01:38:22.700 our free will, from our freedom.

01:38:28.300 I mean, that's all very interesting. I'm not 100%

01:38:32.540 sure I'm entirely grasping everything that you're, that you're saying. I mean,

01:38:40.540 you, you definitely, there's lots of different elements to what you're saying that I think

01:38:45.660 all maybe would be great to tease apart. I mean,

01:38:50.620 at one level, there's the question of the multiplicity of times that I take is in a way

01:38:58.060 a restatement, actually, of the multiplicity of Daseins. I mean, for Heidegger

01:39:04.940 to be extremely crude about it, I mean, Dasein basically is time. Um, and so if you're, if you're

01:39:14.140 pluralizing Daseins, you are pluralizing temporalities. And, uh, you know, that's a very interesting

01:39:22.620 and persuasive move. I don't, thinking through exactly where, what the implications of that would

01:39:29.820 be is, is complicated. And then there's the question, obviously, of, which, when I was trying

01:39:39.260 to work out notes for this whole discussion, it came up in a lot of different forms, which is, um,

01:39:48.460 that the basic, I think, uh, metaphysical contradiction, the tension, the paradox,

01:39:56.860 of our religious tradition, one extremely germane to this, as we've seen just from what you're saying,

01:40:02.940 but could for sure have sinned before that, is about, uh, whatever language we choose, like,

01:40:13.260 libertarianism in its theological sense, metaphysical freedom, free will, volition, and necessity,

01:40:20.860 ananky, destiny, fate. Um, and, uh, it seems to me that, that, that problem

01:40:40.140 is, and it's hard to find exactly the right word, I think it's not even just a paradox, because it's

01:40:47.900 not that, it's not that one side necessarily, necessity is right, it's not the other that

01:40:56.700 libertarianism is just right, it's not that it's simply a paradox, either. It's, it's a motor. I mean,

01:41:03.980 I think the fact we have history, the fact we have the history of religion, but the, but history in

01:41:09.340 general, is because the, that thought, trying to understand the relationship between freedom and

01:41:17.340 necessity is something that is not resolvable now on either pole, and it's, and not, neither can it

01:41:27.180 just be dismissed as something that is irresolvable in principle and is, and has no dynamic force. It's

01:41:33.660 in a way the driver of religious innovation and, and the movement of history. And, and the kind of

01:41:43.740 very sad thing about secular modernity, I mean probably a lot, is the fact that it has so

01:41:53.900 pitifully failed to maintain the tension of this. You know, it's, it's basically, it has just resolved

01:42:01.900 to have a complete system of necessitarianism and a complete system of metaphysical freedom

01:42:08.220 and treat it as if there's no contradiction between them, no problem. So if you're talking

01:42:13.500 about physics, you're a necessitarian. If you're talking about economics and incentives and all of

01:42:18.460 that, you're, you're a volitionalist, libertarian, and you have these two completely incompatible frames

01:42:25.660 running simultaneously. And you think that somehow by doing that, by being in a state of constant,

01:42:33.660 extreme contradiction that is not even being explored, you have made some advance upon the

01:42:41.020 Middle Ages. I mean, it's, it's an extremely weird thing. And so, you know, when you invoke

01:42:50.460 freedom, extreme freedom, that is the freedom of God, without the omnipotence of God,

01:42:59.980 I see yourself relating to that, to that problem. And, you know, I guess I would say,

01:43:17.100 you know, I guess I'd say it's, it's complicated because, because on the other hand,

01:43:25.020 there's freedom and there's also necessity. And it's like, if you're, if the claim to freedom is

01:43:37.340 such that it seems to actually be extinguishing, that the question of necessity, you know, in theological

01:43:44.780 terms, um, extinguishing providence, extinguishing the eschaton, extinguishing, uh, depending how the

01:43:55.180 argument is set up, the omniscience of God, um, then, you know, that's not going to be a sustainable,

01:44:04.380 that's a, that's an over radicalized or over one-sided commitment that is going to require

01:44:12.780 balancing and balancing within a dynamic paradox, within a mystery, the, the other side of the equation.

