The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1387: A Right-Wing Hegelian Talk - Pt 3 - w/ Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson and Thomas777

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

61 MinutesPG-13Dr Johnson and Thomas join Pete to continue a discussion on what Right-Wing Hegelianism is, and how it applies to the present day.Hegel's (1807) Phenomenology of Spirit: An Introduction to Hegel's Social Ontology by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonHegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: The Rational Structure of Experience, Logos and the Nation  by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonWhat Did Hegel Mean by “Dialectics?” - by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonDr Johnson's PatreonDr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71RusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonThomas' SubstackThomas777 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.

With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into the episode, along with other ads that, frankly, I'm not going to like and you aren't going to like. So please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do. I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted, but it is another way for me to generate income. So I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If you don't want to deal with them, go to the Picanuena Show.com. can subscribe through Patreon. You can subscribe through Substack, which is my preferred one. Because with both of those, you get an RSS feed, only Patreon and only Substack give you an RSS feed. There's also a link to my website, Gumroad, and SubscribeStar, where you will get

the audio files that you can download and listen to or you can stream in most cases through those locations as well. So if you want to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show, If not, just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me. Skip by them. Do what you need to do. I appreciate all of you. Head on over to the Pekignona Show.com. You can get the show early and ad free over there.

If not, here's a show. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekino show. All right. I think I listened back to the episode, the last episode. Seems like we left off basically talking about left-wing Higalians, talking about Marxists, talking about just basically what their worldview is and how horrific it is and how anti-human it is. So wherever you guys want to pick up from that, I'll leave it up to you. It's just, you know, Karl Marx and Feuerbach, they used Hegelian terminology because Hegel was by far the dominant philosopher of the day.

he was as revolutionary as Kant was he gave Kant content and that content was the nation so that's what that was a huge difference you know rejecting of course being for the Dingan Sij

completely as many the German idealists did after after him I read I looked back at some of my older interviews going way back with something's called the Antipodian Hour. I don't even remember

it. But the guy, the host, thought that Hegel was a Jew, that he was a communist, that he was, that was taken for granted. Of course, I never read him. And I was on the show

specifically to deal with that issue. And he was good. I mean, I convinced him, you know. But, Yeah, you know, Marx can't be put into action unless you have someone like Lenin. And certainly, like Trotsky. So, you know, Marx might sound paper, but, you know, dialectics, well, we always think in those terms.

It's just that we don't necessarily put it that way. Darwin was a great teacher of Karl Marx more than anybody else. Yeah, I mean, dialectal materialism kind of starts with Newton, I think, because there's a subject to hostility to what was up until then, you know, the conventional understanding of knowledge and reality. You know, and this idea that man is centrally situated in the historical process and is the driving engine of that process. You know, there's really not anywhere to start from other than to kind of bastardize what is well-established intellectual convention and just sort of appropriate it and turn it into this strange sort of press humanism. So I think that's part of it. But also, there's something, there's an internal logic to, I mean, Redust Capital. I mean, I can't say for certain because I'm not an expert on Marx and angles.

But the implication is that people like Hegel and people like Kant and people like Hume and basically every modern philosopher, you know, well, they were perceiving a phenomena that was true. But they, you know, they were falling back on these conceptual biases, you know, and these horizons that had been. super structurally imposed, you know, over, uh, over, uh, you know, what, what amount of do a, a process that was driven by the paradigm of labor and capital and, you know, imperatives that served those variables. So, um, I think that would be the answer that, that true dynamical Marxist and proffer as to why what he's promulgating is basically a bastardized Hegelianism. I'd say, well, no, you know, Hegel was misinterpreting a, you know, the historical process by resort to these, you know, fantastical things relating to God and,

you know, in their view, mysticism and stuff like that. You know, like I have, like I said, I'm not an excerpt, but I have read a lot of Marxist epilogia, and that's the impression I go. I certainly will put my knowledge of Marx up against anybody. I had no choice in grad school and afterwards. And although he was a terrible writer, he's someone to, it's important to know, because he's one of these guys that gets quoted all the time or gets mentioned all the time, but very rarely read. And what he actually believed versus what we impute to him.

And, you know, the old Patriot Movement, that Protestant Patriot Movement all thinks that Hegel taught Marx and Marx was, you know, Hegel was therefore some proto-Marxism. And when you read Marx's critique of the philosophy of right, you realize that that's, you know, when Hegel died, Marx was 13 years old. So this is, it was not possible. Feuerbach was Marx's main teacher, along with Moses has.

but anyone who talks about spirit and now he has numerous ways he uses the word can't possibly be, I mean he's alienated in Marx's definition of the term but when you read the critique of the philosophy of right he can't handle the fact that you have a non-revolutionary way for classes

to live together and work together now I don't think Karl Marx ever believed in absolute equality nowhere does he ever say anything like that no right but the system you see it in the phenomenology as well as

philosophy of right and his lectures and stuff like that the concept this development from family as we talked about last time family civil society the state and in between civil society in the state were the guilds.

