The Pete Quiñones Show - Discussing Sorel's 'Reflections on Violence' with Thomas777 - Complete

Episode Date: August 28, 2025

2 hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is the complete audio of Thomas talking about the work and thought of Georges Sorel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye, distinctive by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers.

Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa. Savor sumptuous farm-fresh dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surrounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a

unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump-Dune-Bend. Search Trump, Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunbiog, Kosh Farage. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignonez Show. I am here again with Thomas 777, but we have something a little different, a little diversion plans for today. How are you doing, Thomas?

I'm well, thank you. Thanks for hosting me again, as always. Yeah. Well, I had contacted you and said, instead of Cold War Part 6 with the holidays coming up, Let's pick that up after the holidays were over. But there was a book that I read a few years ago when I found out how many people at the time, influential people, people who became leaders were inspired by it, reflections on violence by Sorrell. And then I found out that the Imperium Press version had a forward by you.

So I decided to have you on and let's discuss it. I think that this can go in a lot of different directions. Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity, man, definitely. When did Sorrell come on your radar? Like, when did you read them first? You know, it's interesting because a lot of people, a lot of people associate Sorrel, like, Elah, and some of these other thinkers with kind of the rise of, like, you know,

a kind of right-wing subculture on the Internet. I came to Searle before that, and I'm not trying to sound like some, like, original, or something like OG was like, oh, I knew about Searle, before. But in the stuff that National Alliance would put out and the Institute for Historical Review, that stuff is pretty weighty, man. You know, like William Pierce,

whatever anybody thinks of him or thinks of that whole scene, you know, he was, he was a serious intellectual. You know, he read tons of stuff. Some of which I didn't really connect with, you know, he was a big William Gelley Simpson guy, and he was a big kind of, you know, he spent

a lot of time with, you know, a lot of this kind of like social Darwinist stuff that I don't put a lot of stock in, but he'd reference George Sorrell, okay, like on some of his ADV broadcasts and more than a passing capacity. And the IHR and guys like H.K. Thompson and Keith Stimley and the like they'd raise Sorrell all the time. And they consider him to be like a serious thinker. And one of the reasons why is because part of their whole mandate is the IHR, I mean, they're still putting out great content. That's very, very relevant.

They made the transition to the information age very seamlessly. But during the Cold War, you know, during the early Reagan era, was kind of when they launched and became really active. So obviously, like, they were constantly kind of defending the revisionist perspective against allegations, like, oh, well, you know, the Second World War, among other things, it was a fight against these, like, socialist conceits and and the brutalities that derived they're in. And, you know, the Third Reich, it was just another socialist government.

And we all have socialism, this godless thing that, you know, doesn't have any legs to stand on. And why would anybody on the right, you know, paid any mind? And Sorrell, the answer to that is because the thinkers like Sorrell. And even if you've got no interest in kind of different iterations of socialism and the revolutionary imperatives that, you know, kind of became the animating mythologies of these inner word, of these early 20th century

and then later interwar ideologies even if you don't put a lot of stock in that. If you want to understand if you want to understand European politics after 1789 you've got to be in dialogue with socialism and you got to understand

you know, what how the right how the revolutionary right was dealing with those realities. You know, and Sorrell was kind of first among those thinkers and if I basically accept Ernst Nolte's paradigm that

the Italian fascism and things like the Flange Party in Spain they were reacting, they were reaction against you know, kind of the monarchist right and like the reactionary right as much as they were a reaction against Marxist Leninism and then national socialism was a reaction to that in

dialectical terms like some premises that were hostile and some that were not. But that's way to understand George Sorrell. And in America, when people think of the right, you know, they think of, they think of, they think of, they think of Jeffersonians who, you know, like Johnsonian, you know, like, John C. Calhoun, or they think of like America first guys in the 20th century, you know, and like the Tafti Republicans who were, you know, who were anti-New Deal and anti-interventionists.

And both of those guys, I mean, even the latter, obviously, they were kind of traditional Hamiltonian nationalists, but, you know, their whole idea is, you know, like, get the government off your back, you know, you know, and decentralized authority and, you know, the kind of hassle on their own terms to the kind of class identities that most kind of European paradigms suggest are what informs political reality. But Sorrell wasn't a class warrior, and like we'll get into that.

You know, like his, his, his kind of, he was, you know, like Nietzsche did before, he viewed, Searle viewed culture is like peaking early, you know, like the pre-Socratic era, you know, like the pre-Paloponnesian War era of Dora Gathens.

That's what Sorrell thought was like the zenith of like human culture and political organization. Like it wasn't some guy who was saying like, oh, we just got to give. And he wasn't even like he wasn't even like the, he wasn't even like the Stefan George circle or like Ernst Younger. He wasn't even saying like, oh, we just, we just got to in and date, you know, the working class with some kind of like patriotic or like racialites. identity. He wasn't saying that at all. He was saying that, you know, there's a way, there's a way to insinuate into revolutionary consciousness among the workers, like something that's like culturally elevated, you know, and that will change things and, you know, educate people in a way that, you know, is progressive, not progressive of the capital P, but, you know,

is progressive in terms of, you know, allowing them to conceptualize themselves and conceptualize, you know, political action in ways outside of this like narrow, like, paradigm of, like, you know, hostility to capital and, you know, control of one's labor and, you know, like material justice in terms of, you know, getting paid for one's labor. Like you view that is kind of banal. You know, not like that's not important. Obviously it's important, but

that can't be the end all purpose of your political activity. And it certainly doesn't rationalize, you know, like murdering your own countryman wholesale. I mean, if that's what it comes down to, because that's, you know, what the proverbial gods ordain, okay, I mean, you've got to deal with that in a manly and serious way and a stoic way. but it's not something you pined for just because, you know, it's like, well, you know, God is bad.

So we've just got to find some kind of catalyst, you know, for violence that they can be rationalized in the language of the day. Like, it wasn't saying that at all. But yeah. So let's talk a little bit about this because this is, I mean, I've even written a little bit on this recently. It's the socialist right. when you say, well, the national socialists were on the right, people lose their minds. I mean, mind you, these are the same people who use the term capitalism and don't realize where they know where the term came from. So they're like, well, we're just taking that term for ourselves.

And I think what they would say is the difference between the left and the right is egalitarianism. the left is egalitarian. So was the socialist right egalitarian? Not in the sense of, like not in a biological sense. And not in the way that, like not in the way that in contemporary discourse, people think of it. And I'll qualify it too. Even a lot of people, a lot of people should know better misunderstand to what Marxian equality was. You know, the whole, like, the secular humanists, they've taken, you know, the idea of, quote, human dignity and kind of extrapolated all kind of strange things out of it.

But Marx, I've got nothing nice to say about Marx and Lenin. When Mercer was talking about quote equality, he was talking about a kind of equal dignity across the class divide and across, you know, kind of like the, you know, and eliminating, and eliminating these kind of contrived distinctions between people based on rank, you know, and, you know, this, and, and from there, you know, like affording a kind of elevated dignity to the workers whom, you know, in his estimation, were the ones responsible for generating the wealth of the nation. Okay, he wasn't saying like, oh, women are exactly the same, or like there's no differences in intelligence between men. Like, that's a weird kind of cope that, like, post-1945 coke, that, you know, people wanted to kind of maintain people who were not going to attack the capitalist system on structural terms. You know, that was kind of like what they'd invoke in order to say, like, no, actually, like,

we're more morally sound than, you know, than the Marxists and in the Soviet Union and their satellite states. So that's important to keep in mind. But the idea of socialism, you know, it didn't originate with Marx. And that was one of Spangler's important points. Like, even if you don't accept Spangler's view of history and you think it's like, you know, just kind of needlessly esoteric and mystical, his essay, his essay Prussian, Prussianism and socialism and then later, well, I'd say it's like a longer I say that it's been turned, it's been beefed up with like secondary analyses. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive by design. They move you. Even before

you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range for Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trading. boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited, trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Lidl items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. Um, but, uh, the hour of decision, like, basically the modern state, as we know it,

um, in structural terms, like, owes to the Prussian state. Okay, everything from the military draft, you know, to public education, you know, to having like pensions for retired people, like that came from the Prussians, okay? And I mean, even that's literally really willing in America to like early education is kindergarten. Okay, like it's not an accident. Okay. I mean, so that's, um, and there's something that you have to be openly acknowledged. Like it's not so much anymore. I mean, some of that's clinical, some of that's just because people are kind of ignorant. But, um, you know, it's not like, it's not like when Marx and angles put their proverbial ink to paper.

It's not like they, it's not like, it's not like Europe was, you know, like this feudal society or some or something, or somebody in a Jeffersonian Yeoman society like the Confederate States. They were like, you know what? We need to like beef up a government that can, you know, provide equity, you know, to people based on their labor and can like look after like old folks. What they were doing was they were taking something that already existed in places like Prussia and, to a lesser degree, you know, in places like France and the Habsburg Empire and saying like, okay, we've got to like improve upon this and make it into a progressive instrumentality to advance history. So this, that's important to your mind too. Like if you're

a European writing, you know, in the, in the, in the 1900s, like Sorrell, like you were looking backwards at, you know, your political heritage going back about three centuries. We're just looking at Marx and saying, oh, I see Marx's idea. I can improve upon that and make it acceptable to the right. So that's important to keep in mind. And, um, you know kind of the kind of the first truly socialist institution is the modern military like it is

okay like it's not the military is a lot of things what it's not it's not some robustly capitalist thing okay I mean it's and the Prussians arguably this was their strength and their weakness um Prussia really is a wasteland

there's like nothing there okay I mean you can like farm dirt and rocks um and uh you've got you've got you've got port acts But I mean, other than that, it's, and you're surrounded by hostiles, okay?

And I mean, and obviously, like, Prussia was, the Germans weren't the original occupants of Prussia. Okay, there was, there was a barbarian element there, like a truly pagan barbarian element of indigenous Slavs at the ethnically cleansed. Not as the Germans are bad guys. I mean, ethnic cleansing was just, wasn't just the way of things, especially that part of the world. But the kind of key institution of the Prussian state was the Prussian army. what made it possible. It was literally like this Garrison State. Okay. Um, and so from that, that's what they extrapolated kind of like their model of what, of what, of what society should look like and how it should be organized. Like, it's very much an odds with like the Anglo-American

sensibility, but, um, yeah, that's a lot of things. You can say that it's authoritarian. You can say it doesn't respect people's freedom or individual liberty. You can say that in some way it stunts, like creativity. And maybe it does. I don't see it that way, but I also don't hold it out. like the zina of human political development. But one thing it's not, is it all like left wing or liberal. I mean, it's, it's the opposite in extreme terms.

You know, I mean, because, yeah, like a military type structure, if that's your model, like, yeah, there's some kind of basic there's, there's some kind of basic cohesion and respect for like the various ranks, but it's singularly obsessed with rank. You know, it's the ultimate

of hierarchy. It has no conceit that like, oh, we're all equals here. You know, know, it's very, in fact, it very much repudiates that. So that's something important to keep in mind. And that's basically what Sorrell was getting at. You know, it is like what he was calling for is, you know, a socialism that, you know, makes meaningful cultural activity possible. And that reflects, you know, basic human nature in some way that's not totally at odds in reality.

But again, too, he was like, he looked at the end of the reality. as a miso in that because again like his model he's not saying like oh the Kaiser Reich is so great or you know Frederick the 2nd's Prussia is so great like what he was saying was that you know things went wrong when uh things went wrong

when men like Socrates became powerful in ancient Athens you know like his ideal was the pre-Socratic um you know Pelopon Ises so the socialist right when

they're coming to power, are they, is there a rebellion against establishment liberalism, or is there a rebellion against what is growing communism at the time? I mean, it was both, but it depends on where you were at. If we're going to use Weimar as kind of the, I mean, obviously, like, swell with writing in the pre-Vymer era, and the situation in France is more congregated. But if you're talking about the real, like, if you're talking about, the true kind of divide dialectically and socially as well as politically and in terms of armed conflict obviously you know it came down to like actual civil war the plays like munich there's a couple

different things going on um in the vimar years you had uh you you had organizations like the schallhelm you know they were basically you know Kaiser right veterans wanted to turn things back to the way they were um but they and you know they they were fighting the case they they were the kind of constituted the early Free Corps, but then you had guys, you had guys like Ernst Rahm and Joseph Gerbils who basically saw the communists as essentially correct in their methods, they were just, you know, wrong in their, in their ideological conceits. You know, Gerbilt would go as far as he'd organized street protests with the KPD, you know, to bring, to bring down the, uh, the unions that were, like, friendly to the social Democrats, you know, and, uh, and this made a lot of people

upset. And Gerbels was the one kind of Strasser faction, National Socialist Dinner Party, man, who survived the night of June of June 1934. You know, so that's something to keep in mind.