01:44:23.980 So, interesting. So, uh, the problem is, I think, that's, uh, where we have, uh, the, the point of,

01:44:32.700 of freedom. So, if, uh, there is, if we, uh, that is about where we, where we situate the point of the

01:44:42.780 freedom. So, if we think it is in the normal subject, in the subject, human subject, there is no, no,

01:44:50.540 no freedom at all, because it is, um, it is totally controlled, formated as hard disk. It is just

01:44:59.500 a problem. So, a normal human is just a problem inside of operational system, nothing else. That,

01:45:06.940 that is, here is some kind of destiny. So, destiny of the updating the, uh, operational system. So,

01:45:18.460 there, that is, and we could follow that trace through the history. So, but, in that sense, in order to

01:45:25.580 define where the freedom is, I have developed, many years ago, the concept of radical subject, maybe

01:45:33.420 your acquaintance. Yes, yes. So, that is, uh, is something that appears, that manifests, when all the form of

01:45:45.180 subjectivity of human being is taken out, uh, it is, when the human becomes a total slave. So, it's just the

01:46:00.380 algorithm. So, when everything in us, inside of our reason, mind, psychology, bodies, everything is

01:46:09.020 controlled, but some outer, outer power of society, of the state, of something, uh, of the cathedral,

01:46:19.020 and so on, by, by the republic, and, uh, when you have the illusion to, to, uh, to be free. So, it is not yet

01:46:28.140 accomplished. So, well, you need to, to pass through the extreme experience of having nothing at all, uh, uh,

01:46:36.700 uh, uh, by yourself, as in totalitarian, an extreme totalitarian system. We have, uh, we were there

01:46:45.020 during Soviet time, you are entering that, or maybe you are already something very comparable, because

01:46:51.420 modern days, uh, liberal dictatorship is something very, very close. So, you have no right to think

01:46:57.820 otherwise than you are obliged to do. So, that is a kind of, um, uh, expropriation of your inner self.

01:47:07.820 So, you have nothing inside. Everything is dictated by political correctness, by cancel culture. So, you are

01:47:16.140 totally cancelled. Uh, your subjectivity is totally cancelled and given to you after some, the process of

01:47:25.100 the cleaning. So, you should be that, that. So, we passed by that. And, uh, that, that is why I am

01:47:31.100 speaking so easily about that. We passed by totalitarian experience of Soviet time, and now it is totalitarian 0.67

01:47:39.740 experience of liberal time. So, you're, you are repeating, you are repeating the same, the same experience.

01:47:44.860 But, but, but, what is important? When there is nothing, uh, where, when there is nothing inside you,

01:47:52.300 only totalitarian state, purging everything, cleansing everything inside, there is, you come, uh, sooner or

01:48:01.180 later, or maybe you don't come, but it could be possible to come to some core or something inside of

01:48:10.460 human being that is absolutely, absolutely independent from that. So, that is, uh, maybe the inner self

01:48:23.100 of Indian tradition. Maybe it is the, uh, Zeibster of Heideggerian thought. Maybe it is the same as active

01:48:35.580 intelligence and the active intellect or Meister Eckhart, Dietrich von Freiberg, but that is something

01:48:42.780 that is my, more, more, more inner, that inner side of you. So, that is, the soul, uh, has the, the domains,

01:48:55.260 the circles, and that is that, that inner circle of, uh, of all the circles. So,

01:49:00.860 uh, uh, everything is expropriated from your soul. There is only, only the core. This core,

01:49:08.300 it is the origin of the freedom. And that is apathetic center of, of, of the man. That's something,

01:49:14.540 this pre-ration. So, and that, that, that I call radical subject. So, uh, uh, that, that's, uh,

01:49:22.300 the solution about this point of the freedom inside of us. I agree that everything inside of us as well

01:49:30.540 is controlled, is programmed, is, is, is, is, is manipulated inside of us, except this, this, this moment.

01:49:39.900 And if we, if we, uh, discover this, this element, we, we know the reason of real freedom. So,

01:49:49.820 it is not about the human. It is something much more radical than human, much more inner than human

01:49:57.180 inside of us, not outside. So, that is important. So, uh, that is not easy to, to, to explain. But if we

01:50:05.340 start to, to construct this, uh, this concept of how, how, uh, eternity is possible inside of the time that

01:50:17.500 it destroys everything except, uh, itself. So, we need to, to, to, to, to, to think, uh, uh,

01:50:25.420 scotten, uh, in the, in the, in the context, uh, in the relation to this critical subject.

01:50:39.980 Well, uh, yeah, we obviously can do this for a very long time. We didn't discuss, uh, duration of the,

01:50:45.580 of the discussion, uh, at the beginning. So, if either of you needs to, to leave or, you know,

01:50:50.140 or time runs short, please just let me know. Um, but I, I would like to ask both of you, um,

01:50:57.740 since, uh, recently the, the latest episode of Tucker Carlson, uh, was on artificial intelligence

01:51:04.540 and whether or not it is in its own, uh, right satanic. And, uh, Mr. Land here, uh, figured

01:51:10.220 rather prominently in that discussion, uh, Mr. Dugan was also mentioned. Uh, and so I'd be remiss