That's not something that Karl Marx can handle very well. Now, some of Marx's claims were not without merit. I mean, you know, that they seem to come out of nowhere, you know, happen to be a guild, you know, kind of a national socialist, a guild national socialist, so to speak.

It's one way to describe me, which is why Hegel was just so interesting to me. But he lays it out in a systematic way that no one else has ever done. You know, Herder didn't do that. Trichke never did that. None of these guys did that. And,

you know, Bruno Bauer, another one of these weirdo left-wing Higalians. You know, yes, Hegel did believe in God. He did believe in God's presence on Earth. He did believe in Providence. And what academics tried to do

is take, I think I mentioned this as well, but it's still it's worth repeating is um they use words like community rather than the nation and it drives me up a wall um i have an i think i think it's one of the one of the papers that i sent that you posted um reconciliation of our reason to the world around us no you live in a poisonous hole what are you talking about that's not what he's talking about he has a he has a very specific way, you know, when someone is too big for these guys to ignore, like Dostoevsky, for example, or Google or someone like that, they have to turn him into a liberal one way or another. Oh, by the way, you know, I said that approaching Hegel, you have to start with the secondary

source. I went through this again. This is a sociality of reason, Terry Pinkard. This is my favorite book on the topic. It's the most accessible. he's an idiot and everything else but that's what really got me through and I've read it so many times got me through the phenomenology and the logic and everything else

so if anyone's looking for those secondary sources other than my own Terry Pinkard is the way to go but he also is one of these guys that secularizes Hegel and refuses to use words like nation or ethnos

Yeah, there's a dishonest vocabulary that's very deliberately insinuated. The thing about Marx, too, and something he was correct about, a lot of his sociological observations, just pointing out were dubious, but there was others that were insightful.

Of course, those observations are passed off as some sort of science, which is ridiculous, but nevertheless, the people, in America, I don't think people, it's not entirely deliberate. People in academia, they don't really understand what Marx is talking about within his class conflict paradigm. He wasn't talking about class in the way that it existed in pre-modern European political life. I mean, that's the whole point.

one of the reasons the internal contradictions of late capitalism are going to bring it down in the Marxian view is because you have entire categories of people who go from being very, very wealthy to being totally impoverished within two generations and there's not any posterity to the structure, which means that even the vestigial incentives, that existed well into the 19th century by the time of Marx and its contemporaries

were evaporating and I that's another thing too I think people don't understand the paradigmatic aspect of the bourgeoisie being at war with you know, the the aristocracy, which they have brought down. And, you know, they haven't replaced the traditional aristocracy and the Marxian paradigm. They've annihilated it.

You know, and they're on as much of an inimical footing against them as they are the proletariat and vice versa. So, like, that's why, I made the point the other day on social media, because some goof was invoking this kind of boilerplate half understood Marx's talking points. You know, it's really weird for Americans to talk about class. Like, there's some sort of class system in America. I mean, that's bizarre in its own terms, but it's especially weird to talk about it in a kind of, you know, as if there's some kind of value-added manufacturing account. that exists here based on a national economics model. And there's a sort of enmity between, you know, labor and management. I mean, really the last time that they had any arguably the, you know,

around the time Reagan took the oath of office, you could say that there was, that was kind of like the last gasp of that tendency. But I'd say it was dead even before then. You know, people talk, people like to talk about. Reagan shit canning the air traffic controllers and refusing to

come to the table in a you know in a traditional sort of capacity has it been the order of the day since after the new deal

but I mean for all practical purposes the air traffic controllers are a public sector union and that's not the same at all you know so I mean I think it was dead anyway but it's just there's a genuine

I mean part of it is too there used to be people used to cycle in and out of the university system you have guys like Kissinger or McNamara or guys who worked for you know procter and gamble or Ford Motor Company or you know IBM who'd go teach at a Harvard business school for semester you know and then you had you had people like one foot in the real world

um you know and then that that gave way to these kinds of people who never left academia and sort of became the gatekeepers of it. And they've been out of the game for so long. They're still falling back on 1960s talking points. And

this is just, this is kind of like perpetuates itself because it's really, I mean, don't get me wrong. There's like, independent, there's guys like Emmanuel Wallerstein, like we're talking about who have their shit together. Yeah, he's worth reading. I agree. Yeah, he understands globalism. Obviously, I don't agree with his perspective on

and his ethical claims, but he structurally, he understands globalism and what the post-industrial economy looks like and what the global financial system, how it's configured. But he's the exception. Most of these people, they're just dummies. They have no idea. You know, and talking about, talking about the working class in 2026 is just fucking goofy. It doesn't make any, like who, you know, working class doesn't mean people with jobs or, guys who go to work. It has a very discreet meaning and it hasn't existed in decades. The society that Karl Marx was making reference to, you really never left the library. I mean, it was Engels who owned a factory. You know, no longer exists. The real tragedy is that people who realize that we live under an oligarchy or increasingly thanks to Black Rock, the monopoly, well, who's

against this? Well, there's only one man Karl Marx. And that's something that Bakunin mentioned in the 19th century. And he explicitly said, as the leader of the anarchists in the First International, he says, it's because you have Rothschild's

given you money. You're a contradiction. You're a walking contradiction. And when Hague, sorry, when Mark threw him out, this is in Paul Johnson's book intellectuals, if I'm not mistaken. When Karl Marx threw him out, he was enraged, red-faced. There was anybody who would expose something like that or say something like that or come up against him like that.

But beyond that, you're talking to today's so-called Marxists. They have no conception of the ruling class. They don't know what the regime is. They live in their own world. I've dealt with them, you know, it's been a while. In grad school, I dealt with them. They were friends of mine. You know, so we could actually have rational conversations.

They really believed that the working class was, I'm sorry, that the ruling class was conservative and religious. And they used that to control the population. And I say, you know, they see. They could see that's not true. Oh, and they're racist, of course, despising black people. You can see on the TV screen that that's not true. Well, yeah, well, it's also, I mean, yeah, I mean, obviously it's not true, but also if if there was this cadre of these reactionary, you know, white Protestants who are massively bigoted, I mean, there'd be, there'd be nothing much stopping them from doing, you know, from deciding they want to, like, ethnically cleanse blacks.

so that's what they wanted to do. Like what's supposedly stopping this, what's supposedly stopping this, you know, Gentile reactionary, bigoted white ruling classroom, like who's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to pass things like the Civil Rights Act and placate,

uh, this, like, like 12% of the population. That's kind of this lump in element. You know, like it's not, that can never be explained.

You know, but then people fall back on something like, oh, it's just more profitable to lock, blacks in prison. It's like, but you just said that like these people are a bunch of like crazed racist and all they care about is, you know, oppressing people or whatever. Like there's nothing there's nothing, there's nothing that'd be stopping them from say like, you know, like wiping out huge swaths of population in categorical terms. But somehow they decide not to do that. But it's not

because of, yeah, you know, and I, right. I'm sorry. No, no, you're fine. Um, also, I don't, something I realized is that people have a hard time, with the exception of people who truly understand political economy, and there's guys who work in high

finance, who they might not understand the theoretical foundations of the subject matter, but they understand how money works in terms of its velocity and its liquidity and things and how it's utilized in political affairs and now markets impact

and the manipulation of markets impact political events but most people don't understand economics it's kind of this weird category that you either grasp or you don't and you know I that's a that's a major aspect

of it too and I don't I don't think economics has necessarily gotten more complicated but I think it's gotten a lot more abstract you know and and Schump would have

about that. He had a different take than Spangler. In some ways, in Schumpeter's view, and they were very different kinds of thinkers, but in so many Schumpeter's views were much at odds with the Spanglerian view of economic life and things.

But, you know, the primacy of money in, you know, at global scale, you know, Schumperer made the point that, you know, basic the basic parameters of national economics and global economics subsequently it becomes less and less intelligible to not just the common man but even

people who are you know relatively insinuated within the system in a way that gives them perspective that you know others wouldn't have and I think that's a real thing because just the way just the way people talk about money it's clear to me they don't really understand it and um you know they don't they don't understand the difference between an economy based on high finance and and usurious uh instruments and an economy based on evaluated manufacturing they're a lot different and um in the way that uh policy impacts these things and you know the the transition from America being a hub of vertically integrated,

valuated manufacturers to being essentially, you know, the center of finance capital and not much else. You know, they don't understand the implications of that and how that, and how that changes things. And the simple fact... Yeah, I'll go ahead. The simple fact that your typical

so-called democratic socialist today, which doesn't make any sense, socialism is democracy in their mind. The big problem is that they refuse and can't talk about Jews. That's part of it. I mean, I know this is a very, you know, blunt point to make, but

very non-Higlian, but Higelian, but Higel had no interest in them either. part of the reason for the corporations in the state was to control that element. But talking about, you know, though wealthy or the 1%, and not talking about Jews, is absurd. I've always used the example of claiming to be a specialist in Tibet and not knowing anything about Buddhism. It's absolutely impossible. And they simply cannot. and to a great extent many of these socialists are Jewish themselves.

But let me, if you don't mind, let me bring it back to Hegel just a little bit. I was thinking before we came on the air, actually I was mowing the lawn. And I was thinking, how can I summarize, and it's relevant to what we're talking about too, Hegel's way of thinking, you know, like you said,

I always overestimate the knowledge of my I think I have my audience is pretty solid but I you know the public ignorance is extraordinary but it comes down to the concept of spirit and this is why Marx despise them so much

spirit is the ground of everything it's the ground of the ethical order the realm of laws and customs that is to say, of course, ultimately the nation. You can't talk about laws and customs without a nation language. That is a part of natural law inherent to the human mind. We interpret them individually, but always within the communal consensus. That's as far as I'm willing to go there.

Spirit is Hegel's term usually used to denote the collective consciousness of a society, a nation seen of subjective that they realize they are part of the community it's one thing to objectively be a part of a nation like most whites in America they have no subject objectively they are

subjectively they have no connection with it has to be both you have to both be objectively a nation as well as subjectively you have to realize it The communal dimension of consciousness is expressed in ethnic culture. And in the original, in the German, he does talk about that.

We've mentioned this before. And it's only partly expressed in physical forms. The spirit is located neither in objects. But it's also not necessarily located in the mind. It's almost platonic. It's almost the non-material realm of forms, the immaterial fullness of the immaterial fullness of people. And, you know, self-awareness or self-consciousness, you can't get any harder core Hegel than this. The fact that we are aware and we can perceive ourselves,

it comes into existence because the world isn't just objects. It also has other people. We can reflect on our own thinking and action, but we also have to be. to be aware that others can do the same. Nothing exists in isolation. There is no vacuum anywhere. Human beings are totally communal. Could never be anything else. And we've mentioned this already, the struggle of recognition. The abstract struggles to opposing tendencies arising in and from self-consciousness. The first moment when the self and the other meet making self-consciousness

possible. Whenever that actually happens, you realize you're not the only person on the planet. And any claim that you make, any demand that you have has to be recognized by other. And also, that where you're conscious

that the other, it's a perceiver, not just another thing. Otherness and pure self-consciousness are not, are mutually opposed moments. I know we, you know, I always thought that the master slave stuff with Hegel, I never quite grasped it. He uses these weird metaphors in the middle of the phenomenonology,

going through master slaves, skeptic, stoic, et cetera. And I guess he's sort of talking about actual historical development. I think he is. Then sometimes I think, sometimes I think he's talking about individuals. development. I mean, it's both. And communal development. But, I mean, the, the original, I mean, such that class paradigms do exist.

I mean, they, they are a real thing. They've largely ceased to exist in the new world. I mean, if, I mean, the master's slave dichotomy and the interdependence between those two aspects of a human social organization that is the first relationship

you know like we talked about I mean that slavery precedes written language you know that's why it's that that's why it's bizarre to single out not slavery qua slavery but only

American slavery and the enslavement of blacks who are a a tiny minority of people who were enslaved in planetary terms and acting like this is this bizarre and unique evil that is first among evils that I mean that really I mean yeah like man is fallen and man is depraved you know and obviously but this idea that you know chattel slavery is this this unconscionable evil and that's really strange That's a really strange account. And I mean, just the fact of, just the fact that that was the original paradigmatic class relationship means that it's sort of the starting point of political sociology. You know, and that would also suggest, I mean,

it's hard-coded into human beings, and to your point, there's no such thing as a discrete individual and ontological terms. So man's first experience of, you know, the social aspect of political life is the master slave paradigm. Well, I mean, that would suggest that it's really the foundation of his political consciousness. And, you know, that I think particularly in continental philosophy, you know, like I said, I raised Ernst Younger the other week, because I think Younger is a lot more of a developed thinker than Nietzsche in a lot of ways, which is a minority take. But, you know, the Younger's, like, Younger had an idea, like, Younger deposited the equivalent of the right-wing equivalent of New Soviet Man, you know, which was the person of the Anarch.

And the Anarch is neither a master nor a slave. you know that this he's the complete realization of of of higher development within an erion derived culture you know because he's totally transcended that paradigm and he doesn't require it to produce culture and to engage in the process of value creation because he's just totally transcended it and that's a revolutionary prospect because even like what we're really talking about what really is the enduring and perennial dynamic between human populations at scale is a master's slave paradigm, even though it emerges under different guises

and there's no longer slavery in the conventional sense, but that's really what we're talking about. We're talking about race relations. We're talking about the tension between the global south and the inability of, the inability of

you know, the developed world after 1945 to deal with these populations. They're no longer able to abide a master cast role. So they do totally dysfunctional things. Like they're locked blacks in prison en masse

or they decide they're going to try and socially engineer what they've received as these pathologies out of colored people or they're going to pretend that they're going to try and deliberately dumb down, you know, the ruling element, you know, even if it is like in an affected capacity, they try and generate an appearance of homogeneity.

Like, that's where all these pathologies derived from, I think. And so, yeah, it's a very, it's a very concrete thing. Well, the very fact. Yeah, go ahead, buddy. The very fact that man's first reaction, and this is quite abstract for him, to the encounter with the other is to kill him. You know, there's this Hobbesian thing that eventually they have to cooperate with a victor

and then there's a loser. I mean, that seems to be the origin here. To dominate them, to render them harmless. And yeah, I use, when I write, I usually have enslaved in quotes for that very reason that you said. I include even things like employees there. any any

subordination it's just a very you know it's a very odd way to to be he could have made the same point in a million other ways but Hegel's nuts so but domination seems to be built into the fallen

human mind as a way of assimilating the world to ourselves that stage that early stage which never quite leaves many of us. The mind sees the other, and that's abstract in

Hegelstant, as an object, never a subject. This is what Kant was going on about. The fact that another man is free and rational, which are two sides of the same coin, makes him a man, makes him a human being, hence deserving of respect. Now, that's a big statement because I'm not so sure. I don't know what percentage

of actual functional human beings are both free and rational. That's a lot of work. Well, yeah, I mean, most people aren't, and that that doesn't mean most people are natural slaves, but a substantial percentage are. I don't know. I don't people don't like talking that way in America.

I mean, they're on the right. They're like, oh, you know, who's a natural slave? It's like, well, I don't know, man. like look around you look at the sort of relationships people call like entire populations cultivate at scale you know they there's a slim minority of people who are not at all comfortable taking orders you know not only to some kind of vanity or some sort of misplaced self-importance you know they're there's not people suited to that role and there's a if not a raw majority,

there's a sizable plurality of people where all they are coded to do is take orders. And in the absence... Don Adams talked about that. Yeah, in the absence of that, in the absence of that dynamic, it's like they were crazy.

You know, they don't know what to do. Or they totally deteriorate and self-destruct. Or, you know, they yeah i mean well like look at the look at the perverse way that you know these uh look at the perverse way that the left

uh like like the true believers among these people you know not not the ones manipulating the psychological environment look like look at the way they talk about the regime and the police and stuff it's not i want to kill you because you know like because i'm sparticast and i'm trying to break out of this dynamic it's you know you're not treating me well you're not you're not you're not abiding

your obligation as master you know you're not you're not educating me and caring for me as you should you're being a poor father like that's what they're saying i never thought about it that way before yeah well that's nobody thinks that way of natural slaves you know oh i i do i'm not i who's word slave, but I understand coming straight from our second president, John Adams. I mean, the relationship of somebody like you or me to the police, I just wanted to leave me the fuck alone

and I I find them upsetting and potentially dangerous. I look at them like, what a wild animal or something. I don't look at them as like, I need you to solve my problems, and if you don't do it right, you know, you're not, you're not treating me

the way you should be treating one of your charges. you know, it's like fascinating if you've ever, if you've ever, like, been around, like, black folks and the way they relate to the cops and stuff. Because, like, you see it. You know, and, like, the cops talk to them, like, they're little kids, but that's, like, what they respond to and kind. You know, and, I mean, to be fair, there are, like, white lumpins who are like that, too. That's right. But, you know, you can't tell me this is just something that they've all been brainwashed into abiding, okay? I mean, like, it's not, I mean, that's just one very old, I don't know his example, but that's the reason why, you know, if you try to develop, I mean, cultivate a majority in consensus of, hey, the state as structured is obsolete, people aren't going to understand what you're talking about.

Not just because intellectually, you don't fully grasp it, you know, and its parameters of, you know, what we're talking about. and sort of the way power is configured. But they also, they can't imagine they're not being this sort of tangible and familiar, relatively concrete and conceptual terms, authority apparatus that sort of organizes, that they can organize their existence around. You know, they require that in some basic way. You know, so, like, that doesn't mean that, um, that that doesn't mean that that can perennially sustain an obsolescent structure of sovereign authority because it can't.

But it can absolutely preserve its lifespan beyond what would be its natural expiration date. I mean, you're seeing that happen right now. You know, I'm always, I'm always saying I put the regime as structured. It's actively ceasing to exist, but it's going to be probably 200 years before. that fully come to fruition but absent that variable of the body politic and it's

psychological aspects you know they would probably be more like 50 years you know but it's been in the here because you can't redact you can't factor out the psychological makeup of the body politic from historical analyses

but this is an important point and natural slavery is real it's not it's not just some conceit of Aristotle that was then picked up by a much of haughty aristocrats or something yeah go ahead let me jump in there let me jump in there um building off what you said there thomas um that the state is this basically this state is obsolete it's become an anachronism um would would hegel say that if someone who was trying to save it was doing everything they could to keep it propped up and even may even know better would be for lack of a better term in sin by doing so i mean probably not i mean you probably wouldn't characterize it that way it's

he would probably say that uh or he probably suggests that you know the the efforts of show up those obsolescent forms would in turn provoke a reaction that would then lead to this restructuring of you know sovereign authority which would in turn

you know through the cunning of reason and possibly civil war at greater or lesser scale resolve with you know a new but at the same unfamiliar form that would be able to command the loyalty or a

at least an adequate plurality of the body politic. You know, I mean, that basically would happen during the French Revolution and, like, most like a bloody way imaginable. You know what I mean? That's the most extreme example. It's also why it's the case in point, you know? And look at what that resolved and ultimately was what we'd think of as kind of the pure Westphalian state

for about a century and a half but you know what what did it lead to like the anarchy of the reign of terror it literally led to like the emergence of some god emperor you know

and ironically a lot of guys who'd bend Jacobins once everything went to hell I mean they became the most they became arch loyalists of Emperor Napoleon you know I mean

there you go. I think it speaks for itself. It's not that's not something anachronism or some odd outlier. The concept of aristocracy is was taken for granted when this when the United States was founded, it was understood that maybe 3% of the population would be able to vote. I think that was I think that three or four percent. There's those of the people who were free. They were economically free. They were you know low, we call low level aristocrats, they have the time to study things, to understand things. And there weren't

that many people. So they would, in their districts, they would elect one every two years, another one. And that's what representation meant. It's, I don't know where someone, someone told the world that everyone has to know what politics is. The notion that everyone, voting. I mean, I don't vote as a matter of principle. But I remember Michelle Obama going on saying they're voting, you don't need to know anything. You just, you just should do it as a civic duty. You should be punished. Australia or New Zealand punishes you for not voting.

Somewhere down there. You know, and as if this isn't a highly technical field. Of course. it's also they... Biblical science and Bucal Fon. Yeah, it's bizarre. It's a bizarre conceit. Well, it's also

too, this idea that people having different roles in human existence, like, somehow somehow suggests like greater or lesser value. Like, something people don't seem to understand. They've got this idea that the world of

1789 was just like now, but there wasn't the internet and vacuum cleaner or something. So everybody was like, we won't let women vote because they're bad and stupid. But in reality, it's like, well, you know, there's a slim minority of men who decide things like war and peace questions. And they're the ones who are going to die, you know, in event of a race or a idiot. We talked about that before. Or, yeah, or they're going to be.

Or like if they're going to be blamed if things go wrong, you know, that's why the responsibility falls on them. Like this idea that, oh, if I'm not voting, I'm not good enough. Like, that's the way, like, a mentally retarded five-year-old would think about things. Exactly, exactly. And don't insult retarded five-year-olds, please. Yeah. But. Well, of course, I understand either that, you know, it was, you know,

Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships. Which then led to like a bloodbath. It wasn't some like random middle-aged fat guy who like made that happen. Like obviously women play a fundamentally important role in these existential affairs. But yeah, this this is this fetish for voting like makes, I don't understand. I honestly don't understand it. You know, the idea that I'm a bad person for not proffering a mandate to a regime, even if it's not a Biden, its obligations and is behaving

immorally or illegally. I mean, that's preposterous beyond belief. Well, Hegel mentions the French Revolution more than once in his philosophy of rent. And it comes from the idea of what is purely negative. It's a misunderstanding of freedom.

It's the American conception of freedom. That I could do whatever I want so long as it doesn't impose too badly anyone else. It doesn't give you anything to do with that freedom. And I'm telling the world that most people have no idea what to do with the freedom given to them. In fact, this freedom is awful. When the existentialist came around, still part of the Hegelian 19th century,

they realized that we make choices based on almost zero information, and yet we're 100% responsible for it. Sir Nicholas II saw his office Like all all Zars did Many monarchs did As when it was Talk about absolute monarchy

With none of it was absolute responsibility Anything that happened It was their fault Even if technically it wasn't And of course Their enemies made A lot out of that But yeah

I mean who the hell wants that job I mean that's Yeah Right people who want power shouldn't be given power yeah people have this idea that being the czar or being the

or being the emperor the Kaiser of the German Reich or the Holy Roman Emperor they have this idea that it's like some cross being like Hugh Hefner and Elon Musk like in reality it's awful you know it's a tremendous I mean there's you

you you accomplish that sort of immortality through your lineage that most common men don't but the tradeoff is is pretty brutal and absolutely

yeah your life is going to be rather loveless this is when it comes to voting and everything else um power is not something that any normal person should should seek

um it's almost a pathological mentality that wants yeah that's why these like bizarre losers like like piggy Bill Clinton or um you know these these um

you know, sociopaths, you know, like Trump, uh, who are, are in love with, um, the limelight, despite having no understanding of, yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, that was, look, when, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy back in, I guess it was 15, 2015, I was surprised. I mean, I grew up, you know, being from New Jersey, I grew up with, with him all the time, you know, the boxing matches and everything else.

He never uttered a political word in his entire life. I thought it was weird I thought it was weird when he that he reappeared in the 2000s you know like I you know when he became like Mr. Reality TV I'm like this guy I'm like Donald Trump that goof from the 80s

like this dude still around like I but yeah I mean I think it was kind of the absence there was a weak field of competition you know what I mean despite despite regime media said like a lump of dog shit

could carry a general election against Mrs. Clinton you know who was literally the most hated political figure of the last hundred years I mean it was an odd convergence of circumstances and you know but yeah I thought I thought Trump

I mean even notwithstanding is his sentence of the Oval Office I thought it was odd that he was able to stage a comeback in the 2000s but what do I know? Yeah, I agree. But not saying anything political, and now he at least on paper is in charge of making very, very complex foreign policy decisions, worried me a little bit.

He went into this claiming to clean. I'm going to clean house. And Nixon did the same thing. I think that was Nixon's phrase, in fact. Nixon knew Nixon was an intellectual. He knew far more. Donald Trump didn't know what he was getting into. He didn't realize how bad things were and what the media can do to somebody. I've never come across a media assault against a man as they've done to him. Ever since he mentioned something very mild about limiting illegal immigration.

I think I remember right. Sears was the first corporation to say something way, way back. And then I looked it up and I realized so much of the elite American economy is based on, or at least dependent upon illegal immigration. Oh, yeah, yeah. They need people. Yeah. No, in Trump's case, the full spectrum assault against Trump, I mean, Trump's a cipher.

Trump, the guy is not important. The fact that, you know, speaking in Nixon, the fact that the silent majority, which is really the Wallace coalition, the fact that they reemerged and mobilized and were able to have a dispositive effect on the outcome of a national political contest, that's why the interparty decided they had to annihilate Trump or try to. You know, Trump the guy, Trump the guy doesn't believe in anything. you know, Trump, the guy would, uh, he'd, uh, he'd stick his head in a fucking urinal if he thought that it would get him clout, you know, like he doesn't, you know, he's not, he's not right wing or he, right. I mean, yeah, I think Trump probably does think that, you know, there is like an emergency on the southern border because like, everybody thinks that, you know, like it, despite what

Zionist media claims, like this doesn't some controversial far out opinion that that's just I don't think it was not a fucking idiot thing but I don't think Trump is like I don't think and I think he's basically like a Zionist

like I think he's not just mouthing platitudes he actually really does think Israel is some of the great country but other than that I don't think he he has like a political worldview that's at all develop

up they're consistent well yeah I know go ahead when I think of that kind of the opposite of that I think of Assad

in Syria. Yeah, so I was a man. So was his father. He's a doctor, of course, ophthalmologist in, and it was it in Britain, I think. Yeah.

It was only because his brother, Basil, was killed in the car accident that he did, he talk. Yeah, he was a reluctant, he was a reluctant president. And yeah, and lo and behold, he ended up forced

into the role of warlord. No, Assad Asad, his whole family are, they're a great Than kind of power. That's why I always respected the man very much. No, Syrians are great people. Well, also, of course, too, America literally sided with Al-Qaeda against a secular

al-a-white who had an ecumenical disposition. That whole... That's literally insane. Like that America literally changed sides in the war on terror. That's never happened before. I've written on that as you know, up and down.

That's not just politics making a strange. It's a neighbor of Israel who was this close to first world status. No, Syria was a highly developed country. But also too, they you know, a lot of national

socialists help build modern Syria. That's another reason why they were slated for annihilation, but it's literally unprecedented what America did there. That would be like if in 74 Ford said, you know, we're relying with Hanoy now and we're going to back the North Vietnamese army. And everybody struggled to say like, okay, that's cool. Like some guy, I got banned with some guy. There's like this Gwatt vet bro. He's like, yeah, you know, I deployed to Iraq. And then to Syria, I'm like, he's like, you know, I joined up after 9-11. I'm like, okay, so, Did it strike you as weird that you were fighting on behalf of al-Qaeda in Syria?

He didn't answer me. He just like nuked me. Did we lose Doc J? Yeah, I think he's gone. He's going to, he'll probably come back in. He's had some, when we were recording recently, we've had some connection issues. No, I remember from last week. Yeah, okay.

Yeah. But the last time we were, we recorded, um, the ill. lean book on resist evil by force we lost him for the uh his like internet went out in the last 10 minutes so was it sucks here he comes there he goes we'll have him back in and uh finish this up he's waiting on him yeah i'm i'm i'm i'm way out i'm in the middle of fucking nowhere than he is and i'm not i don't have problems welcome dick welcome back. Thank you. This is, it's, it's been very recent. Um, anyway, hopefully it, it sticks. Whatever causes this, this nonsense. Well, worried about the 50, we're in about the 50.

I think the last thing, I didn't hear a lot of what you heard. It's okay. I was just kind of ranting about things that make me upset. Yeah, if you, if you had anything you wanted to close with, I have a few four minute mark. A couple things to say. sure go ahead how about this again I'm always thinking of how do I because I had to teach this to students many times

how do you teach Hegel to you know sophomores without sounding you know so I think of the dialectical form of thought it brings Hegel to argue that reason involves a self-conscious individual struggling to assimilate things around him

while also having to fend off other cells seen as a threat. It's like Descartes, I think, therefore I am, is ridiculous because this is an isolated person. This is the one thing that you can't deny. But all aspects of this, well, who are you? Where did you come from?

Are you self-sustaining? Someone gave birth to you? All those questions make a mockery of that. Reason in in Hegel's world brings consciousness to fit particular phenomenon

into categories. But there's always a certain amount of uncertainty because things exist within a spectum of variations. The phenomenology, the argument is that the self-gains self-consciousness as an autonomous agent only by interacting with

other autonomous agents. But that takes a long time. And ultimately, and you know, Critics, especially Jewish critics of Hegel claim that he is a precursor of the Third Reich, and I agree. Yeah, I don't, I agree. The system of the, you know, social nationalism is found in everything he does.

In Hegel's, you know, he rejected the state of nature nonsense. Social relationships are inherent to the mind. No man could exist without society for the same reason that a fact. can't exist without a logical structure that makes it a fact. We fight against others. We soon realize just how dependent we are on each other. Fighting might be an expression of someone's autonomy, but it can't last. Since first, it can't achieve mutual recognition.

And second, if you want to build something, you can't, it's not going to last. Yeah, that's affirmative. you know and this is this is where the even that again will fall apart as we've talked about before and he goes to this other very eccentric system soicism skepticism and all the rest of it but these failed ideologies itself comes to realize that adequate recognition can only be achieved within an institutionalized order of rights that secures genuinely mutual recognition. That's the national culture.

It has to be. Yeah, exactly. What else could it be? You have to speak the same language. You have to have the same basic moral code. Generally speaking, you have to have the same religion. At least successful nations have generally been built around. This idea can be factored out is ridiculous, and it's anti-human, and it's, it's anti-reason.

Yeah, that goes out to say, definitely. So that's what they'll say. You know, and Terry Pinker being one of them, an institutionalized order. He'll say anything, rather than say the nation or the, more, the ethnos taking physical form. Yeah, I mean, they did the same thing with Thickda

and with Nijs and with Schopenhauer. Everybody's, everybody's like some, everybody's like some gay Jewish liberal. that's why without naming any names that's why these guys who think these guys do think

that there's like something worthwhile to like extrapolate from Strauss I got their fucking head up their ass but um I don't mean to be abrupt I gotta raise up I need to lie down man

my symptoms are really bothering me today I'm sorry I'm sorry to hear that I know it's just because it's gonna rain I'm not playing murder I just didn't want to seem rude like yeah yeah but yeah this is great man we can other than um yeah Friday night I got dinner plans

one of the one of our comrades going to visit me but beyond that the rest of this week my time within reason belongs to me so if we guys want to reconvene anytime that's great or uh you know if you want to hold off till next week or whatever the week after it's fine too just let me know I'm easy yeah no problem I will uh link to link all of your links in the show notes and make sure people go over and support both Thomas and Dr. Johnson, please. Boy, howdy. Thank you, fellas. All right. Yeah, I'll, uh, I mean, we were talking to again, my friend. But yeah, I'll be in touch with you guys soon. All right, stay in the room until everything uploads. Yeah, I will. Thanks. Bye.