All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:08:52
Secular Theocracy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, this is Chris Roberts and I'm here with Greg Hood.
This is this week's edition of Left Right and White and we are going to be focusing on Dr. Paul Gottfried.
In the last week we did Sam Francis and the week before we did James Burnham and there is very much a straight line from Burnham to Francis to Gottfried.
Gottfried was born in 1944.
I think it's actually very meaningful that he is not a boomer.
And he was a contemporary of Francis.
The two were close friends and cited each other constantly back and forth in their works.
Spoken at a number of the same conferences as well.
They were big influences on one another and both were influenced by James Burnham.
We'll be getting more into that in due time.
So, Mr. Hood, it looks like you're staring very intently at one page of your copy of Paul Gottfried's After Liberalism.
Well, I should note that Dr. Gottfried is the first of the people we've discussed here who I've actually met.
So, Dr. Gottfried, if you're listening, how you doing?
And it's also worth remembering, in terms of his importance, that he was actually the one who coined the term alternative right.
And this was with the very beginning of the HL Mencken Club and this idea of an oppositional force to who was governing the conservative movement at that time.
It's worth noting at that time that the alternative right was not solely or even mostly focused on race.
A lot of it had to do with foreign policy and imposing the administrative state at home.
Yeah, Gottfried actually wrote a really, really wonderful essay for Talkies magazine in 2008 about this called A Paleo Epitaph, where he talks about the fall of paleoconservatism, paleoconservatism being what rose up to sort of try and counter neoconservatism in the late 80s and the early 1990s.
It's really focused around Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns and Chronicles Magazine, and Gottfried, who also, in addition to coining the phrase alternative right, coined the phrase paleoconservative.
Gottfried was one of the main intellectual heavyweights of the paleoconservative movement, so it's to his immense Credit that he was willing to say, like, look, this thing that I really helped start and have been such a figurehead of is, like, is over.
Right.
And I mean, he was very frank in his assessment of talking about how a lot of paleoconservatism was now just about internal squabbles, and a lot of it had been, had sort of become a civil war between Protestant paleos and Catholic paleos, and he was... Neither.
Well, yeah, indeed, he's Jewish.
He was honest enough to admit that nobody cared about this, and that a movement that was defining itself over fetishizing medieval Catholicism just was not going to go anywhere.
Meanwhile, by 2007-2008, when everybody had forgotten about Pat Buchanan, he was right to note that the rise of Ron Paul was the beginning of something Similar to paleoconservatism in that it was oppositional to
the dominance of neocons, but it still was was meaningfully different
and yeah, I mean not to
Talk about myself, but I should point out that when Richard Spencer started alternative right comm I
under my own name I wrote the article what is the alternative right and
And that was, I think, the first one that laid out what it was.
And it was mostly talking about Ron Paul and libertarianism.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, really, you have to remember when the Alternative Right was rising up, everything was happening in the context of reaction to the Iraq War.
And I would say that Dr. Gottfried, a lot of what he talked about when this movement really started taking off was also about opposing George W. Bush because he didn't just see it as, oh, these are bad foreign policy choices.
He saw it as indicative of an entire social movement that the American empire upholds.
I mean, there was a great talk he gave at the Property and Freedom Conference where he said, I see the American empire as a leftist project.
Yeah.
I would have to say that I think everyone on our side at this point agrees with that.
There are very few at this point who defend American overseas interventions as somehow benefiting our side.
But I want to get into what he had to say about the system we live under today.
And this is why this is important.
We're not going through this to be like, ooh, isn't this interesting?
We're going to navel-gaze and talk about these random ideas.
The point is understanding the system that we live under so we can deconstruct it, so eventually we can take it apart and build something better.
And I think Dr. Gottfried has come closer to describing, I guess, the mechanisms of how this thing operates than anyone else, because he points out in After Liberalism, and then expands on his later works, that what we live under is not really Liberalism.
And then even when conservatives say things like, oh, classical liberalism, I mean, you're talking about something that's just not here anymore.
Yeah, something that's historic.
Right.
Something that's not present.
I mean, really what we're living under is, if Sam Francis talked about managerial elites, and James Burnham would have said the same, Gottfried talks more about the therapeutic aspect of the managerial state, which is that we're going to have this class of experts come in, they're going to manage social relations, they're going to manage the way we get along with each other, and this is practically a recipe for unlimited government.
And it also necessitates deconstructing every single existing social relation.
And of course we're seeing this now, where if I had said to you 20, 10, even 5 years ago, look we're going to be having debates about whether 13 year olds can gender transition and about family privilege and all these sorts of things, you would drag me off to a loony bin.
That's where we are now, and as Dr. Gottfried himself would point out, you know, five years from now, unless we win, the conservative movement will not only be defending these things, but they'll be claiming that they invented them and that these were conservative projects all along.
One of the things, I just want to start off with a quote from After Liberalism, because I really think this captures the essence of it.
Throughout this century, but most noticeably in the last 50 years, this book argues, democratic practice has entailed less and less vigorous self-government.
While becoming progressively disassociated from any specific cultural or ethnic heritage, democratic citizenship has come to mean eligibility for social services and welfare benefits.
It also imposes varying degrees of loyalty to what Jürgen Habermas calls constitutional patriotism, the acceptance of legal procedures and of democratic socialization, presumably to be carried out by social experts.
Liberalism has also lost any meaningful connection to what it once signified.
By now, it is hard to find in contemporary liberal thinking much of what it stood for at the beginning of the century, save for talk about expressive and quote, lifestyle freedoms.
Freedoms that 19th century liberals might have had trouble in any case recognizing as rights.
Our own liberal statements are no longer centered on the merits of distributed powers, the need to protect traditional civil society from an encroaching state, or bourgeois moral standards.
Today's liberal democracies express and accommodate other political concerns, from the need for entitlements to the combating of prejudices and the privileging by courts of lifestyle rights and designated minorities.
And he also points out this is something that's not just happening in the United States, although the United States was in many ways the enforcer for what happened.
One of the things he talks about is what happened to Germany after World War II, where American I don't even know what the right word would be.
I would almost call them like political officers went in with the idea that they needed to teach Germany to be democratic.
And this was modeled on the American political system.
So when parties were set up, It was, okay, so you're going to have this party which fits roughly to this American political faction.
You're going to have this party which fits roughly to this political faction.
And so elections essentially become irrelevant because you have this administrative state that stays in power no matter who gets elected.