01:51:16.060 if I didn't, you know, ask you guys about, uh, kind of perhaps how you were portrayed. I'm not sure

01:51:21.140 if you saw the episodes or not. Uh, but, but I think, uh, the larger insinuation, especially on

01:51:27.380 Mr. Land's part, uh, by the guy who was being interviewed, uh, was that ultimately, uh, your,

01:51:33.180 your pursuit was Luciferian in nature. In fact, basically, you're a Luciferian, uh, theophacist,

01:51:39.340 right? Like that, you know, you're kind of rooting for, uh, the serpent in, in the, uh,

01:51:44.480 in the garden. Uh, and ultimately, uh, I think, uh, that you were trying to commune, uh, with evil

01:51:52.200 or, you know, Satan at some level, uh, through explorations of numerology, Kabbalah, these type

01:51:58.060 of things. Uh, I, I, I'm not sure that's how you would characterize, but of course, I think you

01:52:03.200 admit at some level that what you were doing with the CCRU was attempted to contact the outside

01:52:08.000 through numerology to gain some, some understanding of this. So I guess, how would you

01:52:14.460 answer, uh, kind of, kind of those basic, uh, uh, formulations of your work and what you were doing

01:52:20.980 with, uh, the CCRU? Um, well, I mean, the reason that I, that I, they almost started this with the

01:52:33.380 quote from Faust is I think that frames the question really well. I mean, I, I, you know,

01:52:43.800 I, Samuel Johnson famously said, the first wig was the devil. And I mean, I think, I think Goethe is

01:52:55.480 sort of saying the same thing. And, you know, I think the Whigs have a case, you know, and I think 0.94

01:53:05.860 that it's like, um, in the Anglo-Protestant Whig tradition, there is always a complicated relationship

01:53:18.000 to what can be crudely called, well, at the crudest called Satanism. You know, I mean, William Blake,

01:53:29.600 uh, famously said about Milton, who I think is the crucial moment here, uh, he was of the devil's

01:53:38.720 party without knowing. And, and that's because he is exploring questions that are really pretty much

01:53:48.720 exactly what we were just talking about now. And most recently, which is the relationship between

01:53:56.060 liberty and necessity, or understanding the providential function of, um, um, I, I would say rebellion,

01:54:10.540 uh, of the providential function of, um, um, the, uh, you're doing it biblically as, uh, Milton,

01:54:23.380 uh, when the whole constellation of the story of paradise lost, the whole constellation to do with

01:54:30.660 the eating of the, from the tree of knowledge, um, everything involved in that, Satan's role in that,

01:54:38.100 uh, the war in heaven that led to Satan's strategy in the garden, all of that, is that within

01:54:47.220 an overall providential scheme or not. And I think that, like, the crude Christian position 1.00

01:54:58.260 implicitly is that, oh, no, it isn't. You know, that somehow, I mean, I'm, I'm saying crude critically,

01:55:05.140 it's to say, you know, none of this need have happened. There need, there, there needed to have

01:55:11.540 been no war in heaven. There needed to have been no eating of the tree of knowledge. There, therefore,

01:55:17.380 needed to have been no history. Um, all of that is just a mistake.

01:55:25.780 But I think the more serious biblical response is to say, you know, what do you mean by a mistake? I mean,

01:55:34.020 this is in a framework that doesn't, I think, have room for a mistake at that level. It doesn't,

01:55:42.660 the whole schema cannot be, like, basically skewed by mistake, made at the level of

01:55:52.900 a human agent in time. You know, the notion that, I mean, I'm putting it in more orthodox

01:56:01.140 religious language that I would go to the stake for. But, you know, the notion that God's plan for 0.70

01:56:09.300 the world can be thrown off course by a woman being persuaded by Satan to eat from the tree of knowledge. 0.99

01:56:20.100 I think if that isn't heretical, then it's like something is really deeply wrong at the core of

01:56:29.060 your religious conception. It's such a, it's such a weak, pathetic, and even victimological 0.99

01:56:36.020 notion of divinity that it could be, um, disrupted by human agency in history that it's really like, 0.95

01:56:49.300 uh, to use Tucker Carlson's word, disqualifying. You know, I cannot, I cannot overstate how disqualifying

01:57:00.740 that would be as far as I'm concerned. So that's, that's basically my position on it. I think that

01:57:08.180 these things, I think there's a question, there's a religious driver, and that, that, you know, to pretend

01:57:15.460 that that question is resolved at the level it would have to be to lead to a simple denunciation of

01:57:26.020 that set of events as kind of biblically characterized is just can't be right. It's just way too

01:57:36.980 crude, and it's too anthropomorphic, and it's involving a kind of completely idolatrous notion of divinity.

