The Pete Quiñones Show - Reading Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance' w/ Aaron from Timeline Earth - Complete

Episode Date: October 4, 2025

2 Hours and 37 MinutesPG-13Here is the complete audio of Pete and Aaron from Timeline Earth reading Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance.'Timeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

ESB transformed how the country powered itself once. And now we're doing it again. Working with businesses all across Ireland, helping them reduce their energy costs, reach their sustainability goals, and future-proof their operations. Because this is not just for us. It's for future us.

To find out more, contact our Smart Energy Services team at ESB.aE forward slash Smart Energy. 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 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers.

Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Arland Limited, subject to lending criteria, Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading is Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cagnone show. And welcome back, Aaron.

What's up? Nice for having me. Yeah, yeah. Always a pleasure. Always a pleasure. Here to do a reading. And I don't know, this may take, this will definitely take two. This could take three.

So people can be patient. with us as you're a very busy man to get you back on and do more of this. But this is an essay kind of popular. A lot of people, even people on the left push, a lot of people on the left pushed this essay, but a lot of people who like left the left, or say the left left them. And then they start coming over to the center more or less. Oh, you have to read repressive tolerance by Herbert Marcos. So what do you know?

know about him? I know that very little other than that he was a he was a Frankfurt school guy. Now big in the big in the 60s, leftist thinker, kind of a post-Marxist, didn't wasn't, wasn't too into the scientific socialism like I am, but more of the socialist humanism. And, you know, just different focuses, but focused a lot on culture and praxis. And, um, you know, just different focuses. But, uh, focused a lot on culture and praxis. And, you know, I did a little background on this essay and him. And it's one of those things that I think it's perfect that we're having this episode because I love peering into the enemy's plan book and seeing what we can, seeing what we

can use. Yep. Yep. So let me do a quick little, let's do the Wikipedia, Marcuse. born July 19th, 1898, German, German American, died July 29th, 1979. German American philosophers, social critic and political theorists associated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the Humboldt University of Berlin and then at Freiburg,

where he received his PhD was a prominent figure in the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research, which later became not. known as the Frankfurt School, married, yada, yada. In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, Soviet communism, and popular culture, arguing that they represented new forms of social control. Between 43 and 50, Marcos worked in the U.S. government service for the OSS. Office of Strategic Services, which is the people don't know precursor to the CIA, where he criticized the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the book Soviet Marxism, a critical analysis, released in 1958. In the 60s and 70s, he became known as the preeminent theorist of the new left and the student movements of West Germany, France, and the United States.

Some consider him the father of the new left. His best known works are eros and civilization and one-dimensional man. His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists of the 1960s and 70s, both in the United States and internationally. So that's pretty much where we're at to start this out. And yeah, this essay, I mean, you just, the title is, you know, pregnant, where you're just like, okay, what the hell's coming, you know? So, all right, let me share this and we'll get it on. Oh, that's not it. That's the Wikipedia page.

There it is. All right. Stop me whenever, man. This is, uh, this starts out well. Repressive tolerance, Herbert Marcuse, uh, 1965. And he taught at Brandeis University. Oh, wow. That's not a street from me.

Yep, not a shock at all. Yeah. Nice neighborhood. This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call

for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions, which are outlawed or suppressed. All right, we'll stop you right there. What is the end goal of tolerance? Is tolerance a means or an end, I should say?

Tolerance should be a means to achieving whatever you wish. I mean, do you, what happens when you turn on Ben Shapiro is tolerance of means or an end? When you turn on Ben Shapiro, tolerance is whatever he needs it to, he needs it to be at the moment. Tolerance is the end goal. It's not tolerance of what. It's we just need to be tolerant. And people like him will tell you, you know, he'll invite a leftist on a show.

He'll invite a communist. It's really flipped where, you know, modern liberalism still calls for tolerance. But it's conservatism that's flipping the script saying, oh, no, we're the ones being shut down. So now they're the ones calling for tolerance. And he's going to get into exactly why that's not going to work out well for them. Well, yeah, and tolerance always, you use tolerance to get where you want to go. I mean, the way that we've gotten to where we are from where this country was founded,

where you make the, a lot of people will make the argument, and it's true, the founders were, you know, a lot of them were steeped in the Enlightenment. But when it came to tolerance, they were tolerant of certain things that,

about their culture, about the culture that they created, that they live in. They were intolerant of other cultures. There were, there were cultural bumpers put, yeah, you know,

on the, on the three by five index card, of allowable opinion. Yes. And by there being tolerance, tolerance has always been used against the right so that the left can basically just gain as much power as it wants. And people on the right, you know, the question asked often, and I forget where I was having this conversation recently is why does the right not want to, why does the right never want to rule? Why does the right never want to, why do you never have a right with an iron fist, you know, that wants to rule with an iron fist?

And because most of the people who would call it, my opinion is most of the people who would call themselves right now have been completely possessed by leftism, by leftist tolerance, by Enlightenment tolerance. Yeah. Yep. It's, that's going to be a hard buck to break. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins at the beginning of the modern period. A partisan goal. A subversive, liberating notion and practice. Wow, I agree.

Yeah. And just to scroll down here to the definition of partisan. because a lot of people, the modern version, the modern definition of partisan is pussy shit. A partisan is someone who's prejudiced in favor of a particular cause and prejudice to the point where they're willing to fight for that cause. Yeah, you could also call it activist now. Yes, yeah.

Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today is in many of its most effective manifestations, serving the cause of oppression. Wow, he's just fucking bad in a thousand. The author is fully aware that at present, no power, no authority, no government exists, which would translate liberating tolerance into practice. But he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities, which seem to have become utopian possibilities,

that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which the society can be recognized as what it is and does. That's critical theory in a nutshell. And this is just basically like the just an outline. Now we get into the meat of the text. So tolerance is an end in. itself. The elimination of violence and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the condition of a humane society. It's just a given, man. Don't question it. Such a society does not yet exist.

Progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence, and suppression on a global scale. ESB transformed how the country powered itself once. And now we're doing it again. Working with businesses all across Ireland, helping them reduce their energy costs, reach their sustainability goals, and future-proof their operations.

Because this is not just for us. It's for future us. To find out more, contact our Smart Energy Services team, at ESB.aE forward slash smart energy. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 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 Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value.

I think I'm going to be pleasantly surprised at how much I agree with this, but not for the reasons he thinks. 100%. Yeah. And I would say that when he mentions Utopia here, when I say Utopia, I don't mean, I have my own version of Utopia. Utopia is getting the ideology in reality that you want. Yeah.

Like so, if you have it in the box idea. geology, you get, if you can get it to exist in reality, you have utopia. My, you know, my understanding is you get, my goal is to have the best and most orderly society I can, considering man's fallen nature. It's, it's funny because, you know, he was working for the precursor to the CIA in the late 50s, early 60s. basically critiquing Soviet communism. And it was at that precise point in history that Soviet communism was, you know, at their apex in terms of, you know, their comparability and material conditions to the West. He's working for them from 43 to 50.

So he's even got two years of World War II in there. And then the aftermath, which is, I mean, you want to talk about. about one of the most interesting times in history, the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1950, not only considering the absolute horror that they imposed upon Germany, but also the purging of a certain group from the government that brought about the rise

of the neo-conservatives in this country. Yeah, the glass ceiling for the J-words. Yeah. strictly imposed. All right. As deterrence against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo-colonial massacres, violence, and suppression are promulgated, practiced and defended

by democratic and authoritarian governments alike. And the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. He definitely was educated in Germany. I mean, just look at that sentence. It's such a German sentence, structure. Well, the structure of it. But you wouldn't have to go.

You wouldn't have to have too much of an imagination to replace all of the things that he mentioned with current day things that, that we would mention. Instead of, wait, where is it? It's, um, nuclear war, police action against subversion. Technically in the, yeah, you, I mean, you could mention, um, you know, entire groups of black kids beating on white kids. You could mention, um, surgical removal of genital genitalia, um, you know, take your pick. Go on your Twitter timeline.

And you can just take those out and fill in with whatever you want. And once again, we can, we can agree with every. everything you're saying. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior, which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery. So he's talking about culture. I know that most schools of socialism don't like to talk about culture because it's not

grounded in materialism. It's transcendent, but he's talking about culture. Yeah. This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested. Authentic liberals. The political locus of tolerance has changed. While it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it has made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies.

tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice, lay-safair the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities. He's, what, Chomsky invoking, Chomsky would talk about that six, seven years later. Also, he's just basically, he's making arguments that I make all the time. The, somebody had posted today, the way to save this country is it was founded on the principles of liberty. We need to go back to the way, the only way it's going to, we're going to get about. back is to go back to the principles of liberty and I just like one sentence, maybe those principles are how we got here.

Is that opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities? We need to roll back the state. Let's go. Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence and more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for the training and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward

outright deception in merchandising, waste, and planned. obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations. They are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives. Do you disagree with any of that? Pete, are we, are we Frankfurt's school now? I don't know. Are we Frankfurt school socialists now? Shit. Oh, man. Isn't it amazing that once you, you know, if you're one of those people who's on social media all the time and you're like, oh,

this is what I, you know, I learned about communism from a meme. Or I learned about socialism from a meme. I learned about Marxism from a meme. Once you start reading it, you know, I learned about critical theory from a meme.

Once you start reading it, you're like, it's just like reading Marx. Oh, he's got it figured out. His solution is just shit, you know? Yep.

The prescription is exactly on point. Yeah. the authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency. They are less vociferous against the proud presentation in word and deed and pictures of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs, the mature delinquency of a whole civilization. Hmm. That's an interesting. That smacks of Uncle Ted. Yeah.

Yeah, there is, yeah. You know, it really explains why Ted hates the left so much. According to a dialectical proposition, it is the whole which determines the truth, not in the sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts, but in the sense that its structure and function determine every particular condition and relation. thus within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game. There's some Uncle Ted for you right there.

Yep. There to take a most controversial case, the exercise of political rights, such as voting, letter writing to the press, to senators, etc., protest demonstra, protest, with a priori renunciation of counterviolence, in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties, which, in reality, have changed their content

and lost their effectiveness. In such a case, freedom of opinion, of assembly, of speech. That's Sam Francis. Yeah. Managerial revolution. In such a case, are you thinking Burnham or Francis? Yeah. But as Francis wrote what I think is the greatest book on Burnham,

he wrote this little book where he just does a commentary on every Burnham book. It's one of my favorite books. It's just because you get, you know, Francis is so much closer to us. He was just such a great man. He wrote for the USA Today to a certain point. That's amazing.

In such a case, freedom of opinion of assembly of speech becomes an instrument for absolving servitude. ESB transformed how the country powered itself once. And now we're doing it again. Working with businesses all across Ireland, helping them reduce their energy costs, reach their sustainability goals, and future-proof their operations.

Because this is not just for us. It's for future us. To find out more, contact our Smart Energy Services team at ESB.aE forward slash smart energy. 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 TerraMai. 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, Arland 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. And yet, and I was just really, recording with a semi-a-gog and we're talking about the first paragraph of the engineering of consent by Bernays, where he talks about how freedom of speech within a society is just the greatest tool for being able to engineer that society. Yeah. All right.

Let me go back. Okay. I'm saying this right. And yet, and only here the dialectical proposition shows its full intent. The existence and practice of these liberties remain a precondition for the restoration of their original oppositional function, provided that the effort to transcend their often self-imposed limitations is intensified. Wait, I need to, I need to chew on that. Sorry, I'm, uh, yeah, I'm rolling that around a little bit.

All right, I'll, is he, if he's talking about the, uh, if he's, specifically talking about the United States, he may just be talking about how you start by a revolution and then basically maybe your restoration

of the original oppositional function provided that the effort to transcend their limitations is intensified. It reverts back to it. All right, yeah. So you have these liberties. You're bumping up against

opposition, you know, the proverbial bumpers, and the more you bump up against the limitations imposed, the more intense the bumping gets. I get it. Generally, the function and value of tolerance depend on the quality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced. Tolerance itself stands subject to overriding criteria. Its range and its limits cannot be defined in terms of the respective society. In other words, tolerance is an end in itself only when it is truly universal,

practiced by the rulers as well as by the ruled, by the lords as well as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as by their victims. Once again, that's called culture. That's not tolerance. That's culture. Fucking lives. And such universal tolerance as possible only when no real or alleged enemy requires in the national interest the education and training of people in military violence and destruction.

Yeah, ACAB. As long as these conditions do not prevail, the conditions of tolerance are loaded. They are determined and defined by the interdepend. institutionalized inequality, which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality, i.e., by the class structure of society. In such a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression, police, armed forces, guards of all sorts, and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their connections. I see no issue whatsoever. Once again. These background limitations of tolerance are normally prior to the explicit and judicial limitations as defined by the courts, customs, governments, etc.

For example, quote unquote, clear and present danger, threat to national security, heresy. Yeah. Can't yell nigger in a movie theater. Well, now I know which little preview clip is not going to be on YouTube. Within the framework of such. I'm saying don't say that. Within the framework of such as they wouldn't be able to hear you anyway. Damn it. Within the framework of such.

a social structure, tolerance can be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds. The passive toleration of entrenched and established attitudes and ideas, even if their damaging effect on man in nature is evident. And the active official tolerance granted to the right as well as to the left to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity. Yep, that's right. Now we're getting into it. This whole idea that, you know, those cultural bumpers that I was talking about, you need a bumper on the right, but you need to remove the bumper on the left. So that way, the direction as, you know, as you and I and everybody else have said, the direction can only go one way. That's what he's calling for.

I call this nonpartisan tolerance abstract or pure in as much as it refrains from taking sides. But in doing so, it actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination. That's right. Silence is violence. The tolerance which enlarged the range and content of freedom was always partisan, intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo. the issue was only the degree and extent of intolerance. In the firmly established liberal society of England and the United States,

freedom of speech and assembly was granted even to the radical enemies of society, provided they did not make the transition from word to deed, from speech to action. Remember the, I forget who was. It was Chris Cuomo. said on CNN during the summers of 2020, where does it say in law that the protesters can't get violent? It's like it's right here in the Constitution. It's like right there. It's probably a lot of places in the criminal code, I imagine, too. Sure. But yeah, no, that's, you know,

tolerance of repressive structures is in itself intolerant. Therefore, the direction can only move left because left means destroying oppressive power structures. And the right means keeping them or building them. Yeah. I wish. All right. Relying on the effective background limitations imposed by its class structure, the society seemed to practice general tolerance.

But liberalist theory had already placed an important condition on tolerance. It was to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. John Stewart Mill. Where is this going? Let's read that again then. But liberalist theory has already placed an important condition on tolerance. It was to apply only to human beings in the maturity. of their faculties.

I don't know if I want to be Frankfurt School anymore, Pete. John Stuart Mill does not only speak of children and minors. He elaborates. Liberty as a principal has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Interior to that time, men may still be barbarians and despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians provided

the end of their, the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually affecting that end. So we're going to make men better. Yeah. I mean, you have to have whatever, whatever you need to do to benefit the condition of mankind, if that means a dictatorship, if that means a police state, if that means, you know, a military industrial complex with a health care industrial complex with it, if that is what you need to get to this betterment of mankind, then it is what it is.

That's not what Marcuse is saying, but that's what Mills said. Mills often quoted words have a less familiar implication. on which their meaning depends, the internal connection between liberty and truth. There is a sense in which truth is the end of liberty, and liberty must be defined and confined by truth. Yeah. Now, in what sense can liberty be for the sake of truth?

Liberty is self-determination, autonomy. That is almost a tautology. but a totology which results from a whole series of synthetic judgments. Ooh. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 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 Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of the day. November. Little 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 2000 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. I like where this is going. It stipulates the ability to determine one's own life, to be able to determine what to do and what not to do, what to suffer, and whatnot. But the subject of this autonomy is never the contingent, private. individual as that which he actually is or happens to be. It is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others.

So this is getting into just Frankfurt School Socialism's whole end goal is the pursuit of self-actualization. It's the removal of any impediment in that pursuit. So whether that be material or cultural or cultural. which is what the Frankfurt School focuses on, any type of impediment towards self-actualization. How this connects back to repressive tolerance, this idea of repressive tolerance,

is that you need some type of praxis. And he's going to get into practice later, but some type of practice to remove those impediments, meaning people like us, out of your way, towards self-actualization. And the problem of making possible such a harmony between every individual liberty and the other is not that of finding a compromise between competitors or between freedom

and law, between general and individual interest, common and private welfare in an established society. But of creating the society in which man is no longer enslaved by institutions, which vitiate, which vitiate, vichiate, I swear I know that word. self-determination from the beginning. Let's go down and let me see. Let's say that word is that I appreciate. Yeah, to make ineffective.

Okay. So basically, Lizzie, but of creating the society in which man is no longer enslaved by institutions, which make ineffective self-determination from the beginning. In other words, freedom is still to be created even for the freest of the existing societies. and the direction in which it must be sought and the institutional and cultural changes which may help to attain the goal are, at least in developed civilization, comprehensible. That is to say, they can be identified and projected on the basis of experience by human reason. You can point to an oppressive structure and say that is inhibiting my pursuit of self-actualization. It opens, it just throws up in the doors to basically any, anything being repressive.

Anything be, anything, anything I can think of is stopping my self-realization. The revolution is permanent, yes. Yes. In the interplay of theory and practice, true and false solutions become distinguishable. Never with the evidence of necessity, never is the positive, only with a certainty of a reasoned and reasonable chance and with the persuasive force of the negative. For the true positive is the society of the future and therefore beyond definition and determination, while the existing positive is that which must be surmounted.

Open-ended progressivism. There is no goal. We have this goal. It's completely unachievable, but we are going to strive to do it. and it doesn't matter how many tangents or rabbit trails it goes on. I mean, we see this playing out every single day. Once they get one thing they want, then it's on to the next. But the experience and understanding of the existence of the existence society

may well be capable of identifying what is not conducive to a free and rational society, which impedes and distorts the possibilities of its creation. Freedom is liberation, a specific historical process in theory and practice. practice, and as such, it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood. So one thing that the Frankfurt School kind of improved upon Orthodox Marxism is that it's a lot less rigid in defining the historical process and the stages of history. There are a lot more vague about it, and you can see this, I mean, the last paragraph that you just read is talking about this process.

arduous march towards true freedom. It really has no beginning and end point. It's just a constant cycle. And I've listened to a couple podcasters talking about this. But like what the actual end goal is is it depends on who you talk to. I mean, we did a reading of Uncle Ted and the end goal is, you know, you're a meat, your transhumanist meat bag battery. Yeah.

The uncertainty of chance in this distinction does not cancel the historical objectivity, but it necessitates freedom of thought and expression as preconditions of finding the way to freedom. It necessitates tolerance. However, the tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed. It cannot protect false words and wrong deeds, which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation. That's right.

That's the terms of service. You signed them, buddy. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates in conversation and academic discussion. It is indispensable in the scientific enterprise in private religion, but society cannot be indiscriminate or the pacification of existence, where the freedom and happiness themselves are at stake. Here, certain things cannot be said.

Certain ideas cannot be expressed. Certain policies cannot be proposed. Certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude. Man, I totally agree. I mean, and then I've been, it's really. hard to like for me to sit down and read a thousand page book but i've really been pouring over the authoritarian personality by adorno and oh man this is this is all it's just all right the danger of

destructive tolerance of benevolent neutrality towards art has been recognized the market which absorbs equally well, although with often quite sudden fluctuations, art, anti-art, and non-art, all possible conflicting styles, schools, forms, provides a complacent receptacle, a friendly abyss in which the radical impact of art, the protest of art against the establishment reality, is swallowed up. Yeah, if everything is permitted, then nothing can be radical. Yeah. However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances.

The authentic au revoir, is it avoir or how the hell do you pronounce that? I should have left that up before. I read and just jump over and read, let me go 21. A work of art, music, or literature. It's a French word, of course. there are cases where an authentic piece of art carries a regressive political message Dostoevsky is a case in point but then the message is cancelled by the work of art itself

the regressive political content is absorbed in the artistic work in the work as literature is that saying that is he saying in this paragraph that once art that art can be can be completely, you know, revolutionary, but as soon as it's accepted, you know, like, you know how you had artists in the 60s who were just doing just absolute garbage and it was like, oh, you know, like, Andy Warhol was a complete degenerate. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, all these rich people discovered him and now it's not so edgy anymore.

Is that, is that the message? just being relayed here is how it just something can be revolutionary, but then it just becomes what it is, a piece of art, a piece of literature? Yeah, I guess in a truly tolerant society where anything goes, then, you know, even if you do put up, you know, take 4chan for, like, 4chan would be Marcus's Dostoevsky. If everything's permitted, on 4chan, then you as a 4chan consumer, like, aren't going to be inspired by really anything on it. Yeah. All right.

Here we go. Tolerance of free speech is the way of improvement of progress and liberation, not because there is no objective truth. And improvement must necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but because there is an objective truth which can be discovered ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which is 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 trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro search cupra 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 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 Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. And that which can and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind. It's just funny how it's... I wish we had as much certainty,

and just like fanatic belief in what our outlook on what improving mankind looks like. Thoughts like that were made illegal in the late 1940s. Yeah. Yeah.

Made very criminal. Yes. The common and historical ought is not immediately evident at hand. It has to be uncovered by cutting through splitting, breaking asunder, the given material, separating right and wrong, good and bad, correct, and incorrect. The subject whose improvement depends on a progressive historical practice is each man as man, and this universality is reflected in that of the discussion which a priori does not exclude any group or individual.

So let me see if I could parse this out. This is painful. There is an objective way to arrive at truth, and it's through the process of critical analysis. Is that basically what he's saying? Sure. Wow. Imagine that.

That just happens to be the thing that he went, that he studied for his entire life. But even the all-inclusive character of liberalist tolerance was, at least in theory, based on the proposition that men were potential individuals who could learn to hear and see and feel by themselves to develop their own thoughts, to grasp their own true interests and rights and capabilities, also against established authority and opinion. Yeah, but what if they agree with it?

What then? What if they like established authority and opinion? Or what if the critical theorists become the established authority and opinion? This was the rationale of free speech and assembly. Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails. When tolerance is administered to manipulated and doctrinated individuals who, as their own, the opinions of their masters for whom heteronomy has become autonami.

The telos of tolerance is truth. It is clear from the historical record that the authentic spokesman of tolerance had more and other truth in mind than that of propositional logic and academic theory. Former libertarians chuckle. John Stuart Mill speaks of the truth which is persecuted in history and which does not triumph over persecution by virtue of its inherent power, which in fact has no inherent power against the dungeon and the stake. Yeah.

I quoted Mises and they're still hitting me. And he enumerated Mises. the truths which were cruelly and successfully liquidated in the dungeons and at the stake. That of Arnold of Russia, of Frad Dulcino, of Savonaralla, of the Albigensians, Waldenzians, Lollards, and Hussites. So a bunch of like fringe Christian sex. Yeah. I'm guessing.

What's funny is, um, yaki. in Imperium mentioned sovereign, Sabon Norella many times. Tolerance is first and foremost for the sake of the heretics. The historical road towards humanitas appears as heresy, target of persecution by the powers that be. Heresy by itself, however,

is no token of truth. Well, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. The criterion of progress in freedom according to which Mill judges these movements is the Reformation. The evaluation is ex post and his list concludes opposites.

Savonarala, too, would have been, would have burned Fraud Dolcino. Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth. History corrects the judgment. Too late. The correction. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear. Intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocence for hundreds of years.

Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate pure tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificial? to the status quo? Can the indiscriminate guarantee of political rights and liberties be repressive? Can such tolerance serve to contain qualitative social change? Why didn't he just start off with that? We could have skipped that entire page and just read, read up to those questions he just asked. He has to do a little religion bashing.

Yeah. I shall discuss this question only with reference to political movements, attitudes, schools of thought, philosophies which are political in the wildest sense, affecting the whole, the society as a whole, demonstrably transcending the sphere of privacy. Moreover, I propose a shift in the focus of the discussion. It will be concerned not only and not primarily with tolerance towards radical extremes, minorities, subversives, etc, but rather with tolerance towards majorities, toward official and public opinion, toward the established protectors of freedom. In this case, the discussion can have as a frame of reference only a democratic society in which the people as individuals and as members of political and other organizations

participate in the making, sustaining, and changing policies. In an authoritarian system, the people do not tolerate. they suffer established policies. All right. Well, that's convenient. Yeah. Under a, yeah, yeah, the road,

you know, I mean, oh, that road is thorny. I think I'll take this one over here. Under a system of constitutionally guaranteed and generally and without too many and too glaring exceptions, practice civil rights and liberties, opposition and dissent are tolerated unless they issue in violence and or an exhortation to an organization of violence subversion.

I'm with them. The underlying assumption is that the established society is free and that any improvement, even a change in the social structure and social values, would come about in the normal course of events, prepared, defined, and tested in free and equal discussion on the open marketplace of ideas and goods. Yeah, that's how it works. Which I'm happy he's like saying that that's stupid.

Yeah. Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption, free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational, expression and development of independent thinking, free from induction indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might and theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational

interest. That's the foundation myth. However, such a construct. struck badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. So sometimes I think free exchange of ideas doesn't go in the direction you wanted to. That could be bad. Sometimes I think he understands elite theory and sometimes I'm just like, what the hell is he?

Where's he going with us? Yeah. I mean, we all see what happens when the free and open exchange of information, like the actual free and open exchange of information happens. The characteristics of whatever platform that's happening on inevitably comes a far right haven. Yep, yep, without a doubt. I mean, you just start tamping down on all these fucking cell phone videos. Cell phone videos and pop-eyes.

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. Cooper.

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. Broke wagon Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings?

We'll mark your calendars from November 28 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 Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November.

Lidl, more to value. Subways, and I mean, am I the only one who realizes that, like, Twitter has become World Star Hip Hop? World Star. Yeah, I would like to think that Elon has something to do with that, or it could just be that he got rid of whatever the algorithm, whatever the algorithmic guard against that, he just got rid of and this is, you know, organic. Whatever it is, I'm liking it.

Well, not liking some of those videos I can't watch, but at least the exposure is there. Then if it fits even worse with a variety of pressures, unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming hole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increased standard of living and an increasing concentration of power. Yeah, which is where we're at right now.

Well, maybe not right now. The material conditions right now are still pretty good. Everybody more than likely has food, water, easy access to food, water, clothing, shelter, that type of thing. And then, you know, if you really start thinking about what are luxuries, we have access to those two for the most part. And, I mean, this goes back to Ted K. As that becomes cheaper and proliferated more, it's really easy to ignore the structural problems that are taking away your, I mean, your humanity in the background. Yeah.

as you participate in them. Yeah. Yeah. It's, I've said this a bunch of times, but the more people I talk to who are leaving cities and going and, you know, even buying a half an acre or an acre in the country and,

you know, saying, I'm going to grow some of my own food and maybe get a couple chickens. These are people who, they may not even know what Uncle Ted taught, but they're going. backwards in order to go forwards. It's, um, it's, uh, it's, uh, it makes me think of, uh, Julius Evola.

It's some, something is transcendent. Yeah. Uh, what was Evola's thing? I've stolen it. Um, my, my values are that, which were be normal before 1789. Yeah. Then the laborer whose real interest conflicts with that of management, the common consumer whose real interest conflict with that of the producer, the intellectual whose vocation conflicts with that of his employer, find themselves submitted to a system against which they are powerless and appear unreasonable. That's a great sentence.

Oh, man. Such a great sentence. Okay. The ideas of the available alternatives evaporates into an utterly utopian dimension in which it is at home for a free society is indeed unrealistically and undefinably different from the existing ones. Under these circumstances, whatever improvement may occur in the normal course of events and without subversion is likely to be improvement in the direction determined by the particular interest. which control the whole. Oh, yeah, Marcuse, who are those interests? Name them.

By the same token, those minorities which strive for a change of the whole itself will, under optimal conditions which rarely prevail, be left free to deliberate and discuss, to speak and to assemble, and will be left harmless and helpless in the face of the overwhelming majority which militates against qualitative. social change. Yeah, you're allowed to talk about whatever you want. It's just, it's not going to happen. Hey, let me see something here.

Looking at early, early years of Marcuse. Okay, I'll leave that alone. We'll talk about that. I couldn't find anything in any early life, Jack. Oh, it's right there. Oh, it is? Yeah. second sentence.

All right. Yeah. There is. Second sentence. Must I missed it. Okay. Control. But by the same token, those minorities, did I already say that sentence?

By the same token, those minorities which strive for a change. I don't think. I'm going to, I'll say it anyway. I'll go. No, no, I haven't said it. Okay. By the same token, those minorities which strive for a change of the whole itself will under optimal conditions, which were, oh, no, I did say that one.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. This majority is firmly grounded in the increasing satisfaction of needs and technological and mental coordination, which testified to the general helplessness of radical groups in a well-functioning social system. Huh. Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent.

All points of view can be heard. The communist and the fascist, the left and the right, the white and the negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one. The misinformed may talk as long as the informed and propaganda rides along with education, truth, and falsehood. So at the apex of American civilization, you can kind of define that by, you know, all those,

I forget what it's called, but the roundtable show where they have, you know, somebody from the right, somebody from the left, the fascist, the communist, and they're all just having a calm conversation. That is the apex in material condition of America. Now, now what do you have? This pure, well, go ahead. Whether it's good or not, it's just an indication as to how well your civilization is doing. Yeah.

This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to the people, for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that on this basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.

So deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, So he's basically saying, first of all, they have to be smart and not be a fucking moron. I'm just talking about boys, chat. We do this all the time. And then Stepy comes in and just frigging makes us all feel like idiots. They must have access to authentic information, doesn't mention what that authentic information is. And that on their basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought. So this is somebody who's lived, has never been taught how to think what to think.

I mean, we're in frigging fantasy land here. It's the source. I saw it in a dream. It was a fever dream, though. All right. In the contemporary period, the Democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to be invalidated by the invalidation of the democratic process itself. The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent on the individual as well as its social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent.

Their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society, which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge in the formation of opinion in information and communication in speech and assembly. Yep.

Uncle Ted and Mark Hughes, one of the same. When he says here, the concentration of opposites in a society, what's he talking about? Oh, just the ability of the fascist and the communists to sit down and have a conversation. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 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 plug-in 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, Arland 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. Which I'm guessing at the time he was writing. I mean, what the hell was that? show with um was buchanan on it oh um the mclaughlin group yeah yep yeah yeah i mean that was probably the apex of society when that was on i used to watch it all the time i watched it up until like 2009 in 2010 yeah i was obsessed with it couldn't couldn't have that now yeah oh no at least not in any meaningful way yeah i think it it does actually exist now i don't think buchanan's on it i think there's a new version of it but i mean i just i can't wake up at 930

on a Sunday morning. I'm doing 9.30 on Sunday morning I'm getting to go, I'm getting ready to go somewhere else. All right. Under the rule of monopolistic media, themselves, the mere instruments of economic and political power. That's good.

So this is the critique that we hear all the time of the legacy media, I mean, the corporate press in the context of what the internet did to them. They did have a monopolistic stranglehold on the flow of information, you know, what choices you're given at the ballot box are determined, you know, by the cathedral. He's describing, you know, that as it's happening. Under the rule of monopolistic media, themselves with mere instruments of economic and political

power, a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false, are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics, the blocking of effective dissent of the recognition of that which is not of the establishment, which begins in the language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. And I would say now the meaning of words is actively distorted. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, he's a little behind the time. He's a little too modernist, just him talking about objective truth at all. Yeah. That's like an early Frankfurt school 60s. Characteristic. Yeah. The 1946 Orwell essay

Politics and the English language. I mean, it's 20, almost 20 years before this. Orwell is talking about the distortion of language at that point, how it basically means nothing. And academic agent, Nima calls them, says how most political language and journalistic language is loaded with thought. terminating cliches.

Yeah. Yeah. These cliches are just fed in there. And it's like, oh, I know exactly what to mean now. I don't have to think anymore. I know exactly what to think now. I was just reading a critical review of Imperium. And I guess I couldn't really,

I couldn't really put it into words to articulate like, that exact thing you just said thought terminating just phrases. That's what the person who was writing the critique. The entire time he was doing the review. It was just cliches upon cliches. He was, you know, did an early life check on him too. Rational persuasion. Persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded.

The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one, established by the publicity of the powers to be and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but at the massive scale of the conservative majority, outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia, they are immediately evaluated, i.e. automatically understood in terms of the public language, language, a language which determines a priori the direction in which the thought process moves. I can't, I'm not, I want to, I want to disagree, but I can't. I can't.

I mean, that's where we're, we're, we're, we're slipping down the slope from the things that he's talking about in, in his day right now. Like, we are still sliding down that slope. Yeah. You know, the ability to think three steps ahead in terms of policy and just in terms of introducing ideas to the mainstream, the direction that that's going to, that they're going to take, you know, goes back to the old trope that there are no conspiracy theorists anymore.

Yeah. So we're going to do about another page here and then we'll cut it and cut it and we'll do the rest, do the rest of another episode. This is just take two episodes. In the beginning of this, when we were stopping every sentence, I'm like, oh, man, this is going to take 10 episodes. All right. But that's the process of reflection

ends. Thus the process of reflection ends where it started in the given conditions and relations. Self-validating the argument of the discussion repels the contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis.

Yeah. I get it. Yeah. Well, it's like begging the question fallacy. Yeah, or just controlling the opposition. Speaking of, you know, referring to your opposition to, say, a cultural trope in the exact terms of the enemy. The exact terms the enemy gave to you in order to talk about it. For example, thesis, we work for peace. Antithesis. Why did I want to say antithesis so bad? For example, thesis, we work for peace, antithesis, we prepare for war, or even we wage war. Unification of opposites. Preparing for war is working for peace. Peace is redefined as necessarily in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war or even war, or even, or even,

in war, and in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word peace is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language operates as a priori categories of understanding, pre-forming all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance, which involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the closing of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation of opposites, even where it is really equal, easily lose their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning. They are far more likely to strengthen and the established thesis and to repel the alternatives.

I can't argue with him on any of this. No. This is, it is in fact what they do. He's not telling us what we don't already know. But I guess at the time, it was cool to notice. He was doing a little noticing himself. I wonder if you ever searched out as early. Impartiality to the utmost, equal treatment of competing and conflicting issues is indeed a basic requirement for decision making in the democratic process.

Here's why that's wrong. It is an equally basic requirement for defining the limits of time. tolerance. But in a democracy with totalitarian organization, objectivity may fulfill a very different function, namely to foster a mental attitude which tends to obliterate the difference between true and false information and indoctrination right and wrong. In fact, the decision between opposed opinions has been made before the presentation and discussion get underway made not by a conspiracy or a sponsor or a publisher, not by any dictatorship, but rather by the normal course of events, which is the course of administered

events and by the mentality shaped in this course. Here too, it is the whole which determines the truth. As people who have never read stuff like this, like when we were reading, when we read a state and revolution, you know, all the people in the comments who are like, holy crap,

I agree with so much of this. Yeah. Yep. Here, too, it is the whole, which determines the truth. Then the decision asserts itself without any open violation

of objectivity in such things as the makeup of a newspaper with the breaking up of vital information into bits interspersed between extraneous material, irrelevant items, relegating of some radically negative news to an obscure place. In the juxtaposition of gorgeous ads with unmitigated horrors and the introduction and interruption of the broadcasting of facts by overwhelming commercials.

That's my timeline. You just described my timeline. Manmade horrors beyond your comprehension. And then an ad for some like, cool gifts for your wedding party. Green anarchists have been all over this for so long.

This is a conversation. Bellamy could be preaching this right now. The result is a neutralization of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance

and within a preformed mentality. when a magazine prints side by side a negative and positive report on the FBI, it fulfills honestly the requirements of objectivity. However, the chances are that the positive wins because the image of the institution is deeply engraved in the mind of the people. Yeah. No, I mean, if you think about it practically on an individual level, let's say something hurt. let's say, I don't know. 9-11-2 happens. And then at the same time,

the article is in one column for that. And then the article right next to it is, you know, pictures of tits. You know, like, I'm not going to feel anything about 9-11-2 because I'm going to read that and say, wow, that's awful. And then I'm going to look at tits and then I'm going to walk away, feeling kind of bad about 9-11 too, but probably not as bad as I could conceivably be.

Not bad enough to do anything about it. Or if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stock market or the weather or with the same great emotion with which he says as commercials, then such objectivity is spurious. more, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where one should be enraged by refraining from accusation where accusation is in the fact themselves. Yeah. Yeah, I get it. Yeah.

I get what he's saying. It's psychological. The toleration expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has to do with truth, and if truth is more than a matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity is false and this kind of tolerance inhuman. And if it is necessary to break the established universe of meaning and the practiced and closed in this universe, in order to enable man to find out what is true and false, this deceptive impartiality would have to be abandoned.

the people exposed to this impartiality are no tabula rasa. They are indoctrinated by the conditions under which they live and think and which they do not transcend. Yeah, I get what he's saying. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's interesting that he brings up tabula rasa because progressivism, um, it assumes everybody is supposed to be. It presupposes. Yeah. Just not, I guess, just not in this case in the context of, you know, propaganda. Well, no, in this case, the tabula rasa, which should have been from the very start, you know, probably taken away from their parents who may be Christians or Muslims or whatever, they're already poisoned.

Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. And then your average news watcher. is, you know, definitely not a blank slate to be filled. All right. Let's finish this. I think if we finish these up to the, right up to, I think we finish this paragraph, it would be a good ending point. All right.

Yeah. To enable them to become autonomous, to find by themselves what is true and what is false for man in the existing society, they would have to be freed from the prevailing indoctrination. which is no longer recognized as indoctrination. But this means that the trend would have to be reversed. They would have to get information slanted in the opposite direction, for the facts are never given immediately and never accessible immediately.

They are established, mediated by those who made them, the truth, the whole truth, quote unquote, surpasses these facts and requires the rupture with their appearance. This rupture, prerequisite and token of all freedom of thought and of speech, cannot be accomplished within the established framework of abstract tolerance and spurious objectivity, because they are precisely the factors which precondition the mind against the rupture. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa.

Saver 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-Dunbeg. Search Trump Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunbiog, Kush Farage. 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 slash northwest. Yeah.

Yeah, I guess if we suddenly started seeing journalists, speak to people, speak to us like they would in real life, it would probably blow our minds. Yeah. It would be like. Or just anybody on the internet, because we're all purveyors of information. It's like if you're used to seeing and if you're used to going to the zoo

and seeing an animal perform tricks, it'd be like seeing them in their natural habitat. where you're like, oh, they're actually really boring. And then you realize, oh, wait a minute, they're putting on a performance. It's a performance for me. Yeah, I mean, it's always been an idea I've had that, you know, that not I've had, but just a popular idea that absolute tolerance can't work and can't exist anyways, just because we live in the system that we do

and all the venues that can show that are that are bound by whatever metrics of tolerance there is like social media, TV, news, pop culture, whatever. Like they, there's, it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work. Absolute tolerance wouldn't work. just not on a practical level.

And once you kind of break through that that idea that tolerance is not good, you can start to kind of fight back against, you know, well, we can't let Nazis at our protest because, okay, well, I can't let liberals at my house, you know? they've they kind of just don't I don't know I don't know what I'm trying to say

I'm like five of these in well give me your thoughts and I'll bounce on I mean he makes the point that if his goals are going to be achieved any thought any action that is against

that would derail those goals needs to be repressed. Yeah. And the goals are the destruction of oppressive structures. Which some, which could very simply be called hierarchies, aristocracies, things like that. Yeah, which I think are inherent in nature. Yeah, absolutely.

there but to to the bottom left they exist to be destroyed yep all right well we'll pick this up again do you want to plug anything i was listening to this episode today that i was actually supposed to be on on ex on exorcisms yeah yeah we just dropped an over the line episode on Timeline Earth for our Patreon subscribers. If you want to check that out, it's about exorcism and spiritual warfare, getting into the history, the practice, the nuts and bolts. I do need to come out with the Boys Town episode eventually. That's my personal spinoff of Timeline Earth.

And I haven't done one in over a year because I'm a piece of shit with a very demanding job. Well, I think everyone appreciates you taking the time to do this and we'll, we'll talk about when we can do part two and everything because I'm someone with a lot of time on my hands and you're someone with like no time on your hands. And someone with a lot of time on their hands, like canceled at the last minute to be on that episode, which I really wanted to be on. But you know the reason why. Yeah. You forgive me because you've been there recently.

Yeah. All right, man. Until part two. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekina show. Aaron, let's finish us out. How are you doing that?

So far so good. Let's do it. All right. Let's get this up there and just jump right in. I had to look up exactly where we left off because, you know, I'm not going to remember that shit. Nope. So the last.

the last paragraph before we ended, I was talking about the people exposed to, talking about tabula rasa. People exposed to this impartiality are no tabula rasa. They are indoctrination. You're talking about indoctrination. So, all right. The factual barriers which totalitarian democracy erects against the efficacy of qualitative dissent are weak and pleasant enough compared with the practices of a dictatorship, which claims to educate the people in the truth.

Huh. That's, uh, yeah. I, I don't know if I agree with full on dictatorship, but, um, you know, whatever we have, whatever you would call it right now,

that's, that's the main characteristic of the people of power. Yeah. That's, I mean, that's, that's the disease of intellectualism. And what we have now is, so they're claiming to educate the people in the truth,

they have the truth. And they are definitely at that drawing broadline friend to enemy distinction. It's, they've conspicuously taken on that task as heroically as they can possibly make it, that, yes, this is their. Rizondetre is to educate, educate the people in the truth. And you see it every single day, whether it's alt media. I mean, that's what we're doing too. So I mean, like, but when everybody is doing that, then you have, that's, yeah,

you have a diseased society. Yeah. Yeah. If we, if you have a society where people are warring over what the truth is, your society is far to the left because you're existing in chaos. There's no order.

There's no order at all. Even if the fight is between objective truth and this, you know, idea of subjective truth, whatever subjective truth, whatever branch that gets off into, for both sides, yeah, we are,

that's, I would say that would characterize this spiritual warfare that we're in. Then I talked about the Patreon episode that you should buy a timeline on earth. It's a good episode. All right. With all its limitations and distortions, democratic tolerance is under all circumstances more humane than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations for the sake of the future generations. All right. Is that a knock? Or is he just stating a fact?

With all its limitations and distortions, democratic tolerances under all circumstances, more humane than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations. Now, when he says that, I immediately think of like what a monarchy. Yeah. Yeah, where, yeah, where it also, humane, Humane Institute, you know, Thomas said something on an episode recently. He was talking about the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States after 1950. And he was saying that, you know, what did the Soviet Union do after 1950? They just basically, you know, after Stalin was out of power. they could abuse your body.

They could, you know, a lot of the gulags were, you know, were, they weren't as severe as before, you know, before when Stalin was alive. But really, the, when you look at what the United States has done to people, I mean, at least Russians still believe that they're Russians. They still have some kind of identity. everything that we that we have, we possess any kind of tradition, any kind of family. This regime seeks to deracinate us from and just basically strip us down into nothing. Well, we don't have anything comparable to gulags or even the destalinization process within living memory. And the further we get from these references that, you know, our grandparents, you know, your grandparents, you're, you know. Yeah, I'm older than you. Fuck you.

Yeah. I was going to say certain members of your tribe. What? Your Ukrainian background. Oh, yeah. Ukrainian dash something. No, I'm like, my DNA thing says 2% on that part. One drop.

Yeah, right, one drop roll. But no, we don't have anything like that in living memory, so the further we get from... Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free. and even better. You can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try OptionsCard. OptionsCard is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all,

there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.i.e. today. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the north-west. 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.

both the atrocities and the wind down from the atrocities being tolerable, the more apt we are to go back to them. Yeah. Good point. All right. The question is whether this is the only alternative. I shall presently try to suggest the direction in which an answer may be sought. In any case, the contrast is not between democracy and the abstract and dictatorship in the abstract. Democracy is a form of government which fits very different types of societies. This holds true even for a democracy with universal suffrage and equality before the law, and the human costs of a democracy are always and everywhere those exacted by the society whose government it is. Their range extends all the way from normal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to the victims of war's police actions, military aid, etc., in which the society is engaged, and not only to the victims within its own frontiers.

These considerations can never justify the exacting of different sacrifices and different victims on behalf of a future better society, but they do allow weighing the cost involved in the perpetuation of an existing society against the risk of promoting alternatives which offer a reasonable chance of pacification and liberation. Surely no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy, such a right is vested in the people, i.e., the majority of the people. Yeah, in theory. Yeah, yeah.

Sounds good. Yeah. This means that the ways should be, this means, that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means, obviously. Yeah. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and

movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, of which opposed the extension of public services, social security, Medicare, et cetera. Yeah, I mean, maybe when he wrote this, I mean, the last, the social security, public services, medical care, all that crap. I don't think there's a, that's, that's not really a thing with the left-right debate. I think the right is okay with having a welfare state. Yep. They're actively anti-racist. Just call them a racist and you'll find out. Yeah. So, moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions, which, by their very methods and

concepts serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior, thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. So that's not happening. Right. I mean, the enclosing of the mind is happening. Again, like, this is all stuff that we can agree for, but for way different reasons than he wants us to. Right.

Yeah. and to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance towards scientific research in the interest of deadly deterrence of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc. I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and liberating and repressive human and inhuman teachings and practices. I have already suggested that this distinction is not a matter of value preference, but of rational criteria.

Yes, the fattest, most blue-haired, most transgender Muslim activist. They are the ones qualified. While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise, at least, could conceivably be enforced by the students and teachers themselves, and thus be self-imposed, the systematic withdrawal of tolerance towards regressive and repressive opinions and movements could only be envisaged. Envisaged. I have to look that up.

As results of, well, I'll try to figure it out in context. as results of large-scale pressure, which would amount to an upheaval. Well, could only be, you know. In other words, it would presuppose that which is still to be accomplished, the reversal of the trend. However, resistance at particular occasions, boycott, non-participation at the local and small group level,

may perhaps prepare the ground. The subversive character of the restoration of freedom appears most clearly in that dimension of society where false tolerance and free enterprise do perhaps the most serious and lasting damage, namely in business and publicity. So corporations and media. Let's try to parse all that together. I guess to dumb it down. In a democratic system, there will never be any type of social upheaval that they haven't already approved of. Way ahead of time. What else is he trying to say?

It's going to be the Fortune 500 corporations in the media, which are the most liberal and also the most free enterprise. I don't mean free enterprise in like a libertarian context. I mean, like they eat amongst each other. They are going to be the petri dish and the accelerant for any type of social upheaval that has been pre-approved. I think that's what he's trying to say in a nutshell. If that's what he's trying to say, do you think we've seen that? Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's default now.

Yeah. Against the emphatic insistence on the part of spokesmen for labor, I maintain that practices such as planned obsolescence, collusion between union leadership and management, slanted publicity are not simply imposed from above on a powerless rank and file. but are tolerated by them and by the consumer at large. Yeah, we tolerate a lot. However, it would be ridiculous to speak of a possible withdrawal of tolerance

with respect to these practices and to the ideologies promoted by them, for they pertain to the basis on which the repressive affluent society rests and reproduces itself and its vital defenses. Their removal would be that total revolution, which this society so effectively repels. Yeah, I mean, again, I think what he's trying to say is our material condition is so good that they're willing to put up, we are willing to put up with so much. When we will eventually reach that trip wire to where we chimp out, I don't know, but even now, however bad you might think it is, I think we still have a while. Well, I mean, you were saying in 2020 that, you know, people aren't hungry yet.

Yeah. Yep. People aren't hungry yet. Yeah. To discuss tolerance in such a society means to reexamine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and nonviolent action. The discussion should not, from the beginning, be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence. even in the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails. It is practiced by the police, in the prisons and mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities.

It is carried by the defenders of metropolitan freedom into the backward countries. The violence indeed breeds violence. But to refrain from violence in the face of vastly superior violence, is one thing. To renounce a priori, violence against violence, or ethical or sociological grounds, because it may antagonize sympathizers, is another. Yeah. Nonviolence is normally not only preached to, but extracted from the weak. It is a necessity rather than a virtue, and normally it does not seriously harm the case of the strong. Employers, rewarding your staff? Why, too? between a shop voucher or a spend anywhere card

when with Options Card, you can have both. With Options Card, your team gets the best of both worlds. They can spend with Ireland's favourite retailers or choose a Spend Anywhere card. It's simple to buy and easy to manage. There are no hidden fees, it's easy to use, and totally flexible. They can even re-gift or donate to a good cause. Make your awards more rewarding.

Visit OptionsCard.I.E. today. 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. Is the case of India an exception? Their passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted or threatened to disrupt the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive. It ceases to be nonviolent. The same holds true for the general strike. Yeah. I would just gallons if the general strike even approached entering.

the entering the modern discourse. I mean, when you, every once in a while, you'll see someone talk about it. It'll be like Caleb Mopin and you just, the people you would expect it to come from. But it's a great idea. I mean, you're never going to hear it from the right. Yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, as as blue collar as the rights become in the last, you know, 30 years, you'll, you'll never, you'll never,

see a general strike because then you go hungry. Right. Right. And we're not agrarian. Nope. Not anymore. We're not. Nope.

Robes Pierre's distinction between the terror of liberty and the terror of despotism and his moral glorification of the former belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations, even if the white terror was more bloody than the red terror. Yeah. Well, I mean. we want to try and compare and see which one was more violent. I don't think we need to do that. Yeah.

The comparative evaluation in terms of the number of victims is the quantifying approach, which reveals a man-made horror throughout history that made violence and necessity. In terms of historical function, there is a difference between the revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of... Yeah, I mean, think about that. And it's, it's each ideology's responsibility to capture either one of those terms first. I have seen people this week on social media and in comments that we actually read yesterday in a live stream we did for Old Glory Club,

where pro trans people, people who are actually celebrating what happened at that Christian school in Nashville were basically. were basically saying that they were the oppressed and that the government was the oppressor. It's still the oppressor to them. Yeah, that. I mean, this is actually, it's so perfect that we're reading this in the backdrop of that Nashville shooting

because you're seeing this in real life. Yeah. I mean, it's insane. it's been such a black pill to see just nobody like even people that we would expect to have some type of strong take with it nothing nothing except for the usual people like that we see in our timeline that we expect but man it's been fucking it's just been disappointed I mean I hope I made some sense last night because, you know, I'm one of those people who believes that trans people are victims. I believe they're victims of a campaign that, you know, just like any other campaign,

the campaign for fiat money, the campaign for wars and everything. But when it comes, once the violence starts and once innocent people start falling by their hands, then I have to step back and I have to go, all right, well, I wasn't exactly supporting you at this point, up until this point, but I'm definitely, you know, I'm definitely disengaged and I'm not going to make any excuses anymore. If tragedies like that are just by the odds going to happen, then I almost hope that the level of vitriol and schadenfreude and just the opportunism that comes about from basically dancing on victim's grave, I almost hope that it drowns out rational voices.

That's what needs, especially on the internet. Yeah. Yeah. Accelerationism on the internet is basically the default. It should be the default. I don't like seeing it. And I don't, I don't know. If there is a way to separate your internet self from your real life self and say that it's the complete fucking opposite, I'm there.

I don't know if I'm morally correct. I don't know if I'm going to burn an hell for that. But in terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil. But since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? It's a great question. It's a question that I ask all the time when people try to make moral arguments with me. Yeah. So what does morality have to do with this?

to start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressed to start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it here he closed john paul sart try to understand this at any rate if violence began this very evening and if exploitation and oppression had never existed on the earth, perhaps the slogans of nonviolence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your nonviolent ideas,

are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the rank of the oppressors. Silence is violence. But I mean, you see people on our side too. Yeah, I'm an ally. You're an ally? That's great. The very notion of false tolerance and the distinction between right and wrong limitations on tolerance,

between progressive and regressive indoctrination, revolutionary and reactionary violence demand the statement of criteria for its validity. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal criteria are set up and applied in an existing society, which has clear, yeah. First principles shouldn't be my constitution. Yep. Or my due process. Well, I mean, yeah, I remember the first person I really talked to who, who said this was

Warren McIntyre and he said, look, if you got to write, if your society has to write stuff down, you've already lost. Yeah. If you have to write your laws down, you've already lost. Yeah. Who are you writing them down for? Yeah. All right.

So, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, read that whole thing again. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal criteria are set up and applied in existing society, such as clear and present danger and other established definitions of civil rights and liberties. For such definitions themselves presuppose standards of freedom and repression as applicable or not applicable in the respective society. They are specifications of more general concepts. By whom and according to what standards can the political distinction between true and false, progressive and regressive, for in this sphere these pairs are equivalent, be made and its validity be justified? At the outset, I propose that the question cannot be answered in terms of the alternative between democracy and dictatorship,

according to which, in the latter, one individual or group without any effective control from below, arrogate to themselves the decision. Historically, even in the most democratic democracies, the vital and final decisions affecting the society as a whole have been made constitutionally or in fact by one or several groups without effective control by the people themselves. The ironical, what? Well, true. I mean, it's just... Democracy is just a bunch of interest groups fighting. Yeah, it's whichever group of elites, you know, win, basically.

The ironical question, who educates the educators, i.e., the political leaders, also applies to democracy. The only authentic alternative and negation of dictatorship with respect to this question would be a society in which the people have become autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle for existence in the interest of domination, and as such human beings, choosing their government and determining their life. Chas. He's describing Chas. And Ancapistan. And Ancapistan. Autonomy and freedom. Such a society does not yet exist anywhere. Employers, did you know, you can now reward you, and your staff with up to 1500 euro and gift cards annually completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions.

Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options Card is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.i.e. today. 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.Northwest. In the meantime, and it never will. In the meantime, the question must be treated in abstract, abstraction, not from the historical possibilities,

but from the realities of the prevailing societies. So he's basically going to apply something that doesn't exist to reality. And as I think it was Sam Francis said, channeling James Burnham, that never works because, and I will paraphrase, everybody thinks they have a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Yeah. Everybody or everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

All right. I think that was Mike Tyson too. Just bring in all the philosophers. I suggested that the distinction between true and false tolerance between progress and regression can be made rationally on empirical grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom are relative to the attained stage of civilization. Now we're getting into some Marxism. They depend on the material and intellectual resources available at the respective stage,

and they are quantifiable and calculable to a high degree. So are, at the stage of advanced industrial society, the most rational ways of using these resources and distributing the social product with priority on the satisfaction of vital needs and with a minimum of toil and injustice. Oh, God. Oh! You knew it was coming.

You knew it was coming. I was waiting for it. So excited. I'm back. I'm back. In other words, it is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with Cold War and a little hot war and a satisfaction of

needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation. consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements, which would promote this chance and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones. It's a power is a fixed pie, baby. And the Marxists want it. I want it. My theory is it. power is a

constant and it's just being divvied up yeah fixed by yeah who divvies it up who gets the biggest piece the question who is qualified to make all these distinctions definitions

definitions identifications for the society as a whole has now one logical answer namely Herbert Mark Hughes namely everyone in the maturity of his faculties as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously.

Well, what about the ones who haven't? And that's how you get a dictatorship. Yeah. What if your average IQ for your country is plummeting? Yeah. What if this is Somalia? John Stuart Mill's conception of the rest publica is not. the opposite of Plato's.

The liberal, too, demands the authority of reason, not only as an intellectual, but also as a political power. Huh. Okay. I was just thinking how the objectivists all, you know, say they need a society based on reason where the police would, that would be, the police would enforce reason. I'm not even kidding. I'm not even kidding. In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of philosopher kings. In Mill, every rational human being participates in the discussion and decision, but only as a rational being.

Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination, this would be a small number indeed, and not necessarily that of elected representatives of the people. Huh. Imagine that. The problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society. Yeah. I mean, public opinion can never really be organic, can it?

Because public opinion is itself a weird, fucking nebulous idea. even if you broke it down to like Dunbar's number, whatever natural elites or pastors are in that group or who are going to make public opinion, you know, the, they're going to be the leaders. Pretty much what people say about their governing style,

their governance is going to be coming, they're just going to be repeating what those men are saying. Yeah, more or less, or basing there, their opinions off of what they were taught from, you know, the progenitors of those men. Yeah. However, granted the empirical rationality of the distinction between progress and regression, and granted that it may be applicable to tolerance and may justify strongly discriminatory

tolerance on political grounds, cancellation of the liberal creed of free and equal discussion, another impossible consequence would follow. I say that by virtue of its inner logic, withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements and discriminatory tolerance in favor of the progressive tendencies would be tantamount to the official promotion of subversion. Huh. Imagine that. All right. Now he's on to something.

Yep. The historical calculus of progress, which is actually the calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery, suppress. suppression seems to such a fucking vagina I read that again the historical calculus of progress which is actually the calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery, and suppression

seems to involve the calculated choice between two forms of political violence that on the part of the legally constituted powers by their legitimate action or by their tacit consent or by their inability to prevent violence, and that on the part of potentially subversive movements. Moreover, with respect to the latter, a policy of unequal treatment would protect radicalism on the left

against that on the right. Can the historical calculus be reasonably extended to the justification of one form of violence as against another? or better since justification carries a moral connotation, or better since justification carries a moral connotation, is there historical evidence to the effect that the social origin and impetus of violence from among the ruled or the ruling classes to the have or the have-nots, the left or the right, is in a demonstrable relation to progress as defined above.

I love it. We're getting taken on another wild ride. Here's why you should throw your face into the brick being thrown at you. With all the qualifications of a hypothesis based on an open historical record, it seems that the violence emanating from the rebellion of the oppressed classes broke the historical continuum of injustice, cruelty, and silence for a breach of brief moment, brief but explosive enough to achieve an increase in the scope of freedom and justice and a better and more equitable distribution of misery and oppression in a new social system,

in one word, progress in civilization. Oh, I'm glad he's bringing these up here. Okay, good. The English civil wars, the French Revolution, the Chinese and the Cuban revolutions may illustrate the hypothesis. In contrast, the one historical change from one social system to another, marking the beginning of a new period in civilization, which was not sparked and driven by an effective movement from below, namely the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, brought about a long period of regression for long centuries until a new, higher period of civilization was painfully born in the violence of the heretic revolts of the 13th century and in the peasant and laborer revolts of the 14th century.

That's a very generous interpretation. With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes, no such relation to progress seems to obtain. The long series of dynastic and imperialist wars, the liquidation of Spartacus in Germany in 1919, fascism and Nazism did not break but rather tightened and streamlined the continuum of suppression. Really? I guess. Where? That did not break, but rather tightened and streamlined. 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 ginnis storehouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com.

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. Yeah. I don't get that. Where? I don't get why he would describe Nazism as tightening and streamline. Yeah, I guess streamlining the continuum of suppression. If it's meant to be pejorative, then yeah.

He's giving it more credit. I said emanating from among ruling classes to be sure there is hardly any organized violence from above that does not mobilize and activate mass support from below. Oh, all right. I see what he's saying. Yeah. The decisive question is on behalf of and in the interest of which groups and institutions is such violence released. I mean, the National Socialist Party, I mean, that started as grassroots. roots kind of street brawling right yeah like it didn't really get uh well i don't know

were there some like old uh old kaiser rike types in it from the beginning like i mean yeah they were all guys who fought world in world war one yeah yeah but were they like aristocrats uh i mean there were a couple yeah there were just a couple not enough to characterize it as an aristocratic movement I would probably say there may have been a chance that there were more aristocrats in the KPD. Yeah. Yeah. All right.

And the answer is not necessarily exposed in the historical examples just mentioned. It could be and was anticipated whether the movement would serve the revamping of the old order or the emergence of the new. Liberating tolerance then would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left. Yes. Absolutely. There it is. It's 100% right there. I like that.

As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda. Yes. A deed as well as of word. And you're seeing that since 2015. Yep. Since he came down that escalator? Yeah. Yep.

The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no. Can we talk about that? Can we talk about how people want to discount exactly? I mean, who care? I mean, Trump didn't get anything done, couldn't get anything done. But that's not the point of Trump. The point of Trump is just how he started all this. Yeah, there were, you know, okay, the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Well, Occupy Wall Street, and the Trayvon Martin shooting, and then the Michael Brown shooting. the formation of BLM, which most people don't remember, Barack Obama would basically call a terrorist group. The Democrats would call a terrorist group. And then you get up to 2015, and Trump goes down that escalator, starts saying the things that he says. And then it was just, okay, we have to take sides now.

I think if Trump were the most competent, most Machiavellian, politician, political actor, power player in the world, that he still wouldn't have been able to do anything. They started working on him from the second he blew away the primary debates. Yeah. When he acted like a, like no one's ever seen in, you know, in this lifetime and in many lifetimes someone act like that in a political debate in this country when he started acting like that and the people responded to him positively you know when a certain group on the right responded to him positively the right but basically then they knew that there was something really great and then brexit brexit was another thing yeah but which really means nothing i mean it's just but it was

it brexit means basically nothing has meant nothing other than some other than symbolism, pretty much just like Trump. Yeah. I mean, again, you could have the most ruthless, um, ruthless political actors, the highest caliber. And I think they still would have ended up like Trump, just as effective as Trump and Brexit. Yeah.

They were, they were ready. They had everything in order. Well before he posed a real threat. Yeah. Or well before he got formal power. These people have been doing this. for a hundred years. They're not stupid. Yeah.

All right, let me start that one again. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries fire.

It is a situation in which the total catastrophe, could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past in different circumstances, the speeches of the fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have stopped before it was too late. If the Democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign,

mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and the World War. He sounds like every Jew on my timeline. All right, let's keep going. The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only in the whole of a society is in extreme danger.

I maintain that our society is in such an extreme emergency situation and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Yeah, once you declare a state of emergency, it never goes away. Different opinions and philosophies can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds. The marketplace of ideas is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. Hey, I'm back. I'm here. I'm back. We're back, baby. The description of the problem is spot on. Yeah, yeah. In this society for which the ideologists have proclaimed the end of ideology, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness from the government down to its last objects.

The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties, which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and the liberation of the damned of the earth presupposes suppression, not only for their old, but also of their new masters. Yes. All right.

I'm rock hard again. Look, me gaining my sense of normalcy requires you losing yours. That's exactly what it is. Yeah, and more and more people are having less and less problem telling people that, which is great. because he's absolutely right. There is no rational discourse. There hasn't been for a while.

And even when there was, it was artificial in every sense. How can you have a rational discourse with people who are, I mean, it used to be, oh, it was someone on, oh, this is just someone on Twitter. Come on. Just turn on the cable news. All right. It's two channels, man. There's plenty more.

Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can be become active. Intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word. And finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives to the political right. These anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society, which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. Yeah, they're doing that right now. They're, it's great. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves to protection and preservation of a repressive society,

when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. 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. savor 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. 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.i. 4.S. Northwest. I mean, you're, I agree. Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. Only, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's,

fucking, let's rotate this 180 degrees. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteron, when heteronomen, heterononymous, heteronymous, heteronymous, let's do that again. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronominious interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance. There, where the false consciousness takes form, or rather it systematically formed,

it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. That's right. That's why we're going to crack down on disinformation. I see what he's saying. Oh, yeah. You know, planting the idea seeds in people's head. Like, that's bad and wrong and you shouldn't do it. And it go from there, you go from there to now you're not allowed to do it. To be sure, this is censorship, even pre-censorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media.

Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice. The safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought, and repressive action between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the breakthrough of the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation at an infinitesimally small spot to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends. The forces of emancipation cannot be identified with any social class, which, by virtue of its material condition, is free from false consciousness. You're going to ameliorize the eschaton, bro.

Today they are hopelessly dispersed throughout the society, and the fighting minorities and isolated groups are often in opposition to their own. leadership. In the society at large, the mental space for denial and reflection must first be recreated. Repulsed by the concreteness of the administered society, the effort of emancipation becomes abstract. It is reduced to facilitating the recognition of what is going on to freeing language from the tyranny of the Orwellian syntax and logic to developing the concept the concepts that comprehend reality. He's describing libertarianism. More than ever, the proposition holds true that progress in freedom demands progress in the consciousness of freedom,

where the mind has been made into a subject, object of politics and policies, intellectual autonomy, the realm of pure thought, has become a matter of political education, or rather counter-education. education. This, you got anything? I just, yeah, just, yeah. This means that previously neutral, value-free, formal aspects of learning and teaching now become on their own grounds and in their own right, political. Learning to know the facts, the whole truth, and to comprehend it is radical criticism throughout intellectual subversion. In a world in which the human, faculties and needs are arrested or perverted, autonomous thinking leads into a perverted world. Contradiction and counter image of the established world of repression.

I think the world that he is trying to lead them into is going to be a much more perverted world. But I'm using perverted in a much different way. It's going to be a much more annoying world. And this contradiction is not simply stipulated, is not simply the product of confused thinking or fantasy, but is the logical development of the given, the existing world. To the degree to which this development is actually impeded by the sheer weight of a repressive society and the necessity of making a living in it, repression invades the academic enterprise itself, even prior to all restrictions. on academic freedom. The preempting of the mind vitiates, vitiates,

impartiality and objectivity, unless the student learns to think in the opposite direction, he will be inclined to place the facts into the predominant framework of values. What would that look like nowadays? I mean, the academy? Yeah. scholarship, i.e., the acquisition and communication of knowledge,

prohibits the purification and isolation of facts from the context of the whole truth. An essential part of the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which history was made and recorded by and for the victors. That is, the extent to which history was the development of oppression. Yeah, that needs to be changed. But I think he would be extremely happy with how that's working out today. Yeah. Oh, 100%. Did you know that Marcus was, I think he was Paul Gottfried's doctoral director?

I believe that, actually. Yeah. I haven't listened to Godfrey in a long time. Yeah, he must be like in his 90s now. No, he's like 80. He's 80. Oh, but he's, dude, he's sharp. Yeah.

He was riding a bike like a year and a half ago and just got hit by a car. And he's fine. And he's like recovered and everything. I mean, that guy's not going. That guy's not going anywhere, man. All right. An essential part of the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which history was made and recorded by and for the victors, that is, to the extent to which history was a development

of oppression. And this oppression is in the facts, in the facts themselves, which it establishes, thus they themselves carry a negative value as part and aspect of their facticity. Fuck yeah. Hell yeah. Facts don't care about your feelings. Oh, yeah, face the wall. 100. All right. To treat the Great Crusades against humanity. with the same impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting the record.

Such spurious neutrality serves to reproduce acceptance of the dominion of the victors in the consciousness of man. So getting back to last episode, no, actually an objective, an objective overview of history is not good, actually. Yep. Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.

That's right. Children are our future. Education offers still another example of spurious, abstract tolerance in the guise of concreteness and truth. It is epitomized in the concept of self-actualization. From the permissiveness of all sorts of license to the child, to the constant psychological concern with the personal problems of the student, a large-scale movement is underway against the evils and repression and the need for being oneself. Frequently, heavily medicated at all times.

Frequently brushed aside as the question, as to what has to be repressed before one can be a self. One self. The individual potential is first a negative one, a portion of the potential of his society, of aggression, guilt feeling, ignorance, resentment, cruelty which vitiate his life instincts. If the identity of the self is to be more than the immediate realization of this potential, undesirable for the individual as human being, then it requires repression and sublimation,

conscious transformation. This process involves at each stage SSRIs. This process involves at each stage to use the ridiculed terms, which here reveal their succinct concreteness, the negation of the negation, mediation of the intermediate, an identity is no more, no less than this process.

I fucking hate these people so much. God damn it. 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 and fuse, 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, visitdrinkaware.com.

Alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject and not as it is made. I agree. We identify ourselves through what we are alienated from, for the most part. Alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject, and not, as it is made to appear today,

a disease, a psychological condition. Freud well knew the difference between progressive and regressive, liberating and destructive repression. The publicity of self-actualization promotes the removal of the one and the other. it promotes existence in that immediacy, which in a repressive society is, to use another Hegelian term, bad immediacy. I'm not going to do, I'm not doing German tonight. Schlesher omitur-barquette. It isolates the individual from the one dimension where he could find himself from his political existence, which is at the core of his entire existence.

This is why I fucking hate Frankfurt School because it is basically just Freud and it's all German. So you can you can take probably two thirds of the sentences that we read so far and just delete them. And then the remaining third is what he was actually trying to say. Freud. Yaki does some destruction of Freud in part one of Imperium that is beautiful. I mean, it's just a map and unbelievable takedown. Instead, it encourages nonconformity and letting go in ways which leave the real engines of repression and the society entirely intact, which even strengthen these engines by substituting the satisfactions of private and personal rebellion for a more than private and personal and therefore more authentic opposition. The desublimation involved in this sort of self-actualization is itself repressive in.

as much as it weakens the necessity and the power of the intellect, the catalytic force of that unhappy consciousness, which does not revel in the archetypal personal release of frustration, hopeless resurgence of the id, which will sooner or later succumb to the omnipresent rationality of the administered world, but which recognizes the horror of the whole in the most private frustrations and actualizes itself in this recognition. Oh, fuck yourself. Oh my God. So much, man. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's

I can't do Freud, man. Oh, it's, oh, it's, uh, the TV show MASH used to push Freud. Oh, really? They would bring on this, um, it would bring on this, um, it would bring on this psychologist every once in a while, Sydney, you know, tribe member. Oh, yeah. And, and, and he would, he was, he was, like, he was, writing letters to Freud. He was constantly like, you know, talking, quoting Freud. And it's just

like, oh, God, that show was so bad. It was, it was great in the first couple seasons. It was just a comedy. But then Alan Alda took over and it was like, oh, no, no. I have tried to show how the changes in advanced democratic societies, which have undermined the basis of economic and political liberalism, have also altered the liberal function of tolerance. The tolerance, which was the great achievement of the liberal era, is still professed with, professed and with strong qualifications, practiced, while the economic and political process is subjected to an ubiquitous and effective administration in accordance with the predominant interests. All right. He's back. He's back to being somewhat understandable.

The results is an objective contradiction between the economic and political structure on the one side, and the theory and practice of toleration on the other. I can get down with that. The altered social structure tends to weaken the effectiveness of tolerance toward dissenting and oppositional movements and to strengthen conservative and reactionary forces. Knowing what we know now, not so much. Equality of tolerance becomes abstract, spurious.

With the actual decline of dissenting forces in the society, the opposition is insulated in small and frequently antagonistic groups who even were tolerated within the narrow limits set by the hierarchical structure of society are powerless while they keep within their limits. I mean, 100%. He's describing the right, but yeah. But the tolerance shown to them is deceptive and promotes coordination. And on the firm foundations of a coordinated society, all but closed against qualitative change, tolerance itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it.

Yeah, I mean, this is just more Chomsky eventually really starts talking about. I forget who the organizer was, but the guy that started Lollapalooza back in 1991 and originally intended it to be like this. Was it Perry Farrell? Was it Perry Farrell? Jane's addiction or was it someone else?

I think it was somebody else. I'm pretty sure it was a Jewish guy. Perry Farrell was a Jewish guy. All right, maybe it was him. I don't remember his name, but within, like, it started in 1991 by 1992. There were T-shirt kiosk selling T-shirts for like $23, which at the time was ridiculous, and the bands weren't allowed to undercut. But there were, you know, you weren't allowed to bring blankets in because they wanted to charge you for their own blank.

But within a year. So you still had this idea of, you know, this rebellious, this rebellious festival full of, you know, anti-corporate, you know, all these anti-corporate actors. And, but it existed within the framework of everything that they hated. I was at one, two, and three. Were you? Yeah, 100%. The first year was great. The first year was fantastic.

Yeah. After that, it was just like, yeah, I mean, Pepsi size and Coke size. It still looked great. Like, looking at the videos from back of the day, it still looked amazing. Well, the bands were great and everything. But, you know, it's just like, ugh. Yeah, but it did. It was like, it was sort of like, it sort of wanted it to be like the Agora.

Yeah. Yeah. But, I mean, it just, yeah. Yeah, I mean, $10 waters and stuff like that eventually. Within a year. Yeah. But the tolerance shown to them is deceptive and promotes coordination, and on the firm foundations of a coordinated society,

all but closed against qualitative change. Tolerance itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it. These, yeah. Think of Lollapalooza. Yeah. These same can. The change. Yeah.

And I just looked it up real quick. They do, at least Wikipedia calls Perry, for all the founder. These same conditions render the critique of such tolerance, abstract and academic, and the proposition that the balance between tolerance, the tolerance towards the right and toward the left, would have to be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function of tolerance, becomes only an unrealistic speculation.

Indeed, such a redressing seems to be tantamount to the establishment of a right of resistance to the point of subversion. Yeah. Yeah. So you have to basically allow one of those groups to side

with the state and then you can control them. Well, I mean, if you ask any liberal what their ideal, I mean, their definition of tolerances, they would, they would probably

say that it includes, you know, movements, subversive movements, which is, you know, in and of itself, leftist and anti-rightist. Right. You know, it is, you know, they would also say that they would tolerate, you know, activism towards a return to tradition and a return to, you know, homogeneity and all that, but only up to a point where you're used to Hitler. Well, I mean, you read Iron Kingdom, more so in the 20s, the existing government and Hindenburg and everything was, I mean, they were tolerance of the left, but they were more aligned with the right. Yep.

So the real revolution, you would call the real revolutionaries would be coming from the left, and that would be the KBD. Yep. Okay. There is not, there cannot be any such right for any group or individual against a constitutional government sustained by a majority of the population. But I believe that there is a natural right of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extra legal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate. All right. You heard him. Did he? I mean, but I wonder. what he would, when he's looking at this, if he were to see now, what would his opinion be of what is happening and the fact that it's actually promoted from on high?

Yeah, I mean, you could probably, there's probably more than a handful of people that are directly influenced by Marcuse on the left, that you could kind of see that they're in. lockstep with whatever they're told to be. Yep. Whether that's, whether they're doing it grudgingly or, or whether they're skeptical, I don't know. Law and order are always and everywhere, the law and order which protect the established hierarchy.

It is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it, not for personal advantage. is in revenge, but for their share of humanity. There is no other judge over them than the constituted authorities, the police, and their own conscience. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence, but try to break an established one. Yeah, that's right. Bing! Wait, hold on.

Someone sent me at Ryan Dawson Bell. Well, let me read that again because that's a great. Yeah. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence, but try to break an established one. Excuse me. Does that mean violence is permissible in all instances? Well, only from one group. Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry. Since they will be punished, they may. know the risk, and when they are willing to take it, no third person, and least of all, the educator and intellectual has a right to preach them abstention. That's right. Hey, I mean, to their credit, like actual Marxists, actual communists have no problem calling the pacifist a liberal. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, it was that one. that one piece of graffiti that was making it around liberals get the rope to. Yeah. Yeah, it had a with a hammer and sickle on it. Yeah. Yeah, if only there were more of them like that.

Yeah, you know, it's a lot of people from our side came to understand just how useless and actually dangerous liberalism and classical liberalism is from like Neo, from neo-reactionary from like Italian elitist and everything. And I think we both came to it from like reading Lenin. Yeah. We finished reading Lenin and we're like, oh, oh, those guys kind of go. Those guys are useless. Those guys, they're not only useless.

They're counterproductive. Holy shit. Yeah. Oh, man. Fucking albatross around our neck. So what do you, um, What do you think of this one? That was good.

I love getting into dialectical materialism. I hate Freud. And I love that he finally said it. We need to tolerate violence from the left, and we need to not tolerate violence from the right. Yeah. I mean, I would rather they just speak the truth. I mean, that's the, yeah, it's a great thing about people in the Frankfurt. school and you know marxist leninus they they're going to tell you exactly you're not going to

question what they believe yeah yeah where you know people who um may have more right wing tendencies than say like uh glen beck have to hide them because um yeah they yeah because they get uh their their material material condition is contingent on pleasing their liberal overlords yeah yeah classical liberal overlords and neo liberal overlords yeah yep don't get canceled uh man it's you know it's i understand why owen benjamin went out there and he has 80 chickens and 10 goats and all these cows and everything like that he's you know, if everything, if it all got taken away from him, even if he couldn't spend paper, still live, still survive.

Yeah, I, um, actually my, my cousin who's in my, in my wedding party, he texted me today. He's like, hey man, like, should I start thinking about like, you know, forming alliances and like getting to know my neighbors and stalking up on ammo? because things right now seem really fucked. And I don't know how high or drunk he was at the time, but I was like, man, we'll be fine. Like, we will be fine. You didn't want to, you didn't want to break it to them?

Well, that's the difference between online me and real life, mate. I know that at least where I'm at, I have a good support network. I have, I'm pretty secure in my, it's like the shit would really have to go down. for me to be in any real danger of starvation or going to jail or anything like that, which it may very well, but at the end of the day, I'll be fine. I think if you're watching this show, you already kind of have that in your mind,

you know, the trip wires that need to happen before you start really freaking out. And I don't think we're there yet. No, no, we're not there yet. I know what it looks like. Yeah, exactly. Yep. To study, if anybody wants to go study, don't ask me for book recommendations.

Study Yugoslavia. You study places like that. Yep. I mean, we can draw a lot on history and we can kind of, you know, parse things out a priority with everything that's going on right now, you know, foreign policy-wise,

domestically. But I think by and large, if you're not in a highly populated urban area, that with less than favorable demographics, you'll probably be fine. Yep. Yep. Working on even where I am right now is a little too much for me working on getting out. Yep. We're going to get a little more, you know, the potential place.

You're going to have to know exactly where that. is to even find it. It looks amazing. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, man. But, all right. Why don't you talk about TLE or whatever you want to talk about?

I don't want to talk about TLE. Fuck those guys. Those guys are, there's something wrong with them sometimes. Yeah. As one episode, they got Donald Trump on there and like Tucker Carlson. The weirdest thing I've ever heard. I'll give your audience a sneak peek We're getting into the manosphere

Oh my gosh We're going to be talking about the linear man Doing everything in a straight line Well at least it'll be straight All right man Thank you very much Yep thanks for having me Thank you.