And so the culture keeps going to the left regardless of what people want or what they vote for.
Yeah, absolutely.
So, you're quoting from After Liberalism, which is the first book in what's generally considered to be a trilogy of Dr. God reads.
First is After Liberalism, second is Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, and the third is The Strange Death of Marxism.
And in all three, he lays out How I mean what you were talking about what you're just quoting from the fall of liberalism in any kind of classical sense into the sort of therapeutic Therapeutic managerialism and he also talks a lot about how just what you were talking about how this rather like American system of governance has really just Taken over Europe in multiculturalism in the and the politics of guilt he writes that
The beginning of the 21st century reveals the tyranny of American social movements over Europe.
Feminism, gay rights, and the continuing transmogrification of European postmodernism into American multiculturalism and the American cult of victims have taken Europe by storm.
This may be only one among other byproducts of the Cold War, but it is the one that defines the present European politics.
The Falling of the Marxist-European Left into a Stale Imitation of the New American Universalism.
He also quips that one should not exaggerate the meaning of occasional demonstrations, even violent ones, by the European radical left against American corporations and American militarism.
It is an Oedipal reflex directed against a political culture from which the European left draws all its ideas.
And this is also a big step in understanding why we had Black Lives Matter protests in England and the Netherlands, in France, and all these places, and also why Europe is starting to react against this, particularly in France, where Macron, who is hardly a man of the right, Basically came out with a statement saying, no, we are not taking down any statues.
No, we are not apologizing for the Republic.
I mean, in terms of defending traditional culture, he was to the right of President Donald Trump.
We'll see how that goes for Mr. Macron.
Like a lot of politicians, he talks a big game.
Macron is also just perpetually triangulating.
Oh, absolutely.
Both against the right and against the left.
He's a slippery fish.
I think this should not be taken as an endorsement of him.
I devoutly wish for other forces to take power in France.
Yeah, that's a subject for another day.
Correct.
But it is worth noting that, you know, as a lot of people have always said, you know, whenever you see one of these protest movements, these color revolutions overseas, the signs are always in English.
Yeah, I notice that just over and over again when I'll do photo blogs for American Renaissance of protests of even like, you know, Muslims who presumably hardly speak any French, like, in Paris protesting, you know, against, you know, whatever, whatever silly thing, you know, somebody published a cartoon I don't like, you know, and they will put their signs, you know, like, behead those who defame Islam, like, in English because they know it's about No, I'm not going to say one of them.
I'm going to go there.
It is the worst influence on the world today.
The less people who speak English internationally, the better off we are, because the more they're protected from this cultural poison.
And this also extends to something that Dr. Gottfried has written quite a lot about, which is not just the soft multiculturalism or the soft cultural leftist imperialism of the American Empire, but hard power as well, direct military interventions.
When we look at why the war in Iraq was justified, for example.
I mean, famously, George W. Bush, it was all about bringing democracy and we have a duty to liberate women and bring... Essentially, all the things that conservatives opposed 50 years ago, in terms of social values, have now become our defining conservative values, our eternal conservative values, in fact.
And not only should we accept them, but we have a moral duty to spread them throughout the entire world.
We're seeing a bit of this today.
Luckily, that's been purged from a lot of the Republican base, but among Republican politicians, that's certainly still there.
And we're seeing that now with some of the pushback against President Biden's declaration that we're going to be pulling out of Afghanistan.
You've got Republicans, Liz Cheney obviously, but others saying, no, we can't do this because we have to stay there until they have women's rights in Kabul and everything else.
That's right.
Once again, Dr. Gottfried called this, I mean, not only did Dr. Gottfried talk about this in 2003 and 2002 during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, but he was talking about it before then and in the context around American intervention in the Balkans.
So, yeah, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt was published in 2002 and before the build-up of Iraq made it clear that we were inevitably going to invade.
And here, in this passage, Gottfried is talking about the liberal predecessors to George W. Bush, and he writes, This new internationalism, as suggested by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, aims at nothing less than a transformation of human consciousness.
In this respect, it is light years away from that liberal internationalism that gained vogue in the first half of the 20th century.
In its visionary scope, the new meliorism goes beyond material tinkering in far-off places, such as Johnson's attempt to export the Great Society.
What the current project seeks to do is to overcome history as the cumulative record of prejudice by extending the domestic revolution in sensitivity to other parts of the globe.
Calling this neo-Wilsonianism misses its radical nature.
Thus, when Charles Gotti, Flora Lewis, Morton Unpronounceable, and Bed Wattenberg wrote passionately in favor of American intensive involvement in reconstructing post-communist East-Central Europe in the early 1990s, they mistakenly identified their plan as Wilsonian.
Their consuming interest in exporting American democratic values to an area supposedly grappling with an authoritarian past that has far more has a far more contemporary origin.
Neither Wilson nor FDR had proposed the United States commit itself to
moralizing societies with which Americans were not at war.
One of the things that I think divides the thought of Sam Francis and Paul Godfrey and Godfrey himself
wrote about this a little bit I believe in Leviathan.
I think it was either the I think it was the afterword was Francis drawing on Burnham I think had a much more
cynical take on whether people really believe this stuff when they come out
with these slogans because power you know Ideology is the mask power wears.
You say these things, or as I put it, the defining struggle of modern American life is to try to escape from the consequences of egalitarianism.
And the best way to do that is to talk about how much you love egalitarianism.
And the fiercest punishment our opponents have is to take away those means, so you have to live among the consequences of egalitarianism.
You don't have enough money to escape.
The obvious thing here is the Black Lives Matter co-founder who raised a few million dollars and then immediately bailed on the community, shall we say, as quick as she possibly could.
But yeah, she just bought a mansion in an area that's like over 90% white.
She bought four houses, I think.
Four houses, okay.
Trust me, they will be left out of any redistributionist schemes.
The equity they're coming for is not her house, they're coming for yours.
But to get back to it, one of the things Dr. Gottfried says is that he thinks these people really believe this as a moral imperative, and I'm inclined to agree with him, at least with the great mass of people.
I mean, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt was really formative for me.
Probably more formative than any other single book in terms of getting me Yeah, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt is one of, if not the best books I've ever read, and if you were to read one Paul Gottfried book, I would read The Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.
Now, I've read about nine of Paul Gottfried's books, which is perhaps excessive.
I would recommend a number of them, but again, if you're going to read one, read Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.
And the subtitle, Towards the Secular Theocracy, I think...
Precisely describes what we're dealing with now.
So that touches on it.
His big point, one of Gottfried's big theses in this trilogy after liberalism, multiculturalism, the politics of guilt, and the strange death of Marxism, Is that multiculturalism and sensitivity, and even to just a certain extent, therapy, have replaced Judeo-Christian values as the new religion.
Right.
And he, I mean, blame is maybe too strong a word, but he ties it, he thinks there is a direct lineage between Protestantism, especially Calvinism, and this new secular theocracy of multiculturalism that we see today.
This is something that, in my research for this, this is actually something that Jared Taylor does not entirely agree with, although Mr. Taylor may not be an entirely objective party, being that his lineage is entirely Anglo-Saxon Protestants, many of whom were Calvinists, so it's something of a personal matter for Mr. Taylor.
Well, it was nice working with you, Chris.
I'm inclined to agree with it.
The original sin versus white guilt being original sin, that need for confession and prostration, it's all there.
And also with Calvinism, one of the core doctrines is this idea of inherent depravity.
That you are so corrupt that even when you think you're doing good, you're doing it out of corruption.
And that you can see the parallels with the idea today of all whites are racist.
You're racist no matter what you do.
It's inherent to who you are.
You can do the work all your life.
Well, and you should do the work all your life.
It's got that same thing with, like, you need to be constantly working towards this thing that's absolutely impossible.
Right.
I mean, the only...
The thing with Christianity is that it at least presents some hope of salvation, whereas the secular theocracy of today presents no such forgiveness.
And there's no paradise after you die.
Right, and he talks about this in a lot of abstract terms, and we can talk more about what forces are really behind pushing some of these ideas, where's the money coming from, who are the activist groups.
The theoretical framework that he sets up in this book I think is very sound.
And the term of a secular theocracy, he was using it then, but if you look at it now, it's not even a secular theocracy anymore.
We almost have cults of martyrs being set up in all these different cities where some black criminal gets shot and immediately you have a little shrine developed and people talk about like all the great things that have happened and that they did and how Focusing on these things will transform our entire society.
Of course, we had pictures of George Floyd being put on the altars of various churches, including Catholic churches, so we should not just blame Protestants for this.
A lot of the Roman Catholic churches have been taken in by this too, perhaps most.
And we also have the idea of, as we joked about in the past, the idea of miracles, where during the height of the COVID pandemic, we had experts telling us with a straight face that if you go to the grocery store you're going to die, but if you go to a giant protest with hundreds of thousands of people, the disease won't spread.
There's no way to explain these things other than to say that they really have just rejected rationality because they've got this metaphysical claim now.
They've got this metaphysical truth that cannot be questioned without destroying their entire worldview.
Well, I believe you're the one who coined the phrase, um, feelings don't care about your facts.
I did not coin it.
I think some internet anon out there Did.
Oh, is this something you cribbed from 4chan?
I crib everything from 4chan.
4chan is the font from which all culture flows, but... No, I think actually I saw it on Twitter, but it was just, you know, somebody under whatever burner account or fake name.
I have no idea who specifically pointed.
And I think a lot of people have been saying that for a while.
It's just reversing what Shapiro always says.
That's right.
The thing to remember about all this is that in a way this is a far more, not in a way, definitely, is a far more dangerous thing that we're facing than what even Sam Francis described because Sam Francis would occasionally use language that was almost It's designed to kind of appeal to the blood, you know, when our enemies come to kill us, that kind of thing.
They will come to kill us because we are white.
And so this image of like a Rwanda-style genocide, people creeping up on you with machetes or something.
But in terms of how we actually analyzed the way these people operate, it was pretty cold.
It was, these are these elites, they're putting forward these ideas, it benefits them.
Dr. Gottfried has actually got a much more troubling message, which is that we're dealing with essentially religious fanatics.
And that this is coming out of a certain theological tradition that's been warped and twisted in certain ways, and this is where we've ended up.
But we're dealing with zealots.
We're dealing with people who can't really be reasoned with.
We're dealing with a moral framework that is fundamentally irrational.
And so you could have as many figures and charts and statistics that you want, and you could have as many videos of police shootings or who's actually attacking Asians in New York City or whatever else, but it's not going to matter.
The same way you could show whatever evidence to some, I don't know, Christian in the 16th century and they would just dismiss it as, well, you're obviously trying to use the tools of the devil to ensnare me.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, another very important difference between Francis and Gottfried is that Francis very much saw himself as part of the dissident right, as part of paleoconservatism.
He saw himself as a Buchananite.
He also saw himself as a white man and a conservative, and he considered that fight to be his fight.
Godfrey is much more of an academic.
I mean, he and Francis both have PhDs.
But Godfrey will always insist that he is not really a part of anything and that he is just an intellectual and he's just kind of analyzing all of these things.
And he doesn't seem as worried about his own Kind of like welfare or even like kind of like the future of the United States the way Francis was clearly Kind of agonizing over what right what America like his his descendants would live in you can sense that like pathos when he writes Yeah, I'm afraid it's it's much more like look.
This is how it is you the one thing that I would say about dr. Godfrey's work is just the absolute contempt he holds Mainstream American conservative intellectuals and that just comes through and he's absolutely right of course.
Well and the Academy I mean he worked he worked in colleges his entire life.
He was a professor I actually sat in on one of his classes once and you know it wasn't him Talking about, oh, the paleo-conservative tradition, or this and that.
It was just, no, this is, you know, the history of the European Enlightenment, and here are the same thinkers you've heard of before.
This is what they said.
I mean, what you bring up is an important point that, like, he had a job, and the job was explaining European political history, American political history.
He was not Soldier in the culture wars. That's right. I'm way San Francis
was yeah. Well into whatever extent Gottfried Somewhat was a soldier soldier in the can still is I mean,
he's still writing. I mean, yes, I think he can't I think he can't help himself
I mean he was he was definitely part of the Buchanan Brigade in the 90s, but when you talk to him
now he is just so cynically detached from just
everything He's also said before that he, at this point, he's so blackpilled about everything that he basically believes in, he's basically like a right-wing Leninist, and that he believes things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better, so he agitates towards things getting worse.
He has said in writing before that he votes for the most far-left candidates that he can, Because he thinks it'll just be better if we just get this collapse going.
And that is something that Francis, and certainly not Burnham, would have ever argued for.
I mean, both of them really actively worked to make things better in the immediate here and now, and Gottfried just doesn't really care.
But he's still engaging with stuff.
I mean, he has the web show with Joseph Cotto that he does.
Sure, he finds it all interesting.
And it's all writing.
But to go back to your point as far as how blackpilled he is on the whole American project,
A speech I was listening to from 2012, of all things, is he was saying, look, I favor America breaking into as many parts as possible because the only form of resistance I can see is local governments basically putting as many layers as possible between them and the administrative therapeutic state.
And so he considered himself a radical libertarian tactically, not really coming out of like libertarian beliefs, but libertarianism as we need to destroy the state.
And he said this quite explicitly that he believes that The state is responsible for shaping society and culture.
I think that's something you and I would both agree on.
That's something that a lot of conservatives, particularly a lot of conservative politicians, either don't believe or pretend not to believe in.
I'm reminded of the governor of Arkansas saying, well, you can't veto this bill for child transsexual laws, whatever it was about.
You can't do anything about that because that's using big government and conservatives should work through the churches and stuff like that.
It's like, no, the state shapes culture.
And Gottfried sees this and he says, okay, well, the state shapes culture, but we need to dismantle the state in order to prevent it from doing that negative ways to defend traditional bourgeois values, traditional moral values.
Now, there's also a counter-argument to that.
I think you and I, and probably most of our listeners would agree, being that a lot of us are post-libertarian, that the state matters and that state power is something you have to deal with.
The question is essentially a tactical one.
Do you try to dismantle the state or do you try to capture the state?
And then you say, okay, now we're the ones who are going to engineer society, but we're going to use These tools as opposed to what the left's been doing, i.e., you know, we're going to if you move jobs overseas, if you are subsidizing all these radical leftist groups, if you're engaging in the kind of stuff that these corporations are doing over the Georgia election laws, we're going to tax you into oblivion, seize your assets, that kind of thing.
I mean, there are people openly making these arguments now.
Yeah, well, I think Gottfried would actually plead the fifth on that question, whether or not we should take over the state or dismantle it.
I think he would say, well, whichever works.
Yeah, it's kind of whatever.
But I first started emailing Dr. Gottfried in college, which is when I really dove into his works and just couldn't find anybody on campus who could really engage with the kind of arguments he was talking about.
And in my college library, I found a 1980 issue of an academic journal called Thought, with an essay from Paul Gottfried in it that covers the influence of Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Erich Vogelin in American conservatism.
Remember, I think the story really captures Gottfried's essence.
I found this essay really, really interesting.
I thought aloud about it.
There are all kinds of notes in the margins.
I spent sort of like a week formulating questions about it, and then I emailed Dr. Gottfried all of these questions, and his reply—I don't have the email anymore, unfortunately—but his reply, in so many words, was like, look, that was 1980.
It was a long time ago.
Back then, I thought all three of those intellectuals were very interesting people with lots of interesting things to say, and that it was good that they were influencing the American conservative movement.
Now, I don't really care.
I hate the conservative movement.
It hasn't gone anywhere.
It's not doing anything.
It's not going to go anywhere.
It's not going to do anything.
And given that that's the case, it's probably either A, irrelevant that these three European intellectuals influenced it, or B, was for the worse, because the proof is in the pudding.
So, you know, whatever, and just like didn't engage with any of it.
And then he just didn't engage with any of the finer points of my questions as to what he had written.
Doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.
And that was his take.
And I'll shoot him an email maybe once or twice a year, and his replies are often kind of this nature of like, oh, I was thinking about this, and you wrote about this here, and what do you think of that?
And his reply will be like, Look, I mean, who cares, kid?
It's all over anyway.
I mean, I think one thing that's important with this is that it's important to engage with these ideas, but only as a means to, you know, the point is not to just understand the world.
The point is to change it.
And I think that's where he's at.
And if you don't see a realistic program for change, there's not really much of a point in getting into the, Oh, well, if we were in charge, these are the law principles by whence we would govern the state and all this airy language that the American conservative movement is so fond of.
It's worth noting that Dr. Gottfried was pretty immersed with this movement for a long time, though.
I mean, ISI was still publishing his books until not too long ago.
Yep, that's very true.
And they still had a lot of his things that were up on the website.
I'm not sure if they still are, probably not.
And he was still somebody you could talk about as a critic of American conservatism and occasionally you would see these snipes from National Review or whoever else.
But I think what's interesting is that the world has kind of, the conservative movement I mean, Has clearly started to come closer to what the issues that he was talking about precisely at the point where he's saying, look, this isn't going anywhere.
Yeah.
And it does raise certain questions of, okay, we're given this body of knowledge.
And I think the key takeaway from Dr. Gottfried is that he tells us this is how the regime actually functions, particularly in after liberalism.
It's not you vote and then these guys take control of the state and then they do X, Y, and Z. It's that you have an administrative state that survives regardless of which party is in power.
You have these NGOs and vanguard of journalists and activists and also we should point out big corporations who fund all this and they are the ones who actually Coordinate the changes and make the pushes and the politicians if anything are kind of following in their train so and I think Most people are starting to get this now and people talk about a color revolution being waged in the United States for example
The suspicion of what's about to happen with Ukraine and Russia that we've seen this game before with the American foreign policy establishment making wild claims that aren't actually true.
In fact just today, I don't know if you saw it, but you remember during they were calling President Trump a traitor because Russia was putting bounties on American soldiers that were being killed in Afghanistan, and then today they were just like, yeah, that didn't happen.
That's all nonsense.
But they got them out of office!
And that fell apart pretty quickly.
And as somebody put on Twitter, the thing with this is that the only people who will ever read this correction are the people who didn't believe the story in the first place.
That's right, that's right.
So Godfrey gives us these tools, but Let's face it, he does kind of leave us hanging in terms of how are we supposed to solve this problem.
I think his answer, as you say, would just be whatever works.
Tactically, you know, radical localism or tactical libertarianism might be one thing, but even that...
I mean, the problem is that ideas tend to get taken to their logical conclusion.
So, if you build some radical libertarian movement saying, okay, we're going to fight the administrative state this way with these really riled up libertarians, and he knew Murray Rothbard and everything else, the problem is that group of libertarians five years down the line are going to be a bunch of leftists, because unless you have a group that's explicitly on the right, it's going to go to the left over time.
Well, and we've seen that with the Libertarian Movement already for just years and years.
We've seen that with Ron Paul himself.
I mean, the one time I was on TV and somebody, I think it was Adam Kokesh or whoever it was, was pushing me on immigration.
And I just was reading back, well, Ron Paul said this, and now he's talking about culture and mass immigration's negative impact and everything else.
You could see just like it didn't compute because that that line of argument had already been passed by.
And where are the libertarians today?
Except, you know, jumping out once in a while to condemn Trump for statism or something like that.
Yeah, pretty much.
In terms of the endgame, something Dr. Gottfried talks about at the end of both Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, and also in The Strange Death of Marxism, is the possibility that the managerial state, because of immigration, Will just collapse on itself.
It's not an outright prediction, but it is something he writes about here.
I'll read you a few quotes about this at the very end of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt from the last few pages.
So short-term gain and ideological commitment have both driven the managerial class and its media and academic priesthood toward empowering those who live parasitically on multicultural institutions.
Oosh.
Hispanic racialists, third-world patriarchs, and Mexican irredentists will likely eat up the present regime if given the demographic chance.
What will then ensue will not be a return to what the managerial state supplanted.
At most, a precarious truce may be struck before the advocates of group rights resume
their competition for power.
And then, later on...
But staggering numbers of unfriendly foreigners must tell in the end.
To whatever extent our elites take their ideology seriously, one in which the enemy is always a fascist, southern racist, Christian sexist, or one's own insensitive self, they do not reckon with the fall that may await them.
Thinking these leaders govern through calculation disregards the fantasy aspect of their vision, one that has likewise spread among their citizen subjects.
The relation between the two is derived partly from a shared obsession, a misplaced quest for religious redemption that takes the form of worshipping at the multicultural shrine.
Such a fixation would not be so perilous if the tragic self-delusion were not so deep and widespread.
In Greek mythology, the Latai, divine respondents of our supplications, Come only after 8, the goddess of mischief has wrought havoc.
For the managerial class and its multitudinous supporters, it might be best if the repairing deities come sooner rather than later.
Is it 8 or Ate?
Uh, you know more about the classics than I do.
Let's go with Ate.
More about paganism, anyway.
Ha!
I mean, the thing that... What I love about that is just the idea of seeing Us as citizen subjects under a priesthood.
And that's always how I've felt about journalists, is that they're the clergy, they're the priests of the code of weakness and decadence.
And that's why the response to people like us is always something along the lines of burn the witch, burn the heretic.
It is a fundamentally religious impulse.
However, we have to take issue with some of this here.
I mean, one of the things that he's sort of positing here is that these third-worlders, they have no stake in gay rights or social liberalism or transgenderism or anything else.
I mean, a bunch of Muslims are not going to go along with this kind of thing.
Internationally, we can clearly see this.
I mean, China is laughing its head off as it sees America destroy itself with this stuff.
It's not going to let these same poisons get into it.
Vladimir Putin, one of the first things he did once he really got control was he banned foreign- he didn't ban certain cultural practices or sexual practices like homosexuality, say.
But he banned foreign NGOs from doing activism on behalf of it, because he recognized it as a tool for social control.
He was fearful of these... Are you talking about Putin or Orban?
Putin.
Orban, too.
Yeah, Orban did the same thing in Hungary.
Yeah, and of course Soros is from Hungary, so you knew the score.
But I don't think that we should regard this truce that he discusses as inherently impossible.
There have been a whole host of nationalist, I mean let's just call them nationalist figures within the non-white world.
Who start off sounding almost like ultra-nationalists, right-wingers, but make an accommodation very quickly with the left and basically take their place at the table for scraps.
Malcolm X, I think, would be the best example.
Throughout most of his career, he was talking quite explicitly about having a separate black state, about having segregation, about how this was the best way to prevent a racial explosion and everything else.
Then once he left the Nation of Islam towards the end of his life, he essentially was no different than a BLM person today, where he would say, well, we want certain benefits, we're not going to give up being part of the country because we still want this stuff, but we still demand these special rights and everything else.
Keith Ellison, of course, would be another example.
The man who is currently, I guess, at least involved in the prosecution of Officer Chauvin, former Officer Chauvin, out in Minnesota.
I mean, when he was, what, 25, 26, writing under an Africanized fake name, he wrote a proposal for an explicit black ethnostate in the American South.
That's right.
And was friendly with the Nation of Islam when he first was getting Getting his political career going.
A lot of these guys were involved in his rise, but then he clearly understood that.
The money is easier if you just go to goofy white people and say, hey pay me money and I'll let you pat me on the head and that'll be it.
I don't think that these guys are going to rebel because, I mean look, in Europe we still have this alliance between radical Muslims who may be conservative in how they govern themselves but are still aligned with socially liberal policies.
And also you see it with people like Ilhan Omar.
I mean, one of the particularly stupid right-wing takes out there is that somebody like Ilhan Omar is going to lead the way for Sharia in the United States or something like that.
But if you look at the way she votes, it's all the same as any other white liberal when it comes to gay rights or trans or whatever else.
Like with so many things, it's kind of a question of numbers.
Regarding Gottfried's vision of a demographic tidal wave knocking out the managerial class just because they're so outnumbered by uncivilized third-worlders.
And the same tricks can't be used against them of verbal manipulation and whatever else.
Or appeals to white guilt and these sorts of things.
The question, it's sort of a race.
You could come up with some kind of complicated Mathematical calculation, right?
because not only is it a question of like, well, how many of these third-worlders who
could supplant the managerial state are coming in, but how many of them are kind of losing
their kid, like what percentage of their children end up buying whole hog into the sort of big
tent like leftism that's pro-managerial state.
So the managerial state is kind of like in this race of like, we have to convert, we
have to make sure that these Muslim kids or Mexican kids or whatever get into our public
schools, our state schools, so they get really into gay rights and so they'll grow up and
want to pass hate speech law and all of these things.
And if the managerial state successfully converts enough of these newcomers into their ideology,
it can probably just continue on.
Yeah, perpetuate itself forever.
But if it doesn't, I mean, if it takes in too many people, and those people are too good at maintaining their own folkways in this new world, then that really could be what breaks it.
Right.
I mean, essentially, I think what you need to, instead of viewing the world almost as like a clash of civilizations or cultures, or even races, I almost view it in terms, at this point, in terms of media blocks.
In terms of There are populations and the media they consume determine who they are and what they believe.
And one of these tools of therapeutic managerial state, as the most important tool Dr. Godfrey talks about, is of course the schools, as you point out.
And this is why I think you see particular anger and fury at the coming from the left at the rise of homeschooling and this idea of these bills coming being passed in some American states where they say we're going to fund students not systems.
We're going to take the money away from the public schools.
We're going to put it toward students because unless you can actually get the kids to go through these regimented Places where they're gonna be taught white guilt where they're gonna be taught social justice where they're gonna be taught the narrative of all of human history The whole system will fall apart because if left to their own devices Not only third worlders will they stick to their own folkways?
But if whites are not put through that same, you know sausage maker basically We will be able to reassert our traditional beliefs and reassert our traditional identity, and that of course would bring the whole thing crashing down rather quickly.
It's funny that you mention a clash of civilizations, because another line from Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt that I just absolutely loved, and I'd love to get your take on it since you're a big Samuel Huntington fan, Gottfried writes,
The view advanced by Samuel Huntington about a clash of civilizations between a constitutionally
structured capitalist West and its non-Western rivals overlooks the changes that have overtaken
American society.
Huntington creates the impression that the United States is pretty
pretty much the same politically and morally as it was in the early 20th century. He thereby
ignores the managerial and therapeutic transformations that have shaped American and European governments
in the second half of the 20th century." I love that of like, you know, what is it,
the Black Panthers had the slogan in the 1960s, bring the war home? It's like, Sam Huntington
kind of missed, but got for you.
And Francis New, like, the clash of civilizations is within our own borders.
And that's the biggest problem with the American right now, and you're seeing them do the same thing with China, where they say, oh, the poor Uyghurs, we have to get ready to fight a war to spread our values abroad.
And it's like, look at what our values are at home.
They're terrible.
I mean, the only reason I can think To wage a war to spread our values overseas is because we're deliberately trying to destroy those countries overseas by introducing them to our values and then like lead them to their civilization to commit suicide within a generation.
I mean that would be like a really good strategy.
I mean we should have been dropping copies of like the vagina monologues all over Afghanistan or something.
We'd be out of there within a generation.
We'd never have to worry about it again.
I think that Gottfried really captures This in a way that so many conservative, so-called mainstream conservative critics really don't, which is that the latter all seem to presuppose that the West is still a thing, or that America is still a thing, that there's something left to conserve, that there's something left to defend, and there's not.
I mean, the mission that lies before us is defense of what's left, what little is left, but really it's about reconquest.
And the last thing we need to be doing is screwing around overseas, unless we are deliberately just trying to tear the whole rest of the world down with us.
And there may be something to that, because again, as I think Dr. Gottfried would agree with me, a lot of the neoconservatives, whom he accuses of basically having taken over the conservative movement, were Trotskyites in their first itineration.
Burnham himself was Trotskyite.
And what was the big difference between Trotsky and Stalin was Trotsky thought that the Soviet Union could not survive, could not coexist in a world with capitalism.
You had to have a global revolution or the whole thing was going to fall apart.
And I think that's sort of underlying the ruling class in the post-western world today.
That you can't have a powerful state or a powerful empire or a powerful economic bloc that operates outside the system.
Because our system sort of consumes itself over time.
So if we can't take them down with us, if we can't put them on the same road, foreign adversaries will simply outlast us.
I mean look, there's a lot going on there.
Maybe I'm being a bit speculative here, but I think that you're seeing this with the way the anti-Chinese propaganda
is being lined up.
And look, I'm not one of these people who's like, oh, China's a friend and they secretly have our interests at stake.
No, of course they don't.
If you look at the way they use propaganda against the West, it's all pro-Black Lives Matter stuff and everything else.
Yeah.
You know, all that being said.
Well, what you're getting at is, I mean, so something you're talking about is like exactly something Gottfried wrote once, which is, This claim to be for values which originated among post-war conservatives has taken the place of standing for real historical groups, that is, for groups that a genuine right might be interested in championing.
And that's like, you know, there's kind of like a before and after moment for a lot of us involved in the dissident right of like, once you get to that point, we're like, You're not really interested in protecting these sort of abstract values or figuring out how to implement these abstract values in the real world, whether it be in China or on Wall Street or what have you.
You're interested in defending genuine people and specific peoples.
And the China thing, which again, I'm no defender of China.
China's obviously a terrible government that brings real misery to its people.
our economic relations with them is leaves a lot to be desired but there is
this bizarreness of like you're talking about like way I wanting to bring
democratic values to China you know China has a values issue and it's like
you want to talk about like the soaring murder rate in like America in like
American cities you know like let's talk about that I mean I suppose you can talk
about that in a frame of like values but you wouldn't go to those criminals and
lecture them about their lack of values and how they need better values and how
they should just read Edmund Burke or something like you know again this is
where you you know you use burnham or Carl Schmitt or something
It's like, well, we've found some enemies of society, right?
We have found some enemies to particular peoples that we champion and ways of life that we champion.
And like, let's, let's use the state to, to end this instead of, you know, rhetorically, you know, talking, you know, rhetorically grandstanding.
About this Muslim minority like in Central Asia that nobody has ever heard of before and it's like look you think they care about us?
Yeah, right.
You think Uyghurs are outraged about you know what's happening to like you know our neighborhoods and our major American cities?
You think they're really sad about like the white death or like deaths of despair or any of that?
Right.
You think they would ever like give money or do anything to help those people?
What did Sam Dixon say?
Every morning you know hundreds of white people wake up and go to work To work all day on the problems of blacks and Asians and Hispanics and everyone else, but there's not a single black, Hispanic or Asian anywhere in the world who gets up and says, what can I do for white people today?
One of the things with this idea of an enemy at home and abroad, I think Russia is obviously a better model for the therapeutic managerial elite.
And that's clearly what they're going to focus on.
I mean, you remember this meme a few years ago where they were talking about Russia as the home of the alt-right international and this whole theory.
And this was also key to the idea of, well, Trump was put in because of Russian Russian manipulation, Russian and everything else.
So you have this weird thing where nationalism, as let's say America First conservatives would understand it, nationalism, attachment to this country, its traditional past, its traditional institutions and symbols, actually becomes a form of treason to the managerial state because the new patriotism is to this vision of people of color displacing the old racist regime.
And furthermore, the people who call themselves nationalists, the Pat Buchanan's of the world, they're actually secretly in alliance with Russia or some other shadowy foreign group.
I mean, you also saw this with the huge media story about, oh, somebody sent Bitcoin to a bunch of right-wing people before the January 6th thing.
Ergo, there's a foreign plot to, like, do this thing.
And I think we might see more of that, frankly, in the next week as tensions kick up in Ukraine.
Oh gosh.
Well, we're not going down that road.
No, that's a podcast in itself, but let's just keep that in mind.
The regime that Dr. Gottfried is talking about does require an enemy, and requires an enemy that can ultimately never really be defeated, because that's how it justifies itself.
And the enemy is basically foreign reactionaries abroad.
We should talk a bit about Gottfried's writing on American conservatism and the conservative movement.
We've talked mostly about the state, the managerial state.
for all our social shortcomings.
Well, we should talk a bit about Gottfried's writing on American conservatism and the conservative
movement.
We've talked mostly about his theories about the state, the managerial state.
And this is really important.
Yeah, this again, there's a big kind of before and after.
I think a lot of people on our side read either his 2007, Conservatism in America, Making Sense of the American Right, or his earlier book that he co-wrote with the then-editor of Chronicles Magazine.
Interestingly enough, Gottfried himself is now the editor of Chronicles Magazine.
The two of them together wrote a book called The Conservative Movement, which first came out in 1988.
There's a second edition in 1992 as well, and both of those, for me, reading them in my early 20s were really, really useful just because they are a straight-up history of the conservative movement after World War II, which is when the conservative movement, as we understand it today, really became a thing with William F. Buckley and the National Review and all of this stuff.
Where were you at ideologically when you read the conservative movement?
You were probably like in college when that came out.
I mean I was still in it.
I mean the thing is like when I was in college I was Sort of in the conservative movement, vaguely in the sense that I would go to a lecture, I would go to CPAC, that was with a college newspaper that was loosely affiliated with one of these groups that gave money for this kind of thing, but I was never on board with the Iraq War, say, ever.
So I was never really totally a mainstream conservative and so that's why I was so receptive to Dr. Gottfried's ideas at the beginning.
As a fact, he spoke at my school way back when, when I was in college.
Oh cool.
So I mean that was sort of where I first got The real truth about a lot of these things.
I mean, in terms of what he talks about, and he also edited, or had a compilation to one of the print editions, I believe, of Radix, which talks about the purge, the Great Purge, and how the history of the American conservative can really be defined as this history of purges of what I would argue are the actually conservative elements.
And instead what's left behind are basically these internationalist social democrats who take leftist values but say no actually these are conservative values and go forward with that.
And this is also important when we talk about, when Dr. Godfrey talks about the idea of citizenship being defined as adherence to a legal regime or a constitution.
Because it takes away the idea of citizens being part of a nation defined by a people.
Instead, it really is citizenship just as a piece of paper and adherence to certain abstract ideas.
Right, well, and Gottfried, in his books on American conservatism, I think for him, actually, probably the biggest failure of American conservatism is not rebuking exactly what you just laid out.
For the left, I mean, you know, a good citizen is somebody who has fealty to certain abstractions like feminism or sensitivity, and for the mainstream conservatives in America, it's just fealty to other abstractions, which is kind of like the Constitution, or in a lot of cases, I mean, especially after the Iraq War, it just feels to democracy and just like believing really deeply in democracy, which historically is a really amorphous term.
Right.
I mean, that can mean whatever you want it to mean.
It's also an interesting question that you can pose to people is, would you rather live
in an America that was not a democracy or somewhere else that was a democracy?
It can often really help put in perspective how valuable the system of democracy really
is to you.
If America stopped being democratic, as we understand that to be, would you freak out
so hard that you're like, okay, well forget this place that I'm from, that I grew up in,
you know, or that I went to school in, where I know everybody, you know, I'm just going
to go somewhere else with like a superior political system.
Is democracy really all?
I mean, that's what it's about.
I used to always ask people, you know, American conservatives, I was like, look, would you rather live under socialism in Sweden or capitalism in Honduras?
And the only people who ever actually responded capitalism in Honduras were the people directly employed by the conservative movement.
Everybody else knew like, oh, obviously Sweden.
The nation is a people and a place and a real thing.
It's not just a bunch of random abstractions.
Also implicit in this, and this is shared of both, I guess, what you could call the hard left and the phony right that Dr. Godfrey calls out so often, which is If being an American means adhering to a set of certain abstract values, one, it means everybody in the world is potentially an American, but it also means that plenty of Americans aren't really American, because if you don't believe in these values... And so it's actually a far more totalitarian thing than anything on the hard right is suggesting.
You'll get these quote-unquote center-right conservatives Who say, oh, we need to reject the identitarians and their divisive message.
Instead, patriotism is defined by adhering to traditional American principles of limited government and free market capitalism.
And it's like, well, I hate to tell you guys, but a lot of people in this country don't believe in free market capitalism.
Are they not American?
Should they be stripped of citizenship?
Should we kick them out of the country?
Because if so, you guys are going to be having a much more hardline policy than even we would have.
Basically, what we want is just to be left alone.
And Summing Godfrey, again, ultimately concludes, not so much in his first book on the American conservative movement, the one he wrote in the late 80s and then revised in the early 90s, but by the time he wrote American conservatism in America, excuse me, I mean, his conclusion is essentially like, this movement isn't really very useful, and it hasn't really done a whole lot, and it hasn't managed to challenge the left on anything that's very important.
Which again is sort of his... In fact, it's essentially, I recall him saying this in a speech, that the role of the American conservative movement, what they call the American conservative movement, is essentially his shadow box with the left.
To maybe give you a preview of somebody who we'll be talking about at a later point, you know, the Noam Chomsky idea, which is that you are allowed to have extremely bitter political fights, but within a very narrow realm of ideas.
And the American conservative movement serves to be one side in these political fights. So you'll have these
right-wingers, Republicans and Democrats, savaging each other, calling
each other traitors, going completely... it's getting people riled up
and sucked into this two-party game, which even we fall for a lot of times.
But then when you actually boil down what they're fighting about,
they're basically in agreement on all the key points.
And regardless of who wins or loses, it's the same things are going to happen, maybe a little bit faster, maybe a little bit slower, but nothing really changes.
And I think that kind of historical pessimism is key to Godfrey's point, but it's also a good starting point.
I mean, optimism is cowardice, as Spencer said.
And one of the things that Godfrey talks about is he says, look, you know, and this is the tragedy of the American conservative movement, to get personal for a second here.
I mean, you get these kids, and I saw a lot of them, you know, and who would come in and they would get involved in the American conservative movement.
They would get involved in college activism.
And they get all fired up to take a stand on some issue on campus thinking that they're fighting for freedom in the American way and whatever else.
And of course, if you're on a college campus, what are the issues about?
They're not about tax cuts.
They're always about race or gender or political correctness or something like that.
And you would get some kid to come charging in.
And take a stand on this thing.
And then the campus would turn on him.
And then when that kid would turn around for support from the conservative movement, usually none was forthcoming.
And he would just kind of get gunned down and that would be the end of it.
The conservative movement always leaves its wounded lying bloodied on the battlefield.
The left never does.
And I think that Godfrey's assertion that the American conservative movement has failed, utterly failed, To accomplish anything of real value since Buckley since its entire existence has to be a starting point for where we are because this triumphal narrative of there was nothing.
And then there was Buckley and he raised the torch and then we had the Reagan Revolution and things have been alright ever since.
That's a poisonous lie.
Yeah.
And it's not only a poisonous lie in the sense that it leads to long-term political defeat, but it also sucks people into getting involved with things that are going to demand a lot from them and not give anything back.
And also not allow you to actually accomplish anything.
Yeah, as the co-host of this podcast, Left Right and White, let me formally recommend to listeners that you do not get involved in mainstream conservative politics.
Don't go work for think tanks and mainstream publications like we did.
It's not really worth it.
I would say this.
My advice on that is sort of like my advice for if you were a young person looking to join the armed forces, which is basically Do it before you do anything else, so you don't have any dirt on you, so to speak.
But do it for personal reasons.
If you think you're going to learn certain skills, if you're going to be introduced to certain ideas for the military, if you're going to get discipline or a sense of overcoming a challenge or whatever you've set out for yourself.
But just don't kid yourself that you're fighting for any larger, higher principle, because at this point you're not.
And Paul Gottfried would completely, completely agree with us on this.
Yeah, I mean it's essentially, it's an initiation on the path of your, whatever path your life is going toward.
The idea of defending something that matters, defending your people, defending your history, your culture, your civilization, the idea of human greatness, the idea of human progress, everything that we talk about, you're not going to get it from the American conservative movement.
What you're going to get is $20,000 a year to shill for people who make $20 billion.
I don't think we can end quite on that depressing a note.
A lot of it is depressing.
I should say, Hood here is actually channeling plenty of Gottfried's cynicism and bitterness about having been part of a conservative movement that he feels hasn't gone anywhere.
I got a lot out of the conservative movement.
The thing is, I didn't have any bad personal experiences with the conservative movement.
The only thing that I've ever kind of been annoyed at is the way other people have been treated.
I mean, none of it ever happened to me.
The only thing I guess, maybe it was just because it was years ago and it was a different climate, but the thing that annoys me is, you know, my views have never really changed and everybody's always known about them.
It's just, but now, oh, we can't do this, but it's like, come on, guys.
Talking to you, Oliver Darcy.
I think actually Dr. Gottfried would say the same thing whenever he's gotten in trouble for anything he's said or done.
He's like, well, I've always been about this.
This isn't some shocking revelation.
Is this you?
Like, yes.
To just kind of wrap up here.
There's one, so there's Dr. Gottfried's trilogy of books on the managerial therapeutic state, which are After Liberalism, Multiculturalism, and the Politics of Guilt, and The Strange Death of Marxism.
I would highly recommend all three.
Absolutely.
Especially Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.
Definitely.
He's also got two books on the conservative movement.
I would really recommend the second one, which is called Conservatism in America, Making Sense of the American Right.
Beyond that, Arctos put out a collection of essays of his called War and Democracy, which I would also recommend.
It's unfortunate we didn't really get a chance to talk about that, but Gottfried is in many ways, you know, in addition to being this very erudite academic, he's also an extremely skilled polemicist, and a lot of his really polemical and really insightful essays are in War and Democracy.
Aside from that, he wrote an autobiography called Encounters, which I really enjoyed,
but that's definitely getting into the weeds, as is...
It's basically about the famous people he's met over the years.
Yeah, somewhat.
I mean, there are interesting anecdotes there about Richard Nixon and Herbert Marcuse and stuff, but I would not call it essential reading the way I would say of multiculturalism and the politics of guilt.
Beyond that, he recently edited a collection of essays called The Vanishing Tradition, which I would actually recommend skipping.
There's not a whole lot of new material really there that's not covered in Gottfried's earlier work and in many ways done better, especially The Great Purge is actually considerably better than The Vanishing Tradition.
You can still get that on Amazon.
And I know, in addition, Dr. Gottfried's written one really big book on Carl Schmitt and another really big book on Leo Strauss.
I do not know enough about Schmitt or Strauss to have ever read those books.
Do you know if either of those are good?
I haven't gotten into that, but I did just pick up The Search for Historical Meaning, Hegel and the Postwar American Right.
So, that's next on my list, but again, I think the trilogy that you laid out at the beginning are the most important, particularly.
And again, if you had to pick just one, it's Multiculturalism and Politics of Guilt.
And to end on a more optimistic note, I think one thing that I just flatly agree with Paul Gottfried more than I do with the late St.
Francis, or at least I think what he believed.
Is that it is a faith and that most people really do believe what they're saying is true and right and good.
That doesn't mean that they aren't getting status, that they aren't defending their concrete interests, but pursuing one's interest and doing what one believes to be right usually go together.
Very few people are capable of making entirely cynical calculations, except maybe in the American conservative movement.
But as far as leftists, I mean, I think they really do have a faith that sustains them They do have this utopian vision of a world of perfect equality that has never existed and can never exist But it's so beautiful to them that they're willing to fight and sacrifice and frankly kill for and you can only fight a faith with a faith and we have to have a faith of a triumphant Western civilization of our people enduring of something Pure and holy and great and noble, because that's the only way you're going to go through it.
You can't fight a faith with economic arguments about rationality.
You can only fight it with a vision.
And I think Paul Gottfried's work is important, not just because it so expertly describes the way the system works, but it provides a glimpse into the souls of our opponents.
Absolutely.
Alright, this has been Left, Right, and White with Gregory Hood and Chris Roberts.
Thanks so much everybody.
Take care guys.
Keep your chins up.
▲
Export Selection