01:57:43.540 Um, um, uh, a divinity as ultimately a buffoon who can be thrown off course by a human act in history.

01:57:55.300 That's kind of, can't be right.

01:57:58.500 But wouldn't there, I would say this though, there could, you know, even in your conception here,

01:58:03.460 there would be a difference between, okay, this does have to be part of God's plan, this does have to be

01:58:08.420 divinely ordained, this is providential, and I'm going to be on its side, I am going to be contacting

01:58:14.340 it, I'm going to be trying to summon it or understand it, uh, explore it, uh, encourage

01:58:19.460 this particular path, right? Those things could exist where this is a, this is indeed something

01:58:25.540 set in motion by the divine, uh, and part of a providential, uh, plan, but it doesn't mean you

01:58:31.540 have to side with it, I guess, is, is kind of what I'm trying to say there.

01:58:34.660 Well, I mean, what, I don't know, it depends what you mean, what you're siding with.

01:58:39.860 I mean, from my point of view, I'm siding with the plan. I'm siding with the story.

01:58:47.620 I'm siding with what had happened.

01:58:49.540 The original plan truster there, yeah.

01:58:51.540 I, I total, it's total trust the plan behavior. I mean, and, and frankly, that over spills into

01:59:02.020 the all the sun where it's like, you know, why would you, why would you put yourself in contact

01:59:12.900 with entities that are this sketching? And I would just say, that's all trust the plan stuff.

01:59:20.980 You know, like, I mean, I, I am, I am a kind of extremely finite, limited entity in history

01:59:29.460 and I'm honestly not well positioned to start doing cancel culture on the angelic sphere.

01:59:38.660 I mean, it's just, I think it would be silly to do that. It's like, um, you know,

01:59:45.700 I think if something is taking you deeper into the process, if something's taking you deeper into

01:59:51.700 what is actually the deepest level, the process that you're involved in and that you're here for,

02:00:00.100 that you're alive for in this reality, if you don't want to get deeper into that, that seems to me

02:00:09.300 odd. Um, so, yeah, I mean, you know, and I, I can understand, okay, that in the crudest terms

02:00:20.580 possible, that could be called Satanism, but I'd be just, I really do not think it's actually Satanism

02:00:27.140 in this. It's not, it's not, it's not, it's not about having some preference for the defiance of

02:00:38.500 divine purpose on earth. It's the absolute opposite. It's, it's, it's actually an attempt

02:00:46.100 to attune in the deepest way possible to the deepest level of divine purpose on earth. And,

02:00:56.020 you know, I think to, to, to, to describe that as Satanism is not helpful, but there are deeper

02:01:05.620 levels to that because I think that, you know, that too is providence. That too is providence.

02:01:12.100 That it is, it is about why there are secrets. It's about why there are things that are not for

02:01:19.060 everyone. It's why there, you know, there is why there are doors with warnings on them. You know,

02:01:27.140 it's why there is the occult. You know, the occult is part of the plan, obviously. If it, if it, if

02:01:36.580 everyone was supposed to simply be in a state of perfect enlightenment about the, about what is

02:01:41.620 happening in history, they would be, you know. So the fact that people are in their own ways, groping in

02:01:50.100 the dark and in whatever way possible, trying to attune themselves to what they think is right,

02:01:58.260 that is part of the process. So, you know, I'm, so I'm not saying it doesn't make any sense that

02:02:08.660 people would say this or, you know, it's wrong for the people to say, I mean, I think it's just like

02:02:15.620 that in the big picture, of course, there has to be something like that.

02:02:24.820 Professor Dugan, would you like to respond?

02:02:28.260 Oh, interesting. So that, you know, that there was, there were two poetry schools in the Britain,

02:02:36.580 in the 19th century of Byron and Lake School of Wordsworth. And when the people from Lake School,

02:02:48.180 they have accused Byron to be satanist, to, to be at the side of the evil. So Byron have responded to

02:03:01.140 wordsworth, that if you would be in my place, if you would experience something more or less close to

02:03:10.100 what I have experienced, said Byron, I would speak about with you about satan and God. But because you

02:03:19.700 contemplate these things at the same distance, I have nothing to say with you. So there are people

02:03:29.380 depth, there are people of the inner core of the reality who experience some things that could not

02:03:38.980 be evaluated and claimed and called in a simplistic way. So that is my opinion. So I think that the

02:03:49.940 accusations during this interview with Tucker Carlson were very, very funny, ridiculous. So that is, 0.88

02:04:00.820 and I was wondering, I'm wondering who is this guy who appeared there in Carlson. He said many times,

02:04:08.340 I have shown in my show, I've tried to find some traces in the internet about this personality,

