Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 2, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:08:38

Is This the Convergence of Catastrophes?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey guys, welcome back to Left, Right & White.
	I am your host, Gregory Hood, and this week I am speaking with Jared Taylor.
	We are going to be going over the life and works of Guillaume Fay, probably one of the most influential thinkers of the European New Right, certainly a big influence on the American New Right, and somebody you knew personally.
	He spoke at two American Renaissance conferences, right?
	That's correct.
	I first met Guillaume Fay in 2003 and I had spent quite a few days, I guess several weeks all told, in France meeting various personalities on the right and immediately I could tell this guy understands race, which I could not say for a lot of the others.
	I met a lot of National Front people, various intellectuals, but this guy and I clicked, I'd say, in about five minutes, really.
	He really knew his stuff, and he felt he saw things exactly the way racially aware white people do, and clearly he had been thinking this way for years.
	Well, among American identitarians, particularly those who are younger than me, I think his Why We Fight was pretty much a standard text.
	We don't really have a core one now because obviously circumstances have changed so much even from when he wrote that.
	But it's amazing how much of his writing stands up now, particularly because he makes very specific predictions.
	One, especially about a convergence of catastrophes, which he says there's going to be some sort of a global plague that is going to upset the global economic order.
	Then he predicts Technology will fundamentally change the way we relate to ourselves and identity.
	This is being recorded one day after Facebook changed its name to Meta to deal with the so-called Metaverse, which is this virtual reality that's going to merge with our everyday reality.
	Sounds crazy, but this is one of the things that he was talking about.
	And he also talked about a potentially cataclysmic military threat, which of course now, since the Biden administration has taken over, there seems to be a lot more tension with China.
	Well, he talked about convergent catastrophes.
	This was in his book, his very prescient book, Archeofuturism, which first appeared in France in 1998.
	That was quite some time ago.
	He talked about colonization by the South.
	He said the Earth was going to run out of energy and there was going to be drug-resistant diseases.
	And he said this would lead to financial panic, global recession, plummeting world GNP, race war, and mass die-offs.
	That's a little off on some of those.
	Some of these things haven't happened yet, but he was talking, he was saying this could happen probably by 1920, by 2020, 2025.
	But again, this is back in 1998.
	Right.
	The only thing that I would say he's, other than the scale of it of course, the only thing that he was just flat wrong on would be the energy thing, because America ended up becoming an oil That's the template global leaders are going on right now.
	which a lot of people didn't see coming. But the larger question of he says that the idea that
	every country on earth can aspire to the western standard of living is flatly impossible. Yes.
	Because of the environmental damage that would ensue and that is right. I mean that's the
	template global leaders are going on right now and the way they're trying to solve it is basically
	by reducing deliberately our standard of life. Well there's no question about that.
	He had this very, very clear view that at some point, this is all going to happen.
	There's no way we can avoid it.
	And the reason for the title of his book, Archaeo-Futurism, was that after these self-engineered catastrophes all converged and the West collapsed, We were not going to go back to the past.
	We were going to back to archaic values.
	And he predicted such a die-off and such a collapse in Western civilization and Western society that we would go back to a kind of self-sustaining agriculture, primitive life, But he thought that people would be poorer, but they would be happier because we would no longer be wealthy enough to be individuals.
	People would have to depend on families, on neighbors, on communities, and that would tie people to each other in a way that's much better in the current atomized state.
	So, on the one hand, he's talking about a futurism, but it's not a futurism that's going to be futuristic, although he did think that there would be small pockets of modern technology remaining.
	There would be a small number of people who could still maintain a high level of life, but most people would be back in the medieval ages practically.
	And so he saw this as a combination of future and the past and that's why he gave the name RKO Futurism to it.
	I think in some respects that's been one of his most influential books but I'm not sure it's necessarily one of the best in the sense of really diagnosing our current problems and I think why we fight in the colonization of Europe.
	You were saying earlier that his books still are well worth reading.
	Yes.
	Because the way they diagnose the problem is so spot on.
	I remember marveling at the fact that here is a guy, he's a Frenchman, he lives
	thousands of miles away, he'd hardly ever set foot in the United States, he is describing the capitulationist
	mentality of the Frenchman and it sounds exactly like America's. He had it all figured
	out. Right and he definitely understood that the main problem with the United States was our
	rejection of the idea that we are an outpost of Western civilization and he predicted that of course the
	United States would ultimately suffer from these same catastrophes but it would lead to a return.
	It would lead to us recognizing that we are an outgrowth of Europe and we would redefine our
	identity in that or I should say rediscover our identity in that way. Well you know he I think is up he's
	thinking about the United States changed.
	There was a time when he really thought that the United States was clearly an opponent, if not an outright enemy.
	And that was pretty standard among Yes, that's exactly right.
	And I like to think that it's perhaps his association with me that made him realize that the United States is not nothing more than the New York Times and our current Potomac regime and the churches and all this egalitarianism.
	And when he broke with the European New Right, that was one of the main points he criticized them for.
	He said that this reflexive anti-Americanism was ultimately blinding them to In Why We Fight, which he wrote in 2001.
	That's 20 years ago.
	He really did take the idea that the United States was an adversary and he said this, The United States, logically from its geostrategic perspective, endeavors to neutralize Europe, whose unification threatens American hegemony and economic interests.
	He went on to say, the U.S.
	seeks to weaken Europe by favoring Islamization and transformation into a multiracial, Africanized society.
	Objectively speaking, that is what the United States was doing, but I don't think it was with the intent of weakening Europe.
	I think that's because the United States was doing exactly the same thing to itself, not deliberately weakening itself, but some people would say that it was, and their idea, the American rulers still have this idea that the way we're doing it, the way we are reducing whites to a minority, engineering the Great Deplacement, that is what Western governments are supposed to do, and that's what Europe should be doing.
	Well, to be an American anti-American for a second here, I am actually somewhat in agreement here that it is American policy to deliberately weaken Europe.
	And what's the old joke about NATO, right?
	It's to keep France, what is it, the Americans in, France up and the Germans down, something along those lines.
	Where it's basically, they don't want the Pentagon, Washington DC, New York, does not want Europe to be a power in and of itself.
	And it certainly does not want what he talked about quite a bit, which is an alliance between Europe and Russia.
	Well, that's certainly true, but the Europeans themselves are not looking for an alliance with Russia.
	I mean, some of the more farsighted are.
	He had this idea of Europe from Brest... Euro-Siberia, right.
	Brest to Vladivostok.
	Brest is the easternmost point of France, all the way to Vladivostok.
	I don't think there are many European politicians who are thinking in those terms today.
	And again, maybe I am being naive, but I don't think that the United States was deliberately trying to weaken Europe in that respect.
	I really do think that they thought that this is the way all Western society is supposed to be.
	Multi-culti and this nationalism was no good and we're all going to work together and be hippie happy and that Muslims belonged everywhere.
	Not because they're trying to weaken Europe, because they're doing it exactly to themselves.
	If it were really a power play to weaken Europe vis-a-vis the United States, they would not have been trying to make the United States just as multi-culti and just as full of fractures as they were Europe.
	That overall perspective is definitely true, but the geopolitical tensions that he highlights actually have become quite relevant in recent weeks.
	First of all, you saw the American opposition to Germany having the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia, and Germany over vehement American opposition went along with that.
	And that idea of some sort of a rapprochement between Germany and Russia is something which the United States very much does not want to have happen.
	The second thing is in Asia, where you saw this alliance between Australia, the UK, and the USA, Which meant selling submarines to Australia, and that absolutely infuriated France to the point of cancelling diplomatic events, and I think they even recalled their ambassador.
	They recalled their ambassador for the first time in what, 225 years of relations?
	But that was mainly because the French had a huge contract, they called it the contract of a century, to sell non-nuclear powered, conventionally powered submarines to the Australians.
	It was billions and billions of dollars.
	And all of a sudden, we turned around and said, get lost, France!
	And the Australians did the same thing.
	So, that was a commercial thing as well as another thing, and it ended up that the Australians really wanted nuclear-powered submarines.
	Now, to what extent the French could have supplied that, I don't know.
	They don't have any active nuclear-powered submarines.
	They've got a good nuclear industry.
	But be that as it may, to return really to Guillaume Fay, which is the point here, whatever idea he had of the United States. He realized that if it
	were to survive as part of Western civilization just like France, it was going to have to have
	a European core population.
	Right. And the very first talk he gave at an American Renaissance conference was called
	something like Europe and America Brothers in Arms.
	He saw people like us very much as Europeans.
	And unless we were Brothers in Arms, unless we were working for the whole benefit of our race, then that was a terrible, terrible mistake.
	But he did also want an independent European military command separate from NATO, which
	is the only reason I'm bringing this up.
	This was very core to what he was saying even in his later writings.
	And I think that he shared an assumption, many Europeans do, one frankly that I share,
	which is that Europe is ultimately going to have to lead the way in terms of identitarianism
	and then America will come along after America and what some call the global American empire
	loses its gem in it.
	I think he shared that premise to some extent.
	And he also spoke about basically kicking the UK out of Europe because it had a different destiny.
	And of course, that's kind of what happened with Brexit.
	Well, you know, in his early writings in Archaeofuturism, he took a surprising view of the United States.
	Namely, he seemed to be thinking he'd never visited this country.
	He seemed to be thinking, I guess he'd been reading too much of Le Monde or something,
	but he thought that if there was a place where multiracialism actually had some faint possibility
	of working, it was the United States.
	It was the United States.
	Now he eventually got over that.
	He's a guy who's thinking evolved.
	It clearly evolved.
	And that was a very important breakthrough of his.
	Now as far as a European independent military force, he had flexible views about how Europeans
	should think about a united Europe under the EU or whether or not it was important for
	Europeans to think of themselves as regionalists.
	He would talk about how a non-white may end up thinking of himself as a Frenchman, but a non-white never ends up thinking of himself as a Breton or a Gascon or a Basque.
	That these regional identities were something that were absolutely completely impenetrable to non-whites and whether it was important for whites to support European institutions in the hope that someday that they would be healthy ones rather than poisonous ones or whether to completely turn their back on the European Union and the idea of European centralization at least at this point and concentrate on regional identity.
	He said both were possible ways forward and they're not mutually exclusive either.
	Right.
	What's important about him, too, is, before we get into three core concepts I want to talk about, which I think are the most important things that he laid down, just one other aside I want to make, is, as you can see in this discussion, a lot of the ideas he talked about, even though they sound kind of fringe and out there, they have a weird way of coming up in everyday politics.
	And these larger patterns still emerge.
	And he had good contacts within the French political establishment.
	I mean, people I think this is something unique to France, incidentally, where they do keep well-read on ideas that I think American intellectuals actually avoid knowledge in order to keep their job.
	I think French intellectuals have a much more welcoming view toward dissonant views.
	Well, just look at the presidential politics in France today.
	They are infinitely more interesting than American politics.
	You've got a Communist Party, a Socialist Party, a Green Party.
	You've got two, what they call, extreme right.
	You've got Le Pen, and you've got this Algerian Jew, Eric Zemmour, and you've got all this stuff in between.
	The Republicans... And they actually debate each other.
	They debate each other.
	Yes, you have got a real That's utterly absent in the United States.
	I remember when I went to, when I was living in France, and I resisted this idea.
	I remember a Frenchman telling me, oh, your politics are so simple-minded.
	I was like, what?
	What?
	Our politics are simple