I think what really, like, I think National Socialism like ossified into what it truly was, when Hindenburg told Hitler that Ernst Rom and all of his fellows and Strasser had to die, and then Hitler gave the order, and Himmler and Seb Dietrich and the rest of them not just carried it out, but they also

murdered guys like Kurt Von Schleiker. I mean, that's kind of like would turn national socialism into like a pretty conventional right-wing tendency, honestly. Like I, not in the sense of, you know, not right-wing in terms of like Donald Trump or not even right-wing in terms of like Robert Taft, but by European standards. The third right was more conventionally right-wing than people. will acknowledge. I mean, they, because there's, there's moronic stuff

like, like, Joan Goldberg saying, like, oh, fascists or a bunch of like Hillary Clinton liberals or something. Like, but it, but there's serious people, too, who weren't prone to that kind of moronic stuff who don't, like, really understand because they, you know, they read these, like, dispatches from,

from, from Dietrich Eckert and from Ernst Rahm, like saying, like, God is dead, you know, like, the hell with the capitalists and the Jews, like, burn everything down, you know, we're going to march on everything and we're going to kill everybody and we're going to build this like new society of the barracks like that. I mean, don't get me wrong. Those guys were serious about that. That wasn't just like so much talk. And a lot of them were frankly cyclopaths. But they, they, that, that, that, that, that came to an end in June 1934. And if, if you're, if you're killing people because a man like Hindenburg is telling you that like, you know, these men are, these men are red revolutionary rabble who have to be stopped.

like you're a lot of things, but you're not left wing, okay, when you're executing that order. So, I mean, that's my opinion. I know some people disagree, but I, I've been studying the topic for a lot of years. I think I had some insight at board. Let's talk a little bit about what you, you said about Europe and how Europe define things differently than here. When socialism or communism is mentioned here, it almost seems like we just have this, we know exactly what's being said. But, From a European standpoint, especially at that time, when socialism was spoken of or communism was spoken of, how did the European culture make it a different interpretation? Even when you read Yaki, you know, Yaki, when he's talking about, when he's talking about Europe, it's a different language than the language that we're used to reading in the books that, you know, were basically written.

by the victors. Yeah. No, definitely. Well, it's also, too, it goes back to, it goes back to sociological origins. You know, I mean, America and some, depending on where you fall on it, I think we, but also just depending on what kind of weight you put on the different variables. You know, America is something of an incomplete society. I mean, that's either good or bad, but, you know, everything that Europe was trying to do in the modern era, okay,

It's reached its zenith in the 20th century. We was trying to repair the social fabric in some ethical way that had been smashed after the middle ages. In the middle ages, there was this basic interdependence between everybody. You know, the lords were dependent upon the serfs. Both were dependent upon the king. And the intermediary between the two of them was the clergy. You know, these people couldn't survive without each other.

that cannot be overstated. You know, this idea that if you were like a lord of the manner, you know, you could just act like the character in that silly Mad Max movie who's like, you know, forcing people to worship him from water or something. Like, it's not the way things work. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th

because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance, and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro.

Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.

Like, I'm not saying if you were medieval serf, I'm not saying that some great life, but I'm not seeing you had some adequate remedies if you had a cruel master, but he needed you. You know, he could not defend the land without you. He could not chill the land without you. He had nothing if you were not willing to work. But in contrast, like, you had no access to justice,

and you had nobody to advocate for you with royal authority, like, if he did not exist. I mean, you had the church too, but that was, the church weren't men who worked. They did very important things, but they operated in a totally, different world. I mean, so it's, you didn't have a direct line to authority unless, you know, you had a rapport with the Lord of the Manor. So that's fundamentally important. What changed

in the modern age and reached kind of its critical in every sense, you know, and like in existential terms and conceptual terms, reach this kind of critical state in the 20th century, you know, people were ripped off the land. They were thrown into factories that literally employ 10 to thousands of people in these dangerous conditions where you were insinuated into some machine, you know, for hours and hours a day. I mean, if you died on the job, nobody really cared. Or if they did, it's like, well, it's so much, it's a mark and a ledger book. You know, like, you don't have any rights. And it's not even, even if somebody wanted to confer upon you, some kind of voice or wanted to, you know, kind of make you a lot and like better, just like the velocity of production and the

trajectory of things, like there was, you didn't, you didn't matter. You know, you were, you became, came totally dehumanized, you know, and that's what the socialist we're trying to do. They're like, we, on the right and the left, they're like, you know, we've got to, like, repair this kind of social fabric and this interdependence and this basic ethical unity of classes and functions, you know, so that people aren't being treated like a commodity. And so that, like, when they die in the job, you know, they're just not, like, shoveled away, like, so much garbage, like, literally, you know? I mean, that's the way to keep in mind.

That's something to give in mind. Like in America, there wasn't some medieval order from which things originated. Like, even in the South, like, people, I know the Southerners themselves kind of looked at themselves as, as, as, as, as, it's kind of like,

lords and knights, which wasn't totally inaccurate. But it was more like, but again, it was more like Athens than it was, like, you know, a 13th century England. You know, like, you had, like, the South was basically made up of, like, Kulac types. you know, there were white serfs and there were black slaves, but they weren't the majority. The majority was not, like, rich plantation owners and, like, poor serfs and, like, and slaves who were property.

Like, the majority was, like, small freehold farmers who were doing their own thing. And that's supposedly the American ideal. Okay, like, now it's like a small businessman. I'm not saying that's actually the way things are, but that's, like, what's idealized. But, you know, in America, if you're on the right, your idea isn't, like, well, You know, we got to bring things back to, you know, the throne and altar and, like, reverence for God and God's emissaries on Earth. And, you know, we got to create some kind of codependence between the classes that's not dysfunctional. Like, the ideal is, like, you know, I need to be given the opportunity to, like, tell the land and get what's mine.

And, you know, have the government stay off my bed and not take the fruits of my labor. I mean, the totally different sensibility. Like, one's not superior to the other. I mean, obviously, I'm more sympathetic to the American model because that's my heritage. and I, you know, and then plus that's just like what's realistic. Like, you can't. One of the reasons is goofy when, I mean, I realize some of this is polemical, but some of these idiots actually believe this,

like, when, like, regime loyal people or when these, like, Mother Jones types claim that, like, Donald Trump's this big fascist or something, I mean, that's like retarded for long as a reason. But, like, some radical right-wing guy, like if George Wallace becomes president or Qie Long as become president, it would not look anything like Germany in 1933. You're like Italy and 92.

22. Like, that's ridiculous. It's not the way we do things here. Like, that's like, that's like saying that's as retarded as saying like, oh, if Donald Trump hit his way, you know, he would, you know, he would, you know, he would be like the Holy Roman Emperor. Like, it doesn't, it doesn't make any sense. But, you know, like, I made the point before that the entire like civic religion of America is like anti-fascism, which is particularly kind of asinine in this country. But, yeah. Well, that, that set me up perfectly. So we know because, you know, Gentile, Gentile wrote what fascism was in Italy. But as far as I know, really, nobody in Germany at the time was writing what socialism meant to them. What socialist, you know, you can listen to the Strasser debates and everything and you can get an idea. But in your opinion, what was the national socialism of Germany? what did that socialism actually mean? I mean, they were drawing upon a couple of things,

and if you read, there's not a lot you can extrapolate. I'm also like people to read Hitler's second book because it's instructive. It flushes out as geostrategic ideas and some other things, and it's just interesting reading. It was never published. Like the manuscript was found by the U.S. Army, and then it was handed over to,

it's handed out of Army intelligence, the chain of custody was weird, but it has been, authenticated. I mean, it was it was Taylor's actual manuscript, but it wasn't published and available in public until after the war, but you know, people, there's not like, there's not

a lot you can extrapolate from mine cop. That's why it's an idiotical, people are like, oh, it's a boring book. It's like, well, yeah, it's, it's, it's an election year's screed from the 1920s. Like, why, why would it be interesting today? But what is interesting, like when he talks about

when Hillary talks about his ideas on conflict between human populations, like that's instructive. And also, you know, I made the point of people before, Hitler was this Catholic-Hapsburg Austrian who basically identified his movement as the legacy of the Prussian state. And, you know, the December 11th speech, the Reichstag, which is really Hitler's last public address of the Reichstag. that's like when he issued the Declaration of War Against America. He talks about,

he talks about we, like the Royal Wee, like in reference to the Prussians and the Napoleonic Wars. Okay, so, I mean, he's saying, like, and then that's notable because, like, you know, Prussia was at odds with the rest of the German kingdoms.

I mean, that's a little bit off topic. But as it may, like, Adolf Hitler himself, if Adolf Hitler is, like, the standard barrier of, like, right-wing socialism in Weimar, which, I mean,

I think we can say that he was because he's the man who became king proverbially. His view was what I just said. It was that, you know, the proper German model of national life is Prussia. And the Prussian model was based on the army. And, you know, the civic apparatus that revolted around that. So, I mean, that's the way you can think of German socialism. Of course, to your point, guys like Strasser, guys like Rahm, Kurt Von Schlecker, I think, was a lesser aristocrat,

who was basically cynical, and he didn't really care, but he was obviously threw in his lot with Strasser and Rahm because he wanted to destroy Hitler. But all these guys, at least what they were advocating in public, was they were saying, like, you know, Hitler's a tool of the bourgeois Z. He's not really a revolutionary. He's just a reactionary, and he's a petty bourgeois buffoon. So, I mean, the no true Scotsman stuff about socialism, a lot of that was interseen rivalry between national socialists.

It's not like the German street was, uh, where, we're like 1970s era, like, you know, Berkeley types, you know, talking about, like, who's a real socialist. It was a lot more, it was a lot less existential and, like, a lot more, like, polemical and kind of cynical than that. I mean, that's my view. And I think I'm something, if not an expert, I think I have some. I think I have some expertise on the topic, at least. I want to get back to Sorrell, but I wanted to mention this. So you mentioned that Prussia was based off of the military. A lot of people, a lot of Americans point out that, you know, Prussian schooling is, you know, what's his name?

I can't remember his name now. He went to Prussia, saw how the schooling was done and basically brought back. And but what a lot of people will say is that all that schooling is meant to do is turn people into a cog in the machine to be plugged in. So if that is true, it seems like that is creating a group of people in that they're the students, if the students were all learning the same thing, then that could be seen as egalitarian. Yeah, well, the difference too, of course, is, yeah, it's not just that, you know, the Prussian model identifies that, you know, the vast difference in human intellect and abilities and kind of organizes people in the proverbial slots or organize them based on, you know, how those things can be cultivated and utilized. But also, like, the core of the Prussian ethos is, you know, the racial community. So if you take that Prussian model, but you utilize it as kind of a way of

derathing people and saying, okay, you're not like a Mexican, you're not like a white man, you're not, you're not black, you know, you're not, you're not Asian, you're just American, you just have this civic identity where you're not going to speak your own language anymore, you know, you're not going to go to your own church anymore.

You're not going to, you know, you're not going to abide these habits anymore of your forebears, you know, like that's, like, that's what's really, insidious about like the new dealer or like American model. It's not it's not so much that it declares that like every man

is going to have some kind of like income in common or that it's going to like reduce you know like the verbal disparity you know between the ownership cast and what was then the working cast like what was insidious about is that it it was tailored to essentially like strip people of any ability to live historically

and any like meaningful you know actual cultural identity. You know it's going to like alienate man from his heritage and from history in absolute terms. Like, that's the big difference. And that's also why I object a lot. There's something to it when people talk about cultural Marxism. They're talking about Gramsie and Adorno, like, contra Marx and Engels.

But they don't understand that, like, a lot of this, a lot of this doesn't have to do with Orthodox Marxism or Frank or school stuff at all. A lot of it's, like, New Deal or bullshit, you know, like race blind, like God is dead. You know, we know now that, like, everything is reducible. to, you know, data derived from the scientific method. You know, the man's basically just like an animal who can talk and, you know, there's no more history and there's no more culture. All that matters is making

men more suitable to governance and eliminating these, you know, these problems like, you know, like conflict between the races or like men and women not getting along. Like that's, like that kind of... Or family. I mean, just read the authoritarian personality. Yeah, exactly.

Exactly. So, I mean, there's like a pastiche. Like, definitely like Frankfurt's stuff and that kind of thing became preeminent like in especially like as as the american left broke entirely not just the american left but in europe like where the left just in macro terms like broke with like Stalinism and decided like the east block where their enemy i mean this was long-and-coming but they were looking around or some kind of or some kind of ideological canon and they settled down like the franker school but this is also what would have been turned loose on on on divided germany you know i mean so there was a lot of things.

Yeah, this definitely became part of, like, the American conceptual horizon, like, in policy terms, as well as academic and intellectual terms. But there was a lot of stuff that also, like, preceded that. You know, like, these fools, like, who were, uh, who built, like, that part of education and all that kind of stuff,

and these, and these, and even, even, even a lot of guys who preceded in their dealers, like Colonel House, uh, who was, uh, you know, Wilson's, uh, kind of Machiavelli, you know, administered without portfolio. even he was like prone to a lot of that kind of nonsense. Like House wrote that he wrote this really bad science fiction novel

where there was like this benevolent dictator who was obviously supposed to be himself. And he basically like, you know, finds a way to like strip man of any like historical identity. And he like forces everybody to speak this like Esperantal language. So now there's like no more war. And this great man becomes like God on earth because there's no more war. And it's like why would that be remotely desirable? It sounds like a nightmare. but like idiotic, like Colonel House,

like there's some like great utopia that like, you know, that acquits government of any criticism because, you know, the greatest thing ever is somehow like if black kids have high test scores and like everybody lives in a big prison where war is impossible. Like no one can explain like why these things are so awesome, but like that's their conceit. Let me just try to nail down exactly what you meant when I mentioned the Prussian schooling.

Oh, yeah. In Prussia, if your goal is to educate everyone and bring them down into a cohesive culture that works within itself, and that's what the Prussian education system meant to do. But if you transfer that over into the United States, now you're stripping a multicultural society, and you're saying everyone has to be one. And obviously some are going to rebel against that. And the ones who don't rebel against it are going to basically lose what kind of social cohesion they have within their own community. No, exactly. And that's why one of the things that brought the United States and the Soviet Union together, I'm talking, you know, like the New Deal Stalinist alliance. Like on its face in geopolitic terms, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Like what Lindberg said and what Houston Stewart Chamberlain said, I mean, yeah, those guys obviously had political and aesthetic preferences for Germany. But in Roger strategic terms, it doesn't really make sense for America and the UK to decide they're going to annihilate Germany and alliance with Russia. Like, what makes sense is for, you know, Europe led by Germany, the UK and the United States, you know, to cause me of this kind of ramparts against the east. you know, whether it's China, whether it's Russia, you know, whatever it is. Okay, that's... Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans.

Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.e. 4.S. Northwest. On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savour festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails and dance the night away with DJs from love tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink.

My goodness, it's Christmas. at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorehouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. There's a basic illogic to what developed. And one of the reasons why that happened was ideological necessity. And I say from the Soviet Union, when it's about irrationality of their objectives domestically, they had similar problems. You know, Snellan's big problem was the nationalities problem.

you know like how do I strip everybody of their ethnic identity and make them into new Soviet men and the new dealers were like they had the same problem you know like how do you like destroy like the nationalities in America you know and and I mean that this still goes on today like that's why in typical fashion when the regime talks about multiculturalism they're talking about the opposite they're talking about like the eradication of all cultures you know but that's there's very few I mean then is now there's not a hell of a lot of states organized like the United States or like the Soviet Union was. It's not a natural

political mode of organization. So you can do one or two things there. You know, you can either you can either you can either rule by way like kind of evolved federalism and basically

leave people alone to manage their own affairs within their own cultural spaces or but I mean government never is willing to do that I mean at least here. So they're always going to opt for this idea of this, you know, eradicating culture and ripping people out of, out of a historical existence. And both there, I mean, that's one of the things that brought down the Soviet Union.

And that's also one of the reasons why post-World War, like America does not have moral legitimacy. But that was definitely what they wanted to do. And the, but this is going to sound like a goofy example, but I'm using it because it pops up again and again in the 60s. I read a lot of science fiction from the era, and science fiction from that era wasn't just entertainment. There was a lot of think tank guys. I mean, even until the 80s. You know, Jerry Pornel was, you know,

kind of the driver was by SDI. Like, he wrote science fiction, and he was, you know, incident to his, like, think tank and policy work and stuff. But, you know how there was that corny old Star Trek episode where, like, Captain Kirk and Spock, they go down on his planet, and it's like the Third Reich.

They don't know how this is possible. Like, you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. And then ultimately it's unraveled, like, oh, well, this guy in, like, the 22nd century, he crashed, like, from Earth, he crashed lands on this planet, there's these primitive humanoids, but they're always at war. And he's like, okay, well, I know how to resolve this. So he creates this, like, third-rikes-style regime. And then Kirk, like, addresses the audience, like, you know, this was the most efficient government of all time. But, you know, they were brutal races.

So, you know, that's why it didn't work. But the idea was in some way noble. And that's interesting. and that comes up again and again, not just in, like, corny science fiction, but in, like, policy papers. Like, we admire the Prussian state because the Germans are of great people,

but they're these brutal races, so that's why it didn't work. But we've got to extrapolate that here in some way, but strip it up of these chauvinistic and, like, racialized views and things. People don't think that way directly anymore. It's been finesse in different ways, but that's what underlies it.

Like, especially in a place like Chicago, but nationwide, like a degree of which, these institutions, people like for granted, are like things taken from the Prussian state. It's crazy. You know, it really is. You know, the degree, that's not just me, that's not just me, you know, being, like, a Teutano file or something. I mean, I'm sure, like, in part on that, too, but it just, like, can't be denied. Like, I'm not even saying that's, like, a good or bad thing. It's just reality, you know? And the people, at one time, people were way more kind of, like, directly cognizant of that, or at least willing to acknowledge.

So that's important to consider. All right. I wanted to get back to the book. Let me show everybody. This is from Imperium Press. Reflections by Sorrell. And from the forward, I'm going to read your words and have you comments on this. It says, rather has already been alluded to,

Sorrelian violence can best be understood as an absolute uncompromising and radical commitment to pure history and bloodletting, parentheses, one's own in the case of the martyr and the enemies in the case of the partisan, and bloodletting is the sanctifying process. And you go on to say, a partisan unwilling to die or commit homicide is no more a political soldier or agent of history than would be a lawgiver who is incapable for reasons of moral or physical frailty of executing a death warrant issued by order of the king's bench as an agent of exclusive sovereign authority. Sorrell viewed the modern bourgeoisie as particularly decadent and

harmful, but he did not think the conditions of his epoch to be otherwise unique. All ruling regimes, political and social, develop over time a kind of moral and intellectual apathy that precludes its worthiness, or at least revokes its mandate, to act in a role of guardianship or standard bearer over the subject matter of its dominion. This is not to suggest a Sorrell shared a secularized eschatological vision of utopian salvation, common to Marxists and progressives, which posited that the condition of man, or the state, or national community, was capable of perfection by way of revolutionary processes. Rather, and I underline this, he viewed the fervor of violence as a hygienic mechanism entirely congruous with his own rejection of the linear view of history.

Yeah. I mean, that's the best way. I don't know, it seems robust, but it's hard to convey these things in kind of rational terms. But that's, yeah, I mean, that's the best way to think of to describe it. and that's, I mean, that's what, the, uh, the degree to which, uh, I mean, this also, um, this, uh, some of this, um, some of this, um, some of this, um, sorel was definitely, like, in, in, in, in, in, the, in, the, the pro-Socratic hero epics. Um, like, sir, like, Searle saw the, the, the, theocratic, uh, what, would he used, like, the, uh, what, would he used, like, the, the, that got into the Socratic era in Athens, he said what you were left with was, you know, instead of this monoclass of Yale men farmers,

you know, the best of whom, you know, rose to leadership rank, whose education insisted in mythology and hero epics, what you had was there developed this class of professional politicians who relied upon intellectuals like Socrates to rationalize their rule, but neither of whom were capable of real action and both resented each other and both were afraid of and hostile to the Yewomen warriors to this kind of like paralysis

where the men who should be the ones like most capable of direct action and violence are declared that you know this kind of thing is illegal and immoral because they're terrified of their own position being swept aside and their own like you know wives being threatened by such a process so there's this kind of like ongoing paralysis

with just kind of like meaningless discourse takes the place of action. And yeah, like I said in the intro that you just reiterated, it's not that self-dunked violence was so great or like this sexy thing that we all got to get into. He was saying that, you know, in political terms, you're not serious unless, you know, you're willing to implement your will through violence. And in fact, he took human life and then taking out very seriously. And that's one of the reasons why there's something sacrosanct about the revolutionary

process. If you're literally willing to kill people, even if they're your enemy, enemies, and maybe especially of your enemies, like, that's a very serious thing. You know, it's not something you do flippantly, and it's certainly not something you do with repetitious agreements. And if you're

willing to do that, there's a sacred aspect to that that commands a certain reverential observance. I mean, it's all those things, but that's also why, that's

also, and until things reach that state, whether it's because, you know, the, like, the, the, like, the, the, the, the, like, the, the, the, the, the, like, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, kind of system is failing structurally at such a point that people find themselves in these just dire circumstances where their survival in jeopardy. Or when you're talking about, you know, a revolutionary circumstance sensitive to, you know, a wider kind of strategic pairing of warfare, you know, what necessitates these things is,

is a convergence of extreme conditions and the human will and the harming of a human heart within that will. So, like when people in America, like at present, I mean, like talk about it like oh donald trump is an extremist or oh you know we're we're under siege by by by by moxas you'll know you'll know when that's underway man because his body's being dropped and thankfully that's not happening because in the americans condition and the in the under present conditions i don't i don't think that'll lead anything positive frankly okay um i just don't that may change but for now it would it would it would mean a lot of suffering and a lot of

a lot of dead people being stacked up for no real purpose. But, yeah, that's also, and also, like, I don't want to get too far afield, but this is intrinsic to anything that European political theorists wrote about, really until the 20th century. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November.

Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.Northwest. On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Saver festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails and dance the night away

with DJs from love tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorhouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. This idea, this kind of rollsy and liberal idea

that people have in America kind of like on all sides of the political, are both sides of the political spectrum of like, oh, politics is just this rational process that people decided to create and implement. Like, no Europeans thought that way. Politics is mysterious. And like, the zina of the political

occurrences is warfare. And, you know, politics, like, warfare itself, its origin is mysterious. We don't really know why things are ordered this way. You know, even if you won't believe in God, there's some kind of, there's some kind of design. even if just man acting out, you know, is, is, is, is, is, as in, as an, as an

colony would that's very mysterious and strange. We don't know why that happens, you know, so all you can really do is you're truly like in quite literal terms, like riding the peribial titer to try and manage, you know, political occurrences. And, in violence therein chooses us. We don't really choose it. So, um, there's an inherent. kind of providential the they're not an identification of providential things

and phenomena within the European mind conceptually. That's important to give in mind. Like this really jumps out at me, I think, because I'm very much like a God-centric person.

I'm a Bible Protestant, but I'm like an old stock American, so I'm inundated with with kind of like American viewpoints and things. You know, and I always was. Even guys like Russell Kirk, you know, who was a Catholic, but he was kind of the quintessential, like, American, like, 20th century political historian.

Like, even he, like, falls into this kind of trap of kind of, like, Rawlsian and Habesian ontology about man kind of, like, rationally choosing to, like, organize politics this way. And that's nonsense. And maybe there's a topic for another episode, but yeah, yeah. I like that you mentioned how Europeans view politics versus Americans, especially back then because, and then earlier you had mentioned how, you know, people read Spengler and he seemed, it seems esoteric because I recommended Imperium to somebody and they started reading it and they're like, this, does it stay this esoteric? And then that's when you realize it's like, well, politics isn't one. thing. We've been convinced we've been taught in this country that politics is just one thing, or it's this side against this side. And no, politics has a very spiritual side to it. That's why I think a lot of people, especially people who are biblical, when they read Imperium and they read Part 1,

they're completely blown away because they've never read politics like that before. That's a good point, yeah. And Imperium's a really well-written book. It's not just because I like France's Yaqui a lot. I mean, before I even like knew anything about France's Yon's Like his book would always pop up on IHR, you know, IHR newsletters. And Willis Cardo, obviously, would always plug it. And I got it. There was a used bookstore at Evanston. And like Noontide Press at that time, which was Willis Cardo's outfit.

Like, they weren't currently stocking it. So this was like in 1997 or so. Like I had this, I just used bookstore in Evanston, like, order me like an old hard copy of Imperium. You know, and I like talking to him with Reddit. it and I was like wow this is really intense stuff and it's really insightful so I mean I came to yaki by reading his book and realizing like this is this is this is incredibly you know highly developed and serious stuff um and yeah I said this is really well written um some of yagi's language at times seems overwrought because uh you know he was a he was he was he was a he was a

litigation attorney and I mean that kind of comes out but uh that's So that's also as part of like the time, though, like in the early, like, really until like the 1950s, that's just kind of like the way people wrote, even kind of square people, just like, you know, writing on behalf of some kind of, like, even somebody, like, writing like, an op-ed on behalf of like Eisenhower, we're in, like, the early 50s. Like, it would seem kind of like overwrought to us probably, like, but at the language, I mean. But, but, yeah, that's, um, you know, it's, it's a serious book. Like, whether you, you know, even if you, even if you're based,

basically kind of hostile to fascism or, you know, post-fascist ideas. And even if you're not, you know, any kind of, any kind of Germanophile. I mean, you can't, like, like, if people claim, like, oh, Imperium's and mystical garbage, like, none of them have actually read the book. I know it's like I've engaged them. Like, what do you object you specifically? Like, they can't tell you. They're just, like, repeating, there's not repeating some nonsense.

They, like, read online or they're just, you know, it's just like some conceit they have. I guarantee you they have not actually read it. I, um, not because I'm so great, because I'm like a bookworm. I've actually read like, I've, I've, I've read Marx and Engels from 20 years. Like when I, I don't like sound off about a body of political theory that I haven't read. And you'll notice, like, when you're raising them and read, I tell you straight up, like, I haven't read that. But I don't, most people, most people don't sit around, like, you know, um, reading Das Kappa Call. Most people don't sit down and read like all 600 pages of Imperium.

They just don't. Going to the fact that everybody's got to live their life doing what they got to do, I'm lucky I have the time to like read this kind of shit. It's also, I mean, people that, I don't think people have the attention span anymore. Like even smart guys. Like I, one of the things I learned to do in law school,

if I derived anything about an experience is like, I can sit down for like nine hours and like power through like pays and pays and and paste and dense text. Just things that much ran. of dude in that, but I can do it. And like, it doesn't like, it's not like torture to me. So, yeah. A part of the forward is under the title modernist violence and service of ancient virtues.

And something that I, a couple sections on a pick out here, he viewed the organization, management, and economics of the homestead and the cultural values intrinsic to this enterprise as being inextricably linked to. and mutually reinforcing of military competence and endeavors and the waging of war itself. Moving down, he further views the yeoman homestead as a school of command. A man must rule his wife and children firmly, but also caringly and justly. He must also demonstrate his worthiness to wield his authority. A man's wife and children are obliged to obey his commands, but only insofar as his command role is tempered by correct

virtues and practical reason. Do you think that is why the founding of this country, like, actually worked in the beginning, in the beginning? Yeah. And like I said, it calls back to, um, if you read, uh, if, if you read what these Confederate, like mental letters were writing about, I mean, that, that's what they, that was their mythology. They were calling upon, they were, they were calling upon Athens.

Okay. I mean, later, you know, you read everything from Walker Percy to, to Michael Shara, you know, the killer angels. You know, they vote like our theory in legend and stuff. But, I mean, really the way the Southerst thought of themselves, it was like that. You know, and that's why, like, you know, in terms of like place names, everything else,

you know, like, Athenian references, you know, were ubiquitous in the Antibald himself. And to some degree, like, still are in the self. And, yeah, that's the way they viewed it. Because, again, the South was not, the South was not the Hapsburg Empire. It was, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, it was a, gaywomenry who viewed themselves as kind of like a monocast you know like that's why and i mean part of that was possible because like uh slavery was racialized you know like that so i mean you you dated so many like a monocast like even even like a poor even like a poor like white like tenant farmer and like a lord

of the manner like they had some kind of political interest in common like kind of for the slaves now i know that like i know people like howard vinn would be like oh well that's because they were just educated in, you know, racial prejudice. Like, that's not the case. Like, people do obviously identify in communitarian terms, like, along racial and cultural lines. And that's only possible, um, it did that, and that's really only possible if there is like an us and them, like paradigm. That's not good or bad.

It's just the way it is. And yeah, that's if you, um, in the northern, it was a little bit different. Um, but at the same time, too, like I said, even, you know, the, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, The old right, what was called Old Right in the 20th century, you know, America First and Robert Tapp and stuff, those guys were, those guys were Hamiltonian Republicans. They were like Northern City Slickers.

But at the same time, you know, they viewed, they viewed the American ideal, you know, as like the small businessman, like our version of the Kulak, you know, like they, so that I maintain this not just a Confederate conceit that is truly like the old American ethels. And yeah, it's got no, it's got nothing, you know, there is no Caesar in that equation. Okay, so it's, you know, there's no Caesar and there's not even a King Arthur. You know, there's the ideal, like the American hero, he's an archetype.

He's not, he's not a king or he's not like a man in a certain official role. So, yeah, I think that's fundamentally important. And I admit, I mean, that's the way I think, like, not even consciously. Like, I, you know, that's why I think some of these, like, Prad guys in the internet are weirdos. I'm not talking about, like, actual, like, Russian guys, or I'm not talking about, you know, some of these,

some of these Muslim guys who abide that worldview, too. I thought, I know, like, guys like, Terry Hoad Indiana, like, decide that they're, like, trad Catholics or something. It's like, bro, like, what, you want, like, you want to, you want to, you want to, you want to, you want to pretend it's, you know, we got a king here or something, or you want to pretend you're in the court of Caesar, like, why the fuck would you want to do that?

And plus, I mean, it's not, like, our heritage anyway, you know, like that doesn't work. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community.

Find out more at airgrid.com. On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savour festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails, and dance the night away with DJs from love tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorhouse.com. Faxby Drinkaware, visitdrinkaware.comer.

People hate to hear this, but I mean, we're a Protestant country. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. I agree with you Michael Joan. He's like, if you are like, you know, culturally Catholic, I mean, Jones is right. Like America was and is a massively anti-Cathlet country. And I don't think that's a good thing because they're not a bigot.

But that this idea you can like somehow reconcile Americanism with Roman Catholicism, I just make the Pope some kind of like first deacon or some kind of like, you know, or some kind of like equivalent of a, of Billy Graham. Like that, that's ridiculous. Like that's not Catholicism then. You know, you're just like some guy who like goes to mass occasionally and, you know, on Christmas Eve at midnight, you know, goes like his local parish. But that Catholicism has actual implications for politics and authority.

And like the Pope is either, the Pope's either the Emperor of Europe in absolute terms or he's not. You know, I mean, he's not, he's not Billy Graham. He's not this deacon in a weird hat who, like, we all kind of listen to when we want to. You know, like, he has either God's emissary on earth or he's not, you know, ain't my fight. I'm not a Catholic, but if you are, you can't, you can't be a Catholic and then decide that, like, you're going to, like, pretend Joe Biden is the president, you know, like. Yeah.

I wanted to read this one section under anti-modern modernism. says Sorrell shared with Pradone and Hobbes a pessimistic view of nature. This is one facet of Sorrelian thought that fundamentally alters the way in which Sorrell's relationship to socialism is to be understood. Sorrel viewed man as basically mired in sin and driven by his own avarice and egoism and desire for his own gain. This tendency in the Sorrelian view, and this is the part I underlined, is only overcome by submission to sovereign authority, customary as well as formal, in ordinary conditions,

and when necessary, by immersion in collectively dynamic and violent efforts, often themselves both revolutionary and restorative in character. Yeah. Yeah, Sorrell's commitment to socialism must be understood within this context that socialism for better or worse was considered a historic inevitability in structural terms. And if nothing else, it was at least grudgingly stipulated even by many of its staunches critics on the European right that at least some concessions to the popular demands of socialist parties would need to be made for any future government to enjoy the legitimacy it required to effectively rule.

Yeah, and that's why, and that explains the ascendancy of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler. I mean, Hitler was always more popular than the party, but eventually, you know, Hindenberg personally disliked Hitler. And I think Hindenberg personally disliked the national socialist. But, you know, again, it was, the Stahlhelm wasn't going anywhere for that reason that Sorrell outlined and that I just kind of like explicated. in plain English. The, you know, this, there's, um, I realize that, you know, in, from the 20th century onward, especially with the evident visual media, as well as, you know, the concentration of power, um, in, in key loci and the ability of, of consolidated governments to, you know,

to kind of dictate policy, you know, there's, there's a power to kind of create a conceptual horizon. You know, like in the Oliver Stone movie, natural law and killers, you know, like Woody Haraldon says, he says the reporter, like media is like weather, but it's man-made weather. Like that, that's actually really poignant. Okay, and like I stipulate that, that's very true. At the same time, you can't just generate some kind of like revolutionary tendency out of the air, and you can't just quash one that's emerging. So this idea that, you know, I mean, I think Adolf Hitler believed everything he said for better

or worse, whether anything Hitler was great or whether you think he would evil. Like, he wasn't a liar and he wasn't, he wasn't a politician in the conventional sense. Like, he believed everything you said. Um, he didn't take on like a socialist program. Um, like, like Tholmond claimed and the KBD claim, you know, just for cynical

reasons. Like, he believed in it. Like, even if you didn't, like, yeah, it was, the reality was that he may be wrong, but he never lied. Yeah. And the, and the, and the, and the Vimar voter, the voter at a socialist sensibility. Like, you could say that that was bad or that you

didn't accept that. It's like, well, okay, but then you're not in the game. You know, so there's no, there's no way to kind of like reactionary party or some kind of like Kaiser-like revanchist party, like would have gone anywhere in Germany. Like, it just wouldn't have. You know, and, um, and like I said, that wasn't just, that wasn't just like the fervor of like, you know, the kind of red wave after 1921, 22. It was, that was like deeply assinuated into like the German conscience. you know like the uh this idea you know like like we talked about at the top of the hour like the the um you know uh socialism as we know it essentially you know came from it came from prussia and and came from uh that this state of organization

which itself was derived from this desire uh and this fundamental imperative to kind of repair the social fabric that it ceased to exist after you know the medieval era disappeared into historical time. I got to raise up in a minute, though. So we can do a part two on this if you want. Sure, sure. But yeah, yeah.

If there's anything else you want to hit, just real quick, though, in terms of key points, so let's take those up now. Okay, let's just do one last question. Yeah, man. Do you think America has ever had a right wing, and if they did, when did it disappear? Do they have a right wing now? Yeah, I'm going to deal with the first part of the question first.

The war between the states, there was something of a, there was not conventionally right-left paradigm to that, but it was the precursor of it, okay? I mean, there were guys in the north who were kind of nullifiers, who were the free soilers, who didn't really want to, you know, who were the free soilers, who didn't really want a part of the war between the states, but they were highly racially conscious and highly anti-government. But if you're talking about the actual partisans,

you know like the kind of like the true like rebels in the south and uh and you're talking about the fire eaters in the north you like and the um the like the radical abolitionists like there was there was something of a precursor to like right left

divide in America it's an imperfect analogy but there's that later um I agree with basically what Pam Buchanan wrote in the 80s and 90s about the old right of being um you know, the Hamiltonian Robert Taft right, the America First right, that was, that, that was the emergent American right in modern terms, okay?

And, you know, in the, you know, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, the 20th century, the war between the state wasn't ancient history. It was less than a hundred years in the past, okay? So, I mean, the, like, America is like a consolidated, a national union was, was a pretty new thing. things. There's that too. The I believe I'm always making the point that, you know, the Nuremberg system replacing the Westphalian system that had not just profound implications

for international order and more in peace and and the conceptual horizon of, of heads of state. But it also, it made, it made the political right quite literally illegal.

Because that was part, that was half of the reason for holding the or other proceedings in the first place is to say that, you know, okay, like, you know, the allies were on the side of, of Providence and history, and opposition to that, which is the right wing, you know, this is a criminal conspiracy of racist murders, you know, and, and obviously, you know, no, no rational actors, such as, you know, the Marxist Leninists in Moscow and the New Dealers in Washington, whatever started a war. So wars were only started, you know, by the intrigues and conspiracies of brigands and criminals and racist.

And that's what the right wing is. You know, so it's illegal to hold these views because they result in genocide and warfare. That's why after, that's why there was no, like, Hughie Long or Robert Taft after 1949 or 4849. Okay, like, you, the closest thing was a guy like Joe McCarthy, but obviously, you know, there were the deep state closed ranks to wipe him out. I'm not saying McCarthy was like a great guy. I mean, I'm not saying morally. I mean, I don't think he was,

I think it was kind of a bumpkin. I don't think he was a great figurehead. And I've got my own issues with him. And certainly, it's associated with Roy Cohn, didn't do many favors. But for all kinds of reasons. But we'll get into that in our Cold War series. But that was basically the American right as it was, as it was Ossifah. You know, Huey Long, Robert Taft. Wallace was a resurgence of that.

You know, and of course, Nixon took on the Wallace Coalition, which became the Reagan Coalition, which became mega. That's right-wing in the American sense. I mean, I think it's somewhat of a protest movement, but if those people had better leadership and if they had a stronger intellectual foundation, I think they'd very much, like I'd definitely, with Taffian principles, like actual America first principles.

So, yeah, I mean, I think that's basically genuine. I think there's a lot of silly stuff, like, within... I mean, we still consider, like, may it be a movement. Like, the... You know, the... I was on the ground on January 6th. I mean, I'm not saying that to sound like, I mean...

Like, speaking of the Nafin-Wern-Killers, and I'm trying to come off, like, Rarododdy Jr.'s character to say, you know, like, I was there when the shit went down to Grenada. I was there. I'm not trying to come off like that, but like, I raise that a lot because, like, people say all kinds of crazy stuff about January 6th. And, like, when I tell them, like, they're wrong. And they're like, well, how do you know?

It's like, well, because I was there, fucker. Like, that's how. But, um, and, and I, those people were gutsy, I think, a lot of them for, like, turning out in depth, you know, to exhibit their discontent, which was entirely well placed. But it was just, like, a lot of, like, fucking real goofs, man. And, like, guys doing dumb shit. You know, like, like, that. that freaking weirdo, like, who came himself up, like, brave heart, like, running around, like, like, an idiot.

Like, I saw a lot of, like, that kind of shit. And there's, like, goofy stuff like that, you know, like, on the MAGA right. So, I mean, there's, like, more than, like, a seed of potential. And they are in some real way, like, the air is to, like, you know, the Taft, Hamiltonian. And later, like, the, you know, the Wallace, Nixon, Reagan coalition. but it's problematic because America's problematic in terms of how politics breaks down

and that's my view of it. I'm not saying bad I'm not trashing mega people. I mean, most of my friends are positive or people like that. You know, I'm not, I'm not some snob. I mean, how can I be? So I don't want people to think

I'm like saying mean things about them. But yeah, that's my view. And I had a glance. I know you need to get out of here. Do plugs real quick and we'll do that. Yeah, thank you, Pete. You can find me on Twitter at Triskelyan Jihad. The T is a number seven.

But I think if you search for Thomas 777, I come up, I got kicked off at T-Gram for criticizing Mr. Zalinski, which is interesting. On T-Gram, there's guys who literally post, like, really gross, like pornography and, like, pictures of dead people, like really awful stuff. I mean, I don't have sound like some fucking shrinking violence. but I mean, I find I got to stuff upset it, you know, and like, I, but so that's okay,

but like if you trash, like, Selensky, like, you get like newt. So, I mean, hey, I, it's neither here nor there. We don't need T-Gram anymore because the censorship regime has, as, has been broken in some way, like enough that at least that we can get our message out. But, so I'm not on T-gram anymore. But in my substack, it's RealTomass 777.com. There's a chat in there. and if you're a subscriber,

you don't need to pay if you do need to subscribe to access to chat. And that's like where we've been congerating. And you can always like hit me up on email if you want to talk me direct. It might take me a weird to reply just because I get a lot of email.

It's Zartax, Z-A-R-T-A-X-7777-7-Mail.com. And yeah, that's all I got. Well, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot, man. Likewise, man. This is great. Thank you. One back to the Picanueno show.

Returning for part two on George Sorrell. It's Thomas 777. How are you doing, sir? I'm very well. Thanks, man. And like I indicated before we went live, there's been an overwhelmingly causative response to covering Sorrel. And our first episode on Sorrel, I mean, and that's fantastic, not because it gives my ego a boost, although frankly, it kind of does.

I'm not ashamed to say that, but the fact that people are engaging with Sorrel in a meaningful way is great. It's essential to understanding the 20th century and the trajectory of the political right and how European

political culture develop in fundamental ways. And you know, more and more what we do, I mean, it's important to educate our people in our faction, as it were anyway, but you know, major medea just is not taking these things up. The exception is a guy is like Paul Gottfried,

but, I mean, he's really on his own, you know, I mean, I mean, obviously, Godfrey's not, you know, one of us writ large, but he's a serious political theorist. But he's, you know, he's found in niche audience, kind of like E. Michael Jones has. But, you know, that my point being that what we're doing is really kind of filled a,

uh, it's satisfying at demand, you know, and the failure that demand exists in the first place, um, as a very positive tendency because that was not the case 20 years ago. But yeah, we, we can dive in,

um, we can dive in immediately, man. Um, all right. Well, yeah, here's something to start out with.

Um, what did, what did Sorrel consider himself? You're, you know, you read, this and definitely brings up syndicalism a lot. Definitely. And also, we know that he changed his mind on some things as his life progressed. So when you read Sorrell, when you read reflections on

violence, what is he? Airgrid. Operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash northwest. Inflation pushes up building costs, so it's important to review your home insurance cover to make sure you have the right cover for your needs. Under-insurance happens where there's a difference between the value of your cover and the cost of repairing damage or replacing contents.

It's a risk you can avoid. Review your home insurance policy regularly. For more, visit Understandinginsurance.i. forward slash under insurance. Brought to you by Insurance Ireland. How do you see the framework that he's personally writing it in? What I think of Surrey, I mean, that's a great question. What I think of Searle personally, I think is a pure,

I think he was a pure political theorist in a lot of ways. And that's one of the reasons, that's one of the things that distinguishes them from Marx. I mean, obviously, his ideological sympathies and his aesthetic tendencies were totally at odds of Marxism. But, you know, like we talked about before, you know, Marx had these pretension, Marx and Angles both in April measure. They had these pretensions to science, you know, or this idea that, you know, they were, they were, you know, they were positing theories of economics. And nothing of the store was underway. That's not my own conceptual bias. Like, there is no Marxist economics.

There's a Marxist sociology, and, yeah, it posits, you know, values and, and, um, and, uh, and observations about, you know, the human condition and how, and obviously, I mean, that's something fundamentally concerned with, particularly man and his relationship who's own labor. But that's, that's not a theory of economics. You know, it's a, it's a kind of political sociology that, uh, places a premium. on man as an economic actor, both separately and collectively, as his primary kind of function historically as well as anthropotically, but that's not an economic science, okay? But Sorrell, I mean, Sirel was very clear that he was dealing in pure political theory. Okay, he was talking about value creation.

You're talking about animates people, you know, to create political cultures, you know, and to live historically, you know, and fundamentally get certain of questions of identity with aesthetic, with value judgments kind of rendered by aesthetical tendencies, you know, the things, you know, kind of kind of distilled down. essence of human values, you know, things like heroism and like, what is heroism and in the political realm and things like that. You know, that's why the seminal text of Sorrell, if you want to understand this point I'm trying to make, and forgive me if I'm going to get a shot, is, you know, Sorrel's essay on the trial of Socrates and why Socrates does not only deserve to be executed in absolute moral terms, but he was imperative in political terms because people at Socrates, had brought horrible damage to Athens, you know, and really kind of destroyed the legacy of Pericles, as it were. And that's why Sorrell's favorite,

Sorrel's favorite pre-Socratic thinker is Enophon. I mean, that's a really complicated issue, and I'm not a guy who's an expert in the classics, but that, you know, that's fundamentally important. I mean, just for our purposes we're talking about here, It's prima, it's pretty efficient evidence that Sorrell did not pretend that he was, you know, that he was, that he was presenting some like new science of economics. And he was not pretending that, you know, he was like the heir to some kind of rationalist socialism that, uh, what was an improvement upon Marx or something. Like he, he was in a very, he was in a very real sense, philosophizing with a hammer.

and frankly he was concerned with a lot of the same with a lot of the same phenomenon that Nietzsche was but he was far more of a practical political theorist about it and he was driving different conclusions that had superficially sort of similar futures if that makes sense but I draw that distinction

or I make the comparison not accidentally or not because I'm trying to be funny, but like the other day online, like I was bombarding people who were mad at me because they thought that I was putting shade on their kind of Nietzschean sensibilities, and that's not really what I was doing. But people like us,

I think people can read whatever they want, okay? And I'm not like the grand librarian of philosophy or something. It's kind of authority that, like, tell people like, hey, man, you should, like, read this. but not that. But, you know, when people do approach me and say they're interested in understanding, you know, the 20th century, and they tell me that they're interested in understanding, you know, or is it developing kind of like a practical paradigm of political action,

you know, you should be reading stuff like Sorrell a lot more than you should be, you know, sitting around reading, you know, Zarathustra and, you know, genealogy of morals and things like that. But they, you know, I, and I try and steer people. I mean, even if people are just kind of like guiding the wall intellectuals, I mean, that's great, okay? I mean, there's nothing at all wrong with that. There's only just tempered by a kind of pragmatic grounding in the world. And it's not some kind of, you know, it's not some kind of psychological coping mechanism of retreat. But the, if, if one of the things that people that gravitate towards thinkers like Nietzsche

and some degree Heidegger, although they were very, they were very, very, is, you know, there was a real historical crisis that reached a zenith, you know, in late modernity. You know, the mid, really the mid-19th century, that's when it started to impact, like, regular people's individual lives. You know, and obviously, it reached a horrible zenith in the 20th century. I mean, I don't say that for the reasons what court historians do, obviously. I mean, I drew, I derived that observation for radically different reasons. But, you know, this can't be denied. And I try to expand people's conceptual horizons and make them see like, look,

Nietzsche was not the only, in each event, what a very powerful language that really resonates with people, especially, especially younger guys, which is fine. Young guys have great energy that we need. But I try and help steer people to the, the, fact that, you know, Neutral was not the only thinker concern with these things. There was many others who were, and there was many on the right who were, and there was many whose ideas

and philosophies held a far more kind of relevant practical relevance to, you know, the current dilemma. And that's kind of where Sorrell comes in, but I, he was, I, I look at Serrell's a pure political theorist and a, and a political sociologists at large, and he was fundamentally concerned with the economic, but, you know, that's,

everybody was, you know, like, the zeitgeist you exist in is like the zeitgeist you exist in, you know, you've got to, like, whether you want to or not, you've got to abide the epoch in which you're situated and the kind of conceptual realities, um, that are paramount, you know, and zeitgeist is a real thing. You know, you don't have to be a Higalian, you don't have to believe in God if but you can't deny that like the zeitgeist is a real thing I mean maybe you're maybe you come at it as like well you know it's just kind of a you know it's just like a function of mass psychology or whatever or you know people or like you're like epigenetic memory come uh basic structures of mind it's like okay it doesn't matter for our purposes like what causes zeitgeist to emerge but

there's a real thing you know um and like what's possible politically is very much bounded, like hemmed in by those parameters. You know, that's why lately, I mean, my big project right now is, is, is, is, you know, making progress on the Nureberg book transcript, and that's proceeding at pace. But I want to write about the DDR and the radical German left post-1945 and things like the Bader Meinhof gang, you know, more globally known as the Red Army faction. You know, like a lot of these people, and I realize this is a tangent, but I'll bring it back.

I want to know what this is top of. A lot of the people who were involved with that, they weren't, first of all, like, virtually none of them were racial minorities. Like, they were very much like German boys and girls, okay? And they were attracted to this, really, because that's what was possible within, you know, within the conceptual parameters of the Cold War. You know, and interestingly, Horstbauer, who was a self-identified, you know, a stalinist radical who became a lawyer,

and he defended a lot of the Bader Meinhoff people in court. You know, he, after the Berlin Wall came down, he joined the NPD, and he was actually arrested in prison for, quote, Holocaust denial, things. I mean, so he basically, and some people were like, oh, what a cynic this man is. I was like, no, I think there was always what his sympathies were. but, you know, he was a German guy from the east who was, you know, born in the 1940s. Like, what was he going to do? Like, marched around the course vessel.

Was he going to, you know, was he going to try and organize like a march on Rome in 1960? I mean, that's not the way the world was, you know, and it's not just a matter of practical potentialities. It's also, I mean, just what speaks to people, like what guys, potentialities within the political realm emerge, you know? So I want to write more about this, you know, and there's also, and that's one of the reasons, too, like I'm interested in guys like Johann von Weirrers. I mean, I'm interested in Islam for, and its impact on the political for all kinds of reasons.

But guys like him and guys like Ahmed Huber, it was like the same kind of thing, okay? Like, they were kind of unusual people and, you know, kind of like Orientalist adventurer types. But they very much, I mean, I'm not going to claim to know, like, what, I mean, I've never leave the Christian faith, okay, but I can't, I can only speculate in like what motivates people that convert to, like, what amounts to very alien religions. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans.

Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.4. Northwest. Inflation pushes up building costs, so it's important to review your home insurance cover to make sure you have the right cover for your needs. Under-insurance happens, where there's a difference between the value of your cover

and the cost of repairing damage or replacing contents. It's a risk you can avoid. Review your home insurance policy regularly. For more, visit understandinginsurance.i.e. forward slash underinsurance, brought to you by Insurance Ireland. I mean, for all I know, this was very genuine and some kind of spiritual calling. But I also, there was a negatively political aspect in the case of people like Von Lear's and Marler, and that owed what I just said. It owed the zeitgeist and it owed to questions of, you know, what is, what is possible, you know, within the conceptual parameters of the epa,

which was situated. I know that was long-winded, but it's frankly a big question. But, yeah, that's not just how I characterize Sorrell. That's why I believe he's, there's an enduring relevance there. and same for Werner Schombard and well if you want to we'll do a big episode on Werner Schombard

he was kind of like the other socialists of the right and he was German obviously and he wrote specific America and why socialism is not resonant in America which is fascinating and timely but that's that's my not so brief

answer to the question as to how I characterize Sorrel or categorize him Okay. I'm glad you brought up the zeitgeist because I think that operating in the zeitgeist, when your thought is firmly planted within the zeitgeist, you can make, you either make very realistic decisions or in my case, in the past, you have very fanciful decisions. and I want to read this passage right here, and it points to a lot of what I was talking about. And this is in part three of the chapter prejudices against violence. I just want to read this chapter. It says, the army is the clearest and most tangible of all possible manifestations of the state, and the one which is most firmly connected with its origins and traditions.

Syndicalists do not propose to reform the state, as the men of the 18th century did, they want to destroy it because they wish to realize the idea of Marx's that the socialist revolution ought not to culminate in the replacement of one governing minority by another minority. The syndicists outline their doctrine still more clearly when they give it a more ideological aspect and declare themselves anti-patriotic. Following the example of the Communist Manifesto, he actually goes on to say, it is impossible that there should be the slightest understanding between syndicalists and official socialists on this question. The latter, of course, talking about official socialists, speak of breaking up everything, but they attack men in power rather than power itself. They hope to possess the state forces, and they are aware that on the day when they control the government, they will have need of an army.

they will carry on foreign politics, and consequently they, in their turn, will have to praise the feeling of devotion to the fatherland. The reason I chose that passage is because it's very easy. I know a lot of the people in my orbit are anarchists. A lot of them call themselves right-wing anarchists. And it seems to me that the reason that anarchy can see. very appealing to a lot of people is because they don't see an answer in the zeitgeist for their morality, what they believe. And another thing, something that I wrote is it seems that moral superiority, when you have no solution to present dilemmas, leads you to become somebody

who politics becomes all about morality because it's very much. very easy to win a political argument if you're just if you just say well all war is immoral all taxation is immoral everything is immoral when you have no when there is no vision that you can see of overthrowing what is in power now where it seems like these anarchists and i'm including my former yourself are no different than these syndicalists who just want to destroy everything and will even resort to anti-patriotism and saying that power, it is possible to destroy power when you're basically moralizing against the sightguise that exists. Well, yeah, and I think in America, there's a conceptual problem here, too.

the reason why, you know, the anarchists who did crazy stuff, like attacking the Chicago Federal Building and just like literally blowing it up. And these guys like Sacco and Manzetti, like these Italian anarchists, to your point, we're very much like in bed with syndicalists, you know, like conceptually. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid,

is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electric. electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash northwest. Inflation pushes up building costs, so it's important to review your home insurance cover to make sure you have the right cover for your needs.

Under-insurance happens where there's a difference between the value of your cover and the cost of repairing damage or replacing contents. It's a risk you can avoid. Review your home insurance policy regularly. For more, visit Understandinginsurance.i. forward slash under-insurance, brought to you by Insurance Ireland.

In Europe that had, that was got, like, entergism, like had, within conceptual vocabulary of European socialism, like anarchism made sense, even if it was not a good idea. In America, I think there are like anarchists in America who actually, like, I think that, I think, I think they're, to your point,

indulging in flights of fantasy, but they do have a pretty deep understanding of the source material. But I think most people in America, gravitate towards it. Like when they think of anarchism, they're not really thinking of anarchism per se. They're thinking of kind of like a Habeasian ontology of, oh, well, naturally, there's no, there's no course of authority, you know, and all we need to do is, you know, kind of overcome this tendency to exploit others, and, you know, that the state of nature has no

government, which is nonsense. And also, too, people kind of associate all authority with like this new dealer bureaucracy committed to social engineering and all kinds of and all kinds of tyrannies like prosaic and profound

like screw with people's lives you know individually as well as collectively culturally socially and everything else like it's not some people develop this binary tendency they don't realize that there's various iterations of government and like government quad government

doesn't just equate to, you know, this, like, obsolete, like, Cold War Leviathan that we're kind of stuck with in America. You know, I... Governments neither good or bad, like, on its face. You know, I mean, it's... I'm always making the point to people that, you know, because, like, a lot of people know that I...

You know, I identify a lot with, you know, Confederate heritage and stuff, you know, for cultural and theological and, like, racial reasons. But as well as, you know, historical ones. And they're like, well, how can you also, like, admire the Prussian state? It's like, because there's a commonality there and that, you know, the regime that came into existence was appropriate for the people within its dominion, as well as, you know, the political challenges that were extant.

You know, like the Prussian regime was appropriate for Prussia. Like, you know, the Confederate Yeomanry, you know, which really were kind of like self-governing and in a classical sense. So as much as that was possible, you know, in the 19th century. I mean, that was appropriate for them. You know, it's not like there's like one, like, and it's not like there's like one modality of government that is appropriate or is categorically wrong.

I mean, obviously there's some things, there's some configurations of government that are just absolutely, like, terrible, okay? Like, unless there's some, like, weird internet guy, like, nobody would say that, like, you know, Democratic Campo Chia, like, had, like, this great regime, you know, like, a... Or something. But, you know, the, yeah, people can't just make these, like, categorically sweeping judgments. Like, the problem with regimes like that in America and, like, that, which has been imposed on Western Europe, is that it's, it's, I compare it to, like, you know, like, the old Ray Bradbury's story, Faradight 401.

Like, when I was in a high school, like, people still, like, read that, like, they'd assign it. And, you know, how, like, the fire department in Fair Night 401, they're going to be. guys who actually go out and start fires. Like the U.S. government is like a fire department that starts fires because like a governmentally drives its legitimacy from the degree to which it guarantees the posterity like all the people in their culture.

And if a government is quite literally working to annihilate those things I mean that's it's beyond like a dysfunctional government. It's abjectly perverse. You know what's that it's at cross purposes with the reason detrow of a government. I mean that's that's really what brought down the Soviet system.

You know, I mean, yeah, there was the planned economy doesn't work. You know, you can't abolish the incentive for creativity, we're at large. And they just say, like, well, we're going to, you know, we're just going to plan all economic activity and all. And you can't

like plan spontaneous innovation. Okay, that's ridiculous. You know, and obviously, like, it didn't, it didn't, it didn't deliver anything of real value to people other than some kind of basic security of material nature. Yeah, I mean, it really, like,

barebone sense, but that's not like why it had collapsed. There's dysfunctional governments that just like lurch on for centuries. You know, like the Ottoman Empire, okay? Like the Soviet regime fell because it was literally like this perverse iteration of

a regime that was literally a cross-purposes with what should be like the telos of government. If you're literally, like one of the things I agree with you Michael Jones on is if you're literally proceeding like, if you're literally proceeding against a reason, like, that's kind of like your course set, you know, you're like anti-reason, like that can't really sustain itself.

And eventually people are going to revolt against that. I mean, even if they don't understand really, like, what's wrong with the regime they're under and like philosophical or ethical or, or any kind of, you know, um, it like, you know, intellectual terms, just because it's, it's, it's going to, like, it's going to start, it's going to start committing obstacles, their ability to lead a normal life, you know, and, like,

do anything constructive. You know, and that's, that's kind of where we're at now. But, yeah, I, forgive me if that was long, the,

well, I think the, you would, you had talked about how understanding the zeitgeist is most important. So, if you were to take any

lessons from Sorrel in repairing what we have here. Okay. So we don't have a history of communism here. We have a history. We don't have a history of Roman Catholicism here. You know, we have a history of Protestant farmers, working men who basically can have a history of providing for themselves. So the, you know, You know, what is the answer? That's, you know, it's like a lot of the people I know, their answer is, well, we just have to get rid of the state. As we get rid of the state, then, you know, the, we can institute good economics, quote, economics, of course, that has never been tried. They just assume that it's going to be better. You know, people will be able to defend themselves.

Well, if we just get rid of gun laws, any gun law, then, you know, you. you know, violence can take care of itself because you can, if somebody comes at you, now you can have a bigger gun than them. I mean, not taking into account that people just, people with large families just put together their own armies, you know. And so what when you try to devise an answer to what we have now, I don't think that going backwards in time is what's going to solve it. It's going to be something new, but it's going to be something that involves a government of some sort.

And I think it's going to, I would assume it's going to be something that would be more of a classic right wing government if we're going to hold any of this together, unless, of course, it just breaks up and balkanizes. Well, there's some of the problems that take care of itself. There's not me being a Polyana or some kind of, or some kind of, I don't have some kind of like eschatology of, you know, how the government's going to all go down or something. But what's going to hit to my point about what I raised earlier about, or a minute ago, rather, about, you know, not being able to stay in a court that's literally at odds of the reason. I mean, there's a few things wrong with the government, okay? One of which is structural, you know, like we've talked about.

Like, regardless how you feel about like Roosevelt in history or the New Deal or whatever, like the regime that exists today is an anachronism. It's as much as the Soviet Union was in like a charioticot. Okay, because it's structured to do something that is, that is no longer extant. Okay?

I mean, it's structured to wage the Cold War, okay, and then that's about it. Um, and literally everything else is subservient to that, because even regimes are totally dysfunctional, even those that are populated by people, but don't have any meaningful understanding of

a, of, uh, of high politics conceptually. They're, like, bound by basic realities, okay? Like, going to the fact that, you know, their ability to act that they're hemmed in, um, by, by, by, by, by, by critical disincentives to, you know, to push up against that. Okay.

So everything was everything is subservient to high politics, okay? When, particularly when you have a strategic landscape like that of the Cold War. So, I mean, the regime just

it's, it's, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, solution, like in constant search of a problem to, you know, to rationalize its continued existence. So is that. There's also, there's also, So there's this radical faction that's, you know, really, really, I mean, the New Deal was when it was when it was able to assert itself politically in truly kind of concrete, organized capacities. So, I mean, for a century, we've had this kind of like lamprey wrapped around the structure of government, proverbially speaking.

that's that's that's that's actually trying to destroy the culture and the ability of the people who are the

you know within that culture live historically or to or to harbor any identities of a historical nature okay if

and that must that has to be excised how it's going to be size that depends on what develops, but the structural problem I was talking about about the obsolescence of the regime, that's going to take care of itself. And not in some punctuated

way. It's not going to be some like Mad Max scenario where everything blows up one day. It might take 250 years or something. But gradually, it's just not going to be able to assert itself anymore. And you're going to see localities you know, whether

whether it's some, you know, whether it's like some mid-sized city in New Mexico, Arizona, that, you know, can't rely on the federal garment, you know, to provide it with the water it needs and things like that and the infrastructural things it needs. So, you know, it's just going to have to find ways to, you know, to resort to self-help, you know, in Congress with, you know, like other states and municipalities that are similarly situated. or whether it's, you know, someplace like Chicago where, you know, you take this, you know,

you take like the west side, that's like increasingly just like kind of going to hell in a handbasket. You know, like the police increasingly you just kind of like just don't patrol anymore. You know, you're going to see more and more situations like that where, you know, people in true like ghettos like live like parallel, not intersecting lives with like bourgeois people.

And they don't even like really interfere with each other anymore. Okay. like, and then that's happening as we speak. Like, I see it. I'm not just, like, it's not some science fiction thing I came up with. So, like, things like that are kind of going to conspire, you know, just kind of like deprive the regime of credibility in hard power terms.

And that will, like, the radical culture distortion element within that regime. like on account of these kinds of structural frailties that are increasingly emergent it won't be able to impose its will on people anymore you know it's not going to be able to insinuate crazy ideas to the department of education you know it's not going to be able to you know transform like what were you know basically functional with kind of poor communities into like ghettos where like you know race wars are going on it's not going to be able to you know it's not it's not it's not going to be able to mobilize people uh you know to go to go to and annihilate, you know, other societies overseas that decides, you know, have to be destroyed. And that that's already happening to. You know, that's why increasingly there's this reliance on mercenaries and things like that. Um, so what, what will emerge from those proverbial ashes? Um, I believe once you strip away what I just talked about, um, and the core of America, you know, kind of like the white Christian core. And those people who are, you know, who are, you know,

who perhaps aren't, you know, like us ethnically or who don't like abide, you know, the same sex that we do. But we're my fellow travelers in terms of their ability to, you know, create and sustain culture. That kind of core, I think kind of like the core setting of America is like Hamilton versus Jefferson. And a lot of people object to that. And that it can be like oversimplified. But basically it's the Federalist versus an anti-federalist perspective. Okay. And you can see some states that tend towards the former and some towards the latter.

And that's going to cost tensions. But generally, it's not in anybody's interest, you know, to wage bloody civil wars. And I think by necessity, particularly as America, it becomes poor. You know, kind of pragmatism is going to carry the day, you know. But just in practical terms, you know, you're not. going to, you know, like 200 years from now, you know, if you do have, you know, the geographic division isn't going to be between, you know, like the old north and the old south, but there's going to be some of the same kind of tendencies that, you know, cause like a political and

and sociological clap between them. But you're not, you're not going to, you're not going to have this regime that's kind of got like endless, that's got kind of like a, that's got bottomless pockets, you know, and the ability just kind of like, you know, murder. You know, partial unprecedented productive capabilities to like wage war and dominate, you know, anybody it wants when they're caught. That's not going to exist anymore. You know,

it's not in the fact that that's really kind of self-defeating as a course to, you know, to unite the country in some sort of in some sort of unitary political culture or a single sovereign. I mean, that was possible in the war between the

states for kind of complicated reasons. But it's also, you know, the war with the state shouldn't happen in the first place. I mean, I don't want to throw this into a civil war discussion. But my point is, like, I'm not, there's not something like an inevitability that, you know, absent these kinds of alien elements that I just talked about, you know, who are literally attacking the body politic, and absent this kind of obsolescent and very corrupt regime, you know, morally and materially. It's kind of desperately trying to cling to power. I don't see Americans just kind of like going to the rifle to kill each other as a matter of first recourse. You know, generally these things can be resolved.

You know, it may be wrong, but I don't think I'm overly optimistic. I mean, I am like a, basically a gloomy angle six, and Calvin is kind of dude. I don't think anyone may accuse me of being some, like, optimist Pollyano, who says everything's going to be all right all the time. But I don't agree with guys like, Todd. Thomas Chittam, and he is a fascinating guy, and he wrote some great stuff in the 90s, and his like Civil War II paradigm, like he literally wrote a book called Civil War II, as I'm sure some of the fellows are familiar with. I mean, like, I'm an old guy, so I'm familiar with that.

I read it when I was like 16. But the kind of ethnic conflict he talks about, yeah, I don't doubt that that's very possible. And it's unfortunately in some places that's underway. Right. Even Pierce wrote Turner Diaries. Yeah. Pierce wrote the same. Everything.

A lot of that talk was in and around the militia movement of, you know, the late 80s and 90s that Clinton declared war on. Yeah. And the 90s were the 90s were wild times and mostly in good and bad ways, mostly bad ways. And yeah, that I do, I mean, don't get me wrong. Like, there's definitely, I can definitely see, you know, like 80 years now or whatever, you know, a place like Detroit or a place like West Side Chicago, you know, basically some like gangster warlords, like telling the cops, like, you're not the law here. Like, we're the law here. And like what we say goes and, you know, we're the Lord King and sovereign. And them being kind of like a periodic war with like Blackwater types who only to some interest for another, you know,

are being hired by, you know, either wealthy private agents or by the remains of, you know, the seat of sovereign government in the state. And, like, and going to war with these people in a localized ways or something. Where I can see, like, militia type guys, you know, pulling, like, what the Aryan nations did and saying, like, look, like, we're seceding because, you know, we're like, we're, like, the Aryan community of Christ. And if you're not white, you're not right. And if you're a fed, you're fucking dead. so, like, you're not going to, you know, you're not going to fuck with our, like, municipality. And the government just being, like, well, we're not going to, like, we're not going to fight some, like, endless war with these people.

We're not going to kill them all. So it's, like, leave them alone. Like, stuff like that, I definitely see happening. I don't see, like, you know, I don't, I don't see, you know, like, 30 years from now some kind of uprising, some kind of simultaneous uprising and kind of, like, the white underclass against, you know, the regime and, like, blacks against the man and, like, immigrants who, like, you know, want to create, like, you know, Osloan and, like, the Southwest.

I just don't see that happening. It's not likely. And Shittam was a dude born in the 40s, who was fordive experience was in Vietnam. And, I mean, I totally get that. And I got a lot of respect for dudes like that. You know, and I mean, that's my dad's generation, you know. And I got a huge respect for my dad and all of them guys.

I'm not saying, like, they got stupid ideas at all. What I'm saying is, like, their worldviews, like, everyone's colored by that. And I don't have a crystal ball. I'm not some kind of, like, auger, but I do think I'm pretty good at kind of discerning basic, the basic trajectory of political events, you know, like, in every basic sense, okay? I think that's why people read my content, frankly. You know, it's not because I'm a comedian or because I'm a great novel. but um you know i and yeah and plus two i'll turn it back you in a minute i'm sorry for rambling

but the you know frankly too and i mean i i recognize this because it's my culture and i i totally i i've got a problem acknowledging it there's a tendency to like apoc not just eschatological but like apocalyptic thinking in america you know and there's this idea that there's just going to there's always going to be a delusion and there's going to be there's just going to be uh you know um there's always going to be some like punctuated event that brings everything down. You know, there's going to be, you know, some kind of like mass, some like extinction level event. Honestly, that's like what underlies the global warming bullshit. It's like the weird old basic kind of like, it's kind of like the loser, basic, boogie version of that.

But, I mean, that's, that's why it's weird to hear like Europeans parody because it's not a European thing. That's like America thing, you know. But on our side, I mean, even intelligent guys and some ladies, you know, who don't as describe that kind of nonsense, and there's even kind of cogs of the tendency I talk about, like anthropologically, they still like, they've got this kind of like instinctive tendency to think in terms of, like,

punctuated equilibrium in historical events and like apocalyptic stuff. Like, oh, you know, just one day everything's going to come down or there's going to be a race war or like infrastructure is just going to go belly up and we're not going to have clean water. Like, it's not going to happen.

You know, it's going to be a death by a thousand cuts. And it's going to be, like it's going to be a couple hundred years like America's going to exist in some form or another for a couple hundred years yet you know even even if it's just like in even if even if even if two hundred years now it's just like in name only

kind of like last days the Holy Roman Empire or something but it's it's going to exist in some sense and there's going to be a guy who's identified as present in the United States like what kind of cloud he has what kind of ability he has you know raise an army I mean

that's that's a different question but I firmly believe that. But yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. I mean to monopolize the conversation. I want everyone to know that this ad break is personal to me because soon as I found out about crowd health, I became a member.

We know the insurance model's broken. With crowd health, you can see any doctor you want, no deductibles, exclusions, or co-pays. You just pay the first $500 of any health care event and the crowd health community takes care of the rest. You don't have to worry about exclusive doctor networks, huge premiums or high deductibles. There are no surprises. You get peace of mind that no insurance company concerns itself with.

Take charge of your health care today with crowd health. Open enrollment is the only time you can hit eject on the broken system without penalty, so don't wait. And for a limited time, join for just $99 per month for the first six months when you use promo code Pete Q at Join CrowdHealth.com. Open enrollment ends January 15th, so sign up today before it's too late. That's join crowdhealth.com promo code Pete Q. CrowdHealth is not health insurance. It's a totally different way of paying for health care. Terms and conditions may apply. Then we can start, we can start an argument on when the Roman Empire started to fall.

I mean, some people will say, yeah, what's, you know, what's, you know, what's, you're going to start an argument. You know, with Caesar and somebody, you know, with the first Caesar. But, okay, well, here's something I wanted to bring up. So this book actually talks about violence. It has violence in the title. Yeah. But he also talks about social change. He also talks about political change.

And from everything you've just said is the change that would happen in our culture, where we were born, where, you know, where we are. I don't think any of us are, most of us aren't planning on going anywhere else, is going to be social and is going to be political. Because that's where, sure, if you go back to the war between the states, the war of northern aggression, then you can talk about violence and you can talk about an invasion of a foreign land. But really, what started to bring down what we have now was social and political. And it was by, you mentioned the term culture distortion in Boking Yaki and invoking Spengler. That's what has to be won back. And I really think, and people are probably sick of hearing me say this over and over again, that that's going to have to start at the most local level.

And probably the most local level is in the home and then spreading out to community and going forward like that, like that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, definitely. And that's one of the things, I mean, that's a Sorrelliian point, too. You know, one of the reasons he was hung up on xenophon and one of the reasons why, you know, he talked about, you know, the home being kind of like the school of command, you know, where, where, like, the patriarch, you know, learns how to, you know, how to rule over his wife and children in a firm way, but in an equitable way. You know, that's how, that's how, that's where women learn, you know, how to, like, relate to men and stuff and, like, hold down the household.

And women do that, you know, believe that. you know, it's not some conceit that's very true. So I don't like people being down at females. That's where kids like learn, you know, how to grow up into adult men and women, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, you know, what is it just in the parameters of obedience, like, within, within, you know, within that kind of justice paradigm of command and obedience. Um, and that's why, you know, uh, this kind of concrete engagement with, uh, with, with, uh,

like what we consider the body politic. I mean, it's through Alzheimer now. I mean, uh, the body politic in Athens consisted of, of like, every, like,

had a household, you know, and, uh, some of these men were rich and some of them were not so rich, but, you know, they all went to war together.

They all tilled the soil together. You know, they all, they all participated in the assembly together. Like this idea of, um, you know, hyper-specialization and dividing people into,

like, you know, basically needlessly dividing. dividing people's functions within the same kind of cast that's that's a recipe for self-destruction among other things because that's

throughout's point is like well then you're this basically parasitic cast of politicians who even if they themselves aren't wealthy by birth you know they they basically become like the clients of wealthy patrons and aside memory else is wrong with it like these guys don't work they don't do anything you know they're like this

weird leisure class that by nature is kind of decadence, you know, that develops resentments of the Yalemanry and vice versa. And in turn, they're dependent upon these kinds of intellectuals and financiers, who in Sorrell's view, like, have more, are, like, in bed together, like, proverbially. You know, and they, and, you know, these guys view themselves as, you know, they've, they've got their own kind of, like, resentment and fear of, like, the Yale menry or the proletariat, like, in Sorrel's epoch, you know, but they themselves were as per seattle. as like the political cast

and just as and just as prone to intrigues you know because their their situation is always tenuous you know because they're they're they're by definition they're parasitic you know they they rely

upon the willingness of of the two other factions they just identified to not just tolerate them but to sustain them and everything else aside like even if you had a totally like homodry this population, even if at least

nominally there was some kind of common culture and common religion, like civil religion and like ethics in common, that there's still like create all kinds of weird pathologies. And it would institutionalize social divisions in ways that not that not just are counterproductive

to like a virtuous society but just in practical terms. You don't institutionalize social divisions for its own sake because some kind of endless conversation and endless argument and endless contention is some marvelous thing from which we all benefit. That was Carl Schmitz's point

about parliamentarism and why it's dysfunctional. Like on his face, there's something very ethical about it. I don't mean to insinuate these kinds of psychological terms into the discussion, but I can't think of a better way to describe it. Because it is, it's,

it's a maladaptive conceit of human minds that preve these things. It's not like, practical, it's not things that exist in kind of political reality that we just come upon and have to like address. These things are very much cultivated

and created and it's very artificial. You know what I mean? You see this today. I mean, even there's, you know, like even if you took away the culture distortion aspect, like, look at like this infotainment garbage. Its job basically is the kind of like

is a manufacturer, like wedge issues to like make people upset about. you know like this isn't stuff that's like emergent within people within people's actual lives or if this isn't stuff that you know people would

identify as as as being something that you know warning their attention and some like ontological capacity it's like literally just like confagulated you know because people are like you know even in the best of times you know like common people

or you know deal with a lot of uncertainty and like anxiety uh derived they're in, you know, that's kind of formless, you know, something that's just kind of human condition. You know, when they're plugged into, figuratively and literally, like, plugged into some kind of media organ 20 or seven, you know, one of the things that satisfies,

or what, like, the needs that fulfills, like, psychologically and to help them cope with things is, like, giving form to these kinds of amorphous, like, negative feelings and anxieties. And so it's kind of like a, these people kind of like perfectly situated to be you know like manipulated by um a uh sort of idle like parasite political cast who's only real role is to kind of is it kind of create like you know institutionalized um grievance structures if that makes any sense and i mean obviously high tech and like you know media like changes all that i mean even like radio even before tv

like visual media was a huge game changer um but But even like radio, like the ability just like literally brought, being able to broadcast any capacity, like, coast to coast or like across the European continent, you know, from like Paris to like Prague. Like that was a game changer, you know, for the reasons I just stated. And that that's one of the reasons why, I mean, people ask like why it's kind of like faux democracy or it's kind of like institutionalized or this kind of like institutional. grievance

structure, I just identified. Like, why it seems to, like, axiomatically coexist with, you know, like, the modern, like, Madriel State. Well, I mean, the answer is media. I mean, I don't mean, it's not a reductionist, but I, I think I've, I think I've invoked the quote before

from National Board Killers. I really like National Border Killers. It's a really dope movie. And I try and turn people on to it, because it's not just, like, gross Quentin Turntino stuff or, like, Oliverstone, like, preachy stuff. It's really, really insightful, and it's really subversive in some ways.

But the guy who's, like, the Stark Weather, like, Dillinger character, you know, Woody Harrelson, when he's talking, like, the media guy, he's like, you know, he's like, he's, like, media's like the weather, but it's man-made weather. Is this thing you're immersed in? And you don't even, you don't even, like, notice it. I find myself, like, not really noticing it. I mean, I discern, like, what's on people's minds and kind of, like, you're, like, with something like the Floyd craziness,

George Floyd craziness was jumping off. I obviously like discern this is what people are thinking about. But it's like, I don't even like, I don't even always like detect immediately. They're like, well, that's the narrative that's being created by what, you know, the media they're immersed in because it's like take it for granted. You know, and it's, and speaking of zeitgeist, the, you know, like the day-a-day, like the day-day fixations of people, like within that, like, brought a paradigm.

Like that, that comes 100% from media. I mean, it plays upon, like, things, like, intrinsic to mind, you know, like, symbolically and, and things really the impulse and appetite and stuff and symbols that are kind of universally resonant in, like, most basic terms. But in terms of, like, the actual narrative, like, the concrete particulars, like, of those narratives and of, like, those symbols and, like, what form they take. Those totems, rather, like, that's 100% created by, by architects of media. I mean, that sounds conspiratorial to people, whatever. I mean, I'm making a sociological observation. It's not, it's not conspiratorial. No.

Yeah, you understand. Yeah, this is part two, but when I released part one, the next episode I did after that was me and my friend Buck, reading the engineering consent by Bernays. And he wrote that in propaganda, he wrote in 20 and 21, but he wrote this in 47 and he's already radios in every house. TVs are starting to go in every house. And he basically says news is what we say it is.

Yeah. No, that's, yeah. So that's the. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was going to say. So 200 years ago, you had 10-year-olds that could run a farm. And they, you had a farm that people could survive.

on. Then you have the industrial revolution. And now everyone has, everyone is just comfortable enough that they won't revolt. But they also have this engineering. And I was going to bring this back to what I was reading earlier is when you read about these syndicalists, how they want to destroy anything that's anti-patriotic. Well, in the process of destroying anything that's anti-patriotic, you have to destroy family. You have to destroy family. You have to destroy. people's religion. And that's exactly what the culture distortors that we, you know, that we've talked about set out to do. And it's not a conspiracy theory. They wrote, you know, Bernays wrote about, about propaganda. And that's why you have to have, that's why the internet is the blessing

and curse it is, because it puts out propaganda, but you can also destroy that propaganda within minutes in real time. But you're basically dealing with culture distorders who are like, okay, if we are going to have the kind of power over the people that we want, if we are going to be the managers over these people, we have to do everything we can to destroy this. And it seems like that is something clearly out of the syndicalist, the communist playbook. And even to people that I know who are the, you know, some of the great, you know, they believe they're fighting for freedom and liberty for the individual, don't realize that they're basically on the same side as the syndicalists who want to destroy every bit of hierarchy. And as soon as you destroy

hierarchy, you are, where we, where we are now, you're in managerialism. Well, yeah, like I said, the problem is that there's a counter. hierarchy that is at cross purposes with virtue and logos that's the problem the problem isn't that you know there these distinctions exist in the first place in structural

terms I mean in legitimate ways and like organic ways that occur spontaneously there's also the syndicalists who were on the right and some of these guys like a lot of these guys that actually far really are in Spain on the right I mean you know against the reds

but they and you found this with the ROM faction to you know in the Reich there's a there's a type of man who like really holds a communist and contempt

not just for the kind of more obvious reasons but because communism really it just promises it's kind of like Tilaric utopia and it doesn't just like rob kind of you know our living environment and our conceptual space of anything beautiful, edifying, or pool, frankly, if you'll forgive the kind of

colloquialism. But it also, at the end of the day, it's not really heroic, because it's just saying, essentially, well, you know, technology is going to usher in this kind of garden of Eden of of, like, productive surplus. You know, we're all going to have, like, all the cargo we want, and, you know, we can, like, ease as much as we want and, like, sit around as much as we want, and it's going to be great. You know, and the cynical is, you know, part of the reverence for violence and kind of like their relationship to Sorrell is like, no, the problem of communism is that it's just as decadence as that is, you know, the, as the, as the, as the, as the, as the, as the, as the, as the, as the, you know, and the function of violence is that, you know, it forces man to be engaged with mortality and with, you know, at least potentially heroic action and, like, a date of a sense, you know, now that can go too far and you get, like, gangster-ass dudes as well as cycle past, as well as some guys who were just kind of like angry and misguided for various reasons. You know, they take that to mean like, well, they're just kind of like an endless marsh

to like burn things to the fuck down and like fuck people up. And like the most kind of pure iteration of that right now is like ISIS or whatever ISIS is like morphing in new currently. Okay. You know, what you have done is you have like a bunch of Mongols. Okay. I mean, and that's not, I mean, there's all kinds of reasons why that's not. I'm sure some guys are going to take to comment.

comments I mean like a pussy or something. It's like, okay, whatever. But I don't think, I don't think some kind of like endless, like, you know, Mongol rampage against things we don't like is, is the way forward. But that is like a real tenancy, man. And that's why violence does need to be tempered with reason. And I think, and, and Sorrell does not, like, abandoned reason or something. Like, that's why he's not, he's not, he's not, not, he's not, not, not only is he not an Ichian, but he's not some, he was not some, like, anti-rationalist, uh, you know,

uh, like Foucault of the right or something at all. You know, I mean, that's why, uh, his issue with, uh, you know, his issue with Socrates is that, like, sovereign's, like, wasn't certain reason. You know, rationalism is in Logos. You know, it's, it's something entirely different. You know, that's why I, like I said,

I'm not an expert at all in the pre-Sopratics. I sure as hell I can't read. Greek or anything like that. But I do think I've got a pretty decent understanding of Sorrell, and knowing to Sorrel, and knowing to Hyder, like, I read a, you know, I read the fragment of Erichlitis that

I mean, that do exist. You know, I spent a lot of time with xenophon, and there's nothing anarchic about what Sorrel posits in like a cloquial sense. You know, I mean, yeah, there's, he pertains with some of the same

some of the same intellectual heritage as like actual Capital A. Anarchus did in his epoch, but he's not... He was not at all a guy like Ron. He was not at all a guy who, you know, he's not at all some, like, criminally minded, strange person or some kind of a furious outlier who, you know, just,

uh, just, just identify, like, a path to, like, revolutionary action. And that's the way people like to mischaracterize him. I mean, Cyril's probably, uh, he's, esoteric, like his whole body of work is, but those that do actually have a deep understanding of

20th century European intellectual foundations, they will very directly attack Sorrell, and paint him as like what I just said. Like, oh, this guy was like, you know, he was, you know, he was some Ernst Rahm type psychopath, but without the,

without the medals and the war record and the body count. And it's not, and that's a deliberate slander. I think it's not what was at all. You know, it, uh, so that's why there's an, there's an enduring value to, uh, Sirel, not just to the political soldier, I guess that's what I'm getting at. I even argue, um, like, kind of hypermoderist and worldly and, like, secularist

as Sirel was, I say that guys like the Iron Guard and Kodriano, who probably had like more in common with Sarel and what he identified as, uh, I mean, the kind of Eastern mysticism that, you know, the Romanian Orthodox guys were into. Like, obviously, Sarrell would have, like, no use for that, but in terms of, like, within their own kind of cultural paradigm, like, what they were trying to accomplish, like, that, Searle probably would have, like, looked approvingly on that more than any kind of, you know, inner war, like,

you know, radical right movement, at least I think so. You know, it's, and that's why I was in Spain, like, didn't have They didn't go anywhere. Like they, I mean, like I said, those guys had guts, and they had heart, and they fought really hard. And I think their sacrifice should be honored. But, I mean, there's a reason why, there's a reason why kind of like the dullard-cadillo-Franko, this kind of like reactionary, like, crook, like, won out. You know what I mean? It's not, it certainly wasn't because of, like, his charisma or, like, his great mind or something.

It was because cynicalism, even if it is tempered by a basic decency. like in moral terms, it isn't just kind of this like orgeistic, you know, had like orgeistic cathartic violence or something. It does, it does not like lay a foundation for sustainable structures or for like a new kind of like dialectic

that's going to, you know, build something in its stead. I guess that was a point. We're coming up in the hour here, man. Yeah. Yeah. Let me get one more. Yeah, yeah.

One more question. Yeah, all right. So when it comes to violence, do you think the aversion to violence in the United States, is that because of our political heritage, our Protestant heritage? Do you think it's because of the culture distortors coming in and basically making it verboten? Or is it a combination of both? Is it the culture distortors using our Protestant heritage against us? America's got a very perverse

Relays to violence And I think about something Ernst Younger Kind of got into And stuff like You know And some of it's like later And some of it's like

Quascience fiction novels Had a lot more social commentary Like America's a place When the one of the people claim Like they hate violence But they get all excited The idea of like People being sexually tortured in prison

You know Like until recently It was you know An identified you know quote, human right to infanticide. Like, there's this mass homicide machine in the Pentagon that just constantly

murders thousands of people for the most like ambiguous reasons. You know, like, as it's currently doing to Russia. And people, people, like, cheer that on. Like, it's just like, not only, like, they don't just tolerate it, like, they get excited about it. But then they'll turn around and say that, like, you know, violence is the most horrible thing

we can imagine. They, you know, they, but they don't really believe that. they've actually got no real respect for human life. But because they don't, it's a kind of, it's a kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of milk-cove diversion to actual sovereign decisionism. Like, couple of a couple of a couple of like unmanly, like,

content for human life where, you know, that kind of identifies, you know, living things as commodities to be exploited just like everything else. I mean, that's the way I read it. But it's also, too, like an ethical terms, the way people, the way these, like,

the way these, like, like, post-war liberals, like John Rawls, they're really the eras like Jeremy Bentham. And, like, Bentham, you know, the Enlightenment liberals, and De Maestro was always, the people with Demiastro was always savaging correctly. I mean, they, their whole their utopia is a pointless society

you know like we talked about before like it's the ideology of a nursing home or like the luxurious prison it's a place like nothing ever happens you know there's no value creation there's no culture there's no passion there's no love there's no hate it's like where people like exist

like fornicate or perhaps masturbate more properly you know like defecate and like and and and uh and eat and sleep and like that's it's this wonderful utopia because like, you know, nothing bad happened, nothing, quote-called bad happens. I think it's, I think it's the intellectual poverty of the Enlightenment Project, you know,

coupled with it basically kind of seemed like, like agent senility in terms of, in terms of the, you know, the dominant bourgeoisie cultural strain, like, dominant in terms of its ability to, like, impose its view upon, like, the culture as a whole. and yeah and obviously it's you know kind of like the culture distorts it's a primary objective of there is the you know to kind of like defang

like the people identify as like they're mortal like enemies you know and one way to do that is the is the kind of you know condition people against the own quote unquote violence or like you know condition to do a tolerance for like all kinds of horrible stuff but you know

to you know to you know to condition them away from the ability to like apply violence constructive or in a political capacity. It's a complicated issue, but it's all those things. But it without those conceits, though, like rationalism, like rationalism can't abide anything

that doesn't have some like utilitarian very basically explicable purpose, like within its own kind of self-referencing paradigm. So, like, why would you care about anything enough to be violent? You know, like, why would you care about redemptive action? Like, why would you care about, you know, like writing it justice? Like, why would you care about, you know,

heroism like why would you care about like you know uh mass one honor like none of those things matter because they don't have some kind of utilitarian end that like helps us shit more efficiently or like eat more food or something yeah they make the excuse that um we have no problem with violence as long as it's in it's in self-defense and then they get to define what self-defense is well yeah it's like it's like a 250 pound like linebacker like be the crap out of some like 80 year old lady while screaming she's trying to kill me like that's what america is you know well and that's definitely that's definitely what the culture distortors are well but it's like what it like you the this idea like vlander putin is is like a deranged

maniacs he doesn't want people pointing hypersonic missiles at moscow at range of 300 miles i mean it's like like america deployed in something like 170 bases across the world whatever if Russia deploys on its border, it's like, this is like a deranged act of aggression. I mean, it's like, there's, it's one part of, like, delusion and senility on the part of, you know, on the part of these clowns in government, uh, since 1992.

But part of it is, I mean, people are, yeah, people are actually, I think a lot of people, like, in, in these kinds of managerial cadres, they really are, like, obtuse and fucking stupid and, like, morally illiterate. Like, they really believe that. like how dare you not let me punch you in the face over and over again? Like, it's I didn't realize that for a long time and then I realized like these people

really are, they're creptous. They're like moral creans and they're just, like, a lot of it's like fucking stupid. Like you're not acting. Like Joe Biden. Like Biden's like, they're not acting. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Biden really is a fucking moron. Like aside from his,

aside from whatever like organic that mention issues that they may not have, like the guy's a fucking idiots. you know, like, like, Nancy Pelosi, he's like a subnormal fucking moron. You know, like, they're, with very rare exceptions, they're all like that. You know, and it's, um, there's outliers, but they, you know, they were kind of only in the game. Like, I got, like, Ray and Paul's only in a game, because that's, like, literally become kind of like a family business. I'm not, like, fucking shade on Rand Paul.

He's about the only, like, he's about the only career with Paul who I, I like, I like, I like, I, I like, I, I like, at all these days. But my point is, like, I think, had he had another kind of, like, path to clout and money, I don't think he'd be hanging around Washington. I just don't. I mean, that's all other beginning to talk. The sociology of the managerial state,

like, when there's not, there's some grand historical project, the merit of that project, notwithstanding, you know, whether it's World War II, or whether it's the Cold War, like, you know, I mean, the point before, like, Elon Musk 40 years ago, he'd be like Jerry Pornel. He would have been, you know, heading up some hack and, like, working hand and glove with the DoD on, like, SDI and stuff like that. But, like, guys like him, like, they don't want anything to do with garment these days.

Why would they? Like, that's a repository of, like, losers and, like, weirdos, frankly. You know what I mean? That doesn't matter. Like how people are. He's definitely smart. He's smart enough to take their money, though. oh yeah yeah yeah yeah but i mean it's part of the game you know it's like i i get man of people putting

shit on elons there's something that seems like loserish about it i mean the dude is he's an africotter a billionaire who's a genius innovator and he he he's he's one of the only people who's talking about truly foscian things you know like the congress of space which is probably what people tell you actually is important on its own terms um so there's something like loserish about people like to decide and they hate Elon Musk. But he, but yeah, I mean, the role he's in, not just to his wealth, but because of, like, how that wealth is kind of insinuated into

things of touching concern, you know, like, like, you know, technology that, um, at scale,

you know, the, the, the regime's relying upon. I mean, he's going to be, like, a political actor,

okay, but it, um, but the reason why, like, he doesn't cop it, like, formal office.

So the reason why he's not, you know, engaged in, like, think tank stuff is because yeah that end of the Cold War brought an end of the ability of the regime to attract

men such as he to their environs yeah well let's uh if you want to do a free unsur know that'd be great man it's so up to you and then we'll after that we'll we'll get back to the Cold War series and take up uh

a Vietnam era like what the next episode will do whichever you want like either of those yeah I was thinking about jumping back into the Cold War I kind of like that. And then coming back into this, because I think a lot of it will cross over. I think we'll have,

we'll actually even generate content for the next Sorrell talk, especially with what we're going to talk about in the next couple, in the next few Cold War episodes. No, that would be great, man. Yeah, there's a lot, there's a lot, there's a lot to,

there's a lot there's a lot there's a lot there's a lot there, that dovetails not just with my research on this. on this Nuremberg international international jurisprudence manuscript I'm working on but it uh like Vietnam's

important in ways that not unlike World War II is important understanding the current regime. I mean not it's like a founding mythology obviously nothing like that but it changed things in all kinds of ways and that really was like the hot battlefield of the cold

war and all kinds of like militarily politically culturally changed things and we'll get into all of that but my point is like it's not just some it's not just like a question of trivia or some or some that's like interesting to talk about like you know it might be to talk about kind of like you know the you know some kind of like long forgotten you know war wage by the British Empire or something

like it remains truly important is my point All right. Two plugs. Someone get out of here. Yeah. You can still find me on Twitter. I mean, they screw with me a lot, but I don't think they're going to ban me again. I think those days are over. I mean, if they did, well, I'm launching a YouTube channel just in a few days here after the first week in January.

And I'll make sure everybody knows what to find it. It's Thomas TV. You'll be able to find it. But I'll plug it on Twitter. I'll plug it on Substack. I'll make sure people can find it My Twitter is at Triskelian Jihad

The first T is 7 If you search for Thomas 7777 I think you'll find it But you can find me on substack At Real Thomas 7777.com I bet cancelled from Tgram which is a shit company in my opinion

I was a paid subscriber and a You don't mind you they welcome garbage Like a hardcore pornography and like really disgusting like bore stuff but it's run by some Zionist crud who like and apparently like the crime

of like criticizing Somali of the Earl's also known as Ukraine as like a cancelable offense so I've got no use for that I wish people would there's plenty of other chat options popping up

including at substack itself you can join my substack chat for free it's a lot more user-friendly than T-Gram. They don't censor anybody, and we've got total control of it because it's incident to my T-gram account, my Sub-Tac account. And Sub-

You need to have the Sub-Stack app installed on your phone in order to get notifications for it. Yeah, but it's dope. And so far, Sub-Sag has never ever done anything that censoring any of my content. And frankly,

people like us generate a hell of a lot of revenue for them. And I think they realize which side their bread is buttered on, as it were. So I don't think that's going to change. But please migrate to Substack. I'm done with Tigram. I'm not going to pay money to people who cancel me. I'm not going to utilize a platform where people abuse me. And I've gotten really disgusting and awful communications from these Ukrainian sickos and, like, other people, man.

Like there's it just really gross stuff I mean like I I cannot I don't know you know Play murder or something But this idea that like well Tgram kind of sucks but you know It's good for other things

It's not a good platform man And it's it's a repository of Malware Spyware it's always fucked up like the user interface It's a bot it's bot hell Yeah man it's a shit hole And I don't know why people are like so attached to it It's like what are you getting out of this But whatever

So yeah there's no more I will never return there. But yeah, forgive the rant. But that's, after you can find me, my second novel, which is the second Steelstorm novel, is going to drop in January. I hope you were asking about that, but, you know, that's all I got for known. And thank you very much, everybody, for all the kind feedback. This will be the first episode of the new year. Oh, yeah.

Thank everybody for this previous year. It's been absolutely amazing. And just to say about Substack, Substack will be the only place that someone like you or me will ever get a checkmark. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I remember I logged on and I looked at my,

I looked at one of my posts and there was a checkmark next to my name. And I'm like, that's weird. Yeah. No, it's in some ways, the market is a corrective, and we make a lot of money for those people, man. They make money because of us. I mean, they're not, they're not,

I mean, that really is their bread and butter. I mean, it's not a platform that draws advertising revenue, really. I mean, yeah, so they, I'm a huge fan of Substack, man. I really am. So, yeah, please dip into the substack chat. It's, I mean, they see, like, the core of guys, and a few ladies, and we appreciate them being among us, too. it's basically like the T-Gram mob

like basically migrated there but there's still some like holdouts and I don't know if they're fucking massacist or what it's like what the freaking T-Gram man it's bad for you it's bad for you but yeah I can't thank you enough man and I'm really stoked that people have been so excited about this series and

yeah we'll get into the we'll get into Vietnam War next episode and then we'll get back to Sorrell and reflections on violence so important Appreciate it, Thomas. Thank you.