02:04:16.980 and I have found nothing. So maybe it is artificial intelligence creation, as Mr. Lent has suggested

02:04:25.140 before our our meeting. So we should not respond to Grok. So Grok should respond to us, not ourselves. So that

02:04:33.780 is the Grok person. So combining some elements of everything and putting them on the same scale. It's 0.97

02:04:44.580 ridiculous. But the serious problem, what is serious problem, that is Antichrist. So I think that is 0.97

02:04:51.540 Eschaton, it is serious. Satan is serious. So the logic of history, the modernity, radical enlightenment,

02:05:01.460 dark enlightenment, the ontology of artificial intelligence is serious. And we should not only give

02:05:10.180 this ontology modern or modern explanation, but we could as well include the possibility of interpretation

02:05:19.220 of hermeneutic or the artificial intelligence from their eyes, from the position of the spiritual and

02:05:26.020 orthodox christian people. And that implies very important element. So we know, absolutely perfectly,

02:05:35.620 know how modernity evaluates the tradition. So that was pre-modernity. That was something general,

02:05:43.300 some approximations, some dark ages. So dark ages and enlightenment has put everything in the light.

02:05:52.820 But there is as well, we forget that there is the kind of alternative vision of the modernity

02:06:02.100 by with the eyes of the tradition. And if we compare all the main principles of the modernity,

02:06:09.620 of the modern west, of the modernity in science and culture and politics, we see Antichrist. So Antichrist

02:06:18.820 is not today. It is not something new. It lasts almost five centuries. We are living in the Antichristian 0.80

02:06:28.180 reality for starting with the paleomodernity. So with this destruction of the traditional

02:06:37.060 society, traditional movements. So for a long time we are living inside of the brain

02:06:46.180 of Antichrist, of the satan. And the satanists of today, they are just caricature, they are just small

02:06:57.220 small cabaret, just Broadway

02:07:04.740 entertainment. So the reality of the satanic nature of the modernity is much deeper. So we are living in a

02:07:14.180 satanic states under satanic rulers. We are living inside of the satanic culture long ago. And some 0.57

02:07:23.860 people who make kind of some special exotic manifestation of that, they are just maybe as punks or maybe they are

02:07:40.020 prophets. They show the reality of what is going on. They don't want them. For example, we could not

02:07:47.220 accuse, if we are serious, Nietzsche for killing the god. He just has remarked that. He has called the

02:07:57.780 right name the right situation. So it was not his fault to kill the god. That was humanity did that long

02:08:06.180 before Nietzsche has discovered it. So we should not accuse Nietzsche, accuse ourselves. Nietzsche is much

02:08:15.220 more on the judge of the criminal. So the same, I think, with the reality that I think artificial

02:08:28.260 intelligence is, I think, it is the Antichrist. But at the same time it is not the only one. So it is not

02:08:37.380 just some interruption. It is very, very good for human society coming to the world government with

02:08:49.060 diversity, equality, inclusiveness. And somehow there is artificial intelligence that is threatening

02:08:58.260 to destroy all this paradise. I think that is the final station, the terminal station. We have about

02:09:06.820 most of, maybe better to say, you have bought the ticket to the hell. You have installed yourself 0.92

02:09:18.420 in the train coming to the terminal station, the hell station. And when you are arriving there,

02:09:25.380 you are wondering what is going on or where we are going to. But that is the modernity in the eyes of

02:09:34.340 tradition, of Christianity, of Orthodox Church, of Russian traditional society, maybe society of

02:09:42.260 Indian and Islamic culture. So maybe including the best persons in the West. So traditionalism of

02:09:51.220 Ganon and Ebola was created in the West, not in the East. So I think that we need to speak and pay 0.99

02:09:58.740 attention to the real nature of the Western modernity. And that was a kind of tendency exactly to the Satan.

02:10:12.420 The Satan is a much, much larger phenomenon than just some genius people who reveal the reality.

02:10:22.340 So Mr. Land has responded for himself because he, that was an accusation or a kind of

02:10:34.820 form directed against him. I myself, I am very often the target of any kind of slander,

02:10:44.740 of names that have nothing to do with my position. So that is the mission of the lie, the mission of the modernity.

02:10:59.060 But I think that the question raised during the interview of Tucker Carlson about how we should evaluate,

02:11:10.980 appreciate the modernity and many technical, technological aspects of it in the metaphysical

02:11:18.740 dimension, it is very, very correct. It was made as publicity. But I think that was just an invitation

02:11:26.900 to us to continue the serious, serious study of these deeper dimensions of the reality, philosophical,

02:11:37.540 metaphysical, religious, mystical, as you wish. But it was the first approach, maybe. I think that we need to overcome

02:11:48.900 the narrow geopolitical boundaries. So not in order to confuse, to mix, but on the highest level,

02:12:02.500 to exchange the visions, the positions. Because, for example, the problem of Skaton, or Katehon, is one of the

02:12:11.220 central for our Russian government. So in that sense, we are not just doing philosophy, we are doing politics

02:12:20.020 as well, and political philosophy. And I think, as long as I know, the ideas and philosophy of Nick Land,

02:12:30.020 as well are very influential in Peter Thiel, and some person, and people of anorexia.

02:12:36.740 So that is very, very important. We are not neutral in that. We are not just people who contemplate,

02:12:46.020 who observe. We are not just observers. We, as human beings, as thinking beings, as design beings,

02:12:56.180 we are participating in the reality. And I think that we need to get out from the simplistic

02:13:07.540 simplistic names. So the reality is much, much more complex than it seems. So we should not...

02:13:15.860 I am Christian Orthodox. So I am a representative of first political theory. I am a liberal, for example.

02:13:23.620 You could accuse me. You name that. That would be correct. I will agree. I'm not liberal.

02:13:29.940 But if you call me satanist or fascist, it is not just not so. It is incorrect. And Mr. Land has responded

02:13:36.740 that as well. So let's try to choose the correct name, to deal with us, to deal with the creatures

02:13:46.980 who are a little deeper than mediocrity. And we are entering the domain of a little more, not respect,

02:14:00.020 but just correct rhetoric. So we need some special rhetoric dealing with philosophy. We could not

02:14:10.660 put the label, Heidegger is Nazi. Stop. Everything is clear. Nothing is clear. So it doesn't say anything

02:14:18.980 about Heidegger's philosophy, to call him Nazi or to Nietzsche to inspire Nazi. So that is... I think we need

02:14:26.660 to liberate ourselves from... If we are dealing with Chinese communist philosopher, we should evaluate 0.68

02:14:35.220 him as philosopher, first of all. The same with Western. Liberal as well. Liberal. If someone is

02:14:42.500 really a philosopher, being liberal, with great pleasure, I would communicate personally with him. I've

02:14:52.020 tried that to do that with Bernard Anneli V. He proved not to be in any sense philosopher. He didn't

02:14:58.900 recognize his own text, the names of his works. So he's someone different. But I think that now we need,

02:15:09.780 this time of what's happened, we need inter-civilizational dialogue. And in order to

02:15:16.340 continue it, maybe to study it, we need to abandon the short-term labels. So I think that

02:15:30.180 we need to first read, try to understand each other, to explore, to hear, to think. And after that,

02:15:39.540 there will be no need to give the name of label to each other. So I think that we need to show the

02:15:49.540 example, how to lead philosophical discussion in our dark time.

02:15:57.620 Did you want to respond to any part of that, Nick? Sorry, did I want any part of it?

02:16:03.700 Did you want to respond to any part of that? No, I would just, I think this is slightly

02:16:09.060 tangential to these roles, but related, which is to say, you know, I honestly think the fact that

02:16:16.340 these kind of, that these are the new slurs is actually a very interesting and important phenomenon.

02:16:28.420 I mean, you know, it's so much more interesting when people are called Satanists, occultists.

02:16:38.260 I'm trying to think, I mean, as I say, I saw James Lindsay on Professor Dugan, which was very

02:16:46.180 reciprocal. I also called a Satanist, but, you know, a Gnostic, a cultist. I mean, I think it's 0.99

02:16:54.660 that really, where history is taking us somewhere really interesting, or it's coming, stuff waiting

02:17:07.460 for us is closer and coming in now. And these sort of ways of talking that I think people had thought

02:17:18.180 or just got, you know, everyone just assumed that, you know, now all the language of religion is dead.

02:17:31.220 You know, everything is going to be talked about in some type of kind of sterilized social science

02:17:40.660 type of vocabulary on the assumption of a kind of universal sort of complacent atheism of the

02:17:47.860 most unane kind. That's not what's happening. You know, instead, people are talking about angels,

02:17:54.660 demons, dark forces, relations to the outside. So, to me, that's very, I would have to just say,

02:18:06.260 positive from that. I think it's like, people are being forced to actually think about things

02:18:13.460 in a much deeper way than it looked as if it was going to be happening. And I think

02:18:25.700 it's a price well worth paying to be kind of get a little bit of those slings and arrows if it's a sign

02:18:32.180 that the whole culture is moving into a much sort of deeper mode of engagement with serious

02:18:42.180 things than look likely.

02:18:45.380 Interesting. So, the charges of Satanism are actually ultimately perhaps a positive, even if it,

02:18:51.540 you know, might feel it's incorrect because it's at least engaging in theological language once again,

02:18:56.660 moving into realms that otherwise were not being taken seriously.

02:18:59.700 It's a sign of people at least thinking about, well, what would it be to be a Satanist? Or what would it

02:19:05.380 be to be the opposite? Or, you know, how are we thinking of that opposition or relation?

02:19:13.940 Just generally, I think it's a sign that the notion that a religious tradition is something that can just

02:19:24.420 exhaust itself, peter out and then cease to matter is just not right.

02:19:29.860 You know, it's been, I mean, we haven't really talked about this much in this session. You know,

02:19:35.460 there's the whole question about nihilism, what that means historically and as a religious phenomenon.

02:19:41.780 But I think that, you know, one interpretation of nihilism

02:19:48.260 is just that something that these questions just die.

02:19:52.340 You know, and religion is just in the most kind of trivial sense, a historical phenomenon.

02:20:00.020 We're religious for a certain period and we stop, we learn that that's nonsense or whatever it would be.

02:20:05.860 And I think now everyone can see that story is completely non-viable.

02:20:14.020 You know, things are definitely running the other way now.

02:20:19.780 And people, I think, are looking at that period of kind of hyper-secular, smug consciousness as being

02:20:30.100 impoverished, sad, unquestioning,

02:20:33.700 and past itself, and we're going somewhere else.

02:20:41.860 And that, I think, is a great thing to be honest.

02:20:44.580 Well, Professor Dugan, this sounds like a kind of an echo of your own prediction that in post-modernity,

02:20:51.860 we would find, rediscover this religious language, that we would once again embrace the ability to explore these issues in a,

02:20:59.860 you know, in a not entirely rational way, but be able to explore them in a more spiritual sense.

02:21:06.340 So do you feel like that this is overall a positive development, even if it does end up with you,

02:21:12.500 gentlemen, receiving some slings and arrows, some charges that might be incorrect?

02:21:18.580 So I think that you're right.

02:21:20.580 So I think that's, that is, Gannon has said, René Gannon has called that a great parody, great parody.

02:21:29.060 In his book, The Reign of the Kingdom of Quantity.

02:21:39.460 And he has said, most like that, he has described the situation that that is the egg of the world,

02:21:50.900 the symbol of the egg of the world.

02:21:53.780 And in the time of tradition, the sacred time, it is open.

02:21:59.220 That is precisely this empty summit, as described Mr. Lent.

02:22:05.940 So the egg of the world is open on the top, and that super, super cosmical influences could enter easily,

02:22:16.580 because it is open, and permeates the world.

02:22:23.940 And in the materialist time, the egg of the world is closed on the top,

02:22:30.580 and every material thing is equal to the other.

02:22:33.940 That is materialism.

02:22:35.060 There is no god, no devil.

02:22:36.900 And at the end time, exactly, approaching the Eschaton, approaching the Antichrist,

02:22:44.340 the egg of the world is opening on the bottom.

02:22:48.420 It is open at the bottom, and the infracorporal, sub-cosmical tendencies, and creatures, and entities,

02:23:00.900 could easily enter inside.

02:23:03.460 That is the time of the great parody.

02:23:08.180 So, first there was god, and the demon, devil, was chained.

02:23:15.060 After that, there was a short time with no god, no devil, something, pure materialism.

02:23:23.300 And now it is devil, but there is no god, no god as in the materialism, but devil as before.

02:23:29.940 So that is just opposite, something.

02:23:32.180 But that is the great parody, but one of the features of the great parody, according to Genome,

02:23:41.460 it is the restoring the theological, metaphysical, occultist, symbolical, spiritual language.

02:23:49.380 But it is upside down.

02:23:52.020 So that is some perversion.

02:23:54.820 So we could say we are approaching the Ant, and that is a very clear sign of that.

02:24:03.540 So we are returning to some theological language, topics, and subjects, but at the same time,

02:24:11.620 we need to study correctly what means this concept, because they are very perverted, I would say.

02:24:27.220 So we need to discover, first of all, really orthodox theological language and the concept.

02:24:35.140 For example, what is occultism?

02:24:37.140 Occultism is just adaptation of neoplatonic tradition to the modernity.

02:24:44.340 And the worst side of occultism is precisely the modern, technological, materialistic

02:24:53.220 interpretations embedded in it.

02:24:55.780 But in the origins, this occult, so-called occult philosophy, it is just some kind of neoplatonic tradition.

02:25:09.780 That is the basis of Christian theology, Islamic theology, Christian mysticism,

02:25:18.260 and Alexandrian school of Oregon, that was the basis, neoplatonic,

02:25:26.820 basis of the liberation of the Christian Orthodox theology by Basil the Great and the others.

02:25:34.180 So the orthodoxy, Christian orthodoxy, was as well neoplatonic in its origin. 0.95

02:25:41.380 So in that sense, occultism is just the far away eco of the same very important, very important lines.

02:25:54.180 As well neoplatonic war is the Jewish Kabbalah, as Gershom Sholem has shown that Sufism, 0.97

02:26:02.180 Atta Sawuf tradition of Islam, so neoplatonic is as well many other aspects of our reality.

02:26:11.300 So we need to make a kind of revision, great philosophical revision of our theological tradition.

02:26:19.300 So that demands the efforts, the serious studies, the conferences, and all that was totally forgotten

02:26:33.380 during the modernity.

02:26:34.420 We need to restore.

02:26:35.700 So, Francis Yeats, very interesting person, she called that Rosencrucian Enlightenment.

02:26:45.060 Very nice term, Rosencrucian Enlightenment.

02:26:47.620 Enlightenment, we don't know, we have missed.

02:26:51.140 That was the kind of the effort of spiritual interpretation of the new tendency.

02:26:59.380 And that is the line of the serious philosophical studies about Rosencrucian Enlightenment, or radical

02:27:08.740 Enlightenment.

02:27:09.700 In other terms, very important, radical Enlightenment by Popkin, Israel, some scholars.

02:27:16.420 So we need to revise our history of ideas, because we are dealing with something totally wrong,

02:27:25.060 some very caricatures, some caricatures of the history of ideas.

02:27:30.100 We need to restore the field without any superstitions or something like that, modernist

02:27:41.620 way of reading.

02:27:42.660 So I think the idea of Elon Musk to rewrite Wikipedia and make Rokipedia, we need to make some traditional

02:27:51.300 media so to rewrite the massive, all the mass of the human knowledge we know today from the traditional

02:28:02.580 point of view.

02:28:03.300 It is very easy, technically.

02:28:05.380 It's very easy.

02:28:06.180 It's, I think, some buttons.

02:28:09.220 We need to push one button, this button on some combination of buttons now in order to create

02:28:15.140 traditionalist or theological artificial intelligence.

02:28:20.740 We should explore this way as well, because of everything that was said previously.

02:28:33.220 All right, gentlemen.

02:28:34.020 Well, like I said, we could really do this all day, but we do have to go ahead and wrap this up.

02:28:39.940 It's been a fascinating conversation.

02:28:40.820 Can I say one more thing?

02:28:42.020 Oh, yes, yes.

02:28:42.740 By all means, go ahead.

02:28:43.460 Very quick.

02:28:47.700 Francis Yates is so great.

02:28:50.820 And what is a fascinating thing is all the news from the UK now, or England, is people waving

02:29:01.140 the flag of St. George.

02:29:03.860 And as she says, this is the Rosicross.

02:29:09.060 You know, the Rosicrucian Hermetic tradition from the Italian Renaissance through to Elizabethan

02:29:22.180 England, you know, the Cross of St. George, the Rosy Cross, that's its sign.

02:29:31.140 That's its sign.

02:29:31.700 So if people don't know what they're doing, it doesn't matter.

02:29:35.780 What the flag they are waving is the flag of this occult, hidden tradition that underpinned the modernity we all think we understand, and which is now waving its flags in the streets of England.

02:29:56.100 So history is much deeper than people think.

02:30:02.340 Hmm.

02:30:04.340 All right.

02:30:06.340 All right.

02:30:06.900 Well, like I said, we're going to go ahead and wrap it up here, but it's been fantastic to speak with both of you.

02:30:11.380 I really appreciate you taking the time, and I hope that everyone will take the time to look into work a little bit more to grasp a better understanding, given, you know, kind of, I guess, the overview they've received to Tucker Carlson there.

02:30:27.380 But I really appreciate you guys.

02:30:29.380 And, of course, if it's your first time on this channel, guys, please make sure to subscribe on YouTube.

02:30:34.340 We are raising money for Andrew Isker's church in Tennessee, so if you'd like to help to build that church in rural Tennessee, I have the link to do that down below in the description of the video.

02:30:46.100 It'll be there or in the podcast if you'd like to contribute.

02:30:48.580 And, of course, if you'd like to get these shows as podcasts, you need to head to Apple or Spotify and subscribe there.

02:30:55.940 Thank you, everybody, for watching, and as always, I'll talk to you next time.

The Auron MacIntyre Show - October 06, 2025

Nick Land vs. Aleksandr Dugin Debate ｜ Guests： Nick Land and Aleksandr Dugin ｜ 10⧸6⧸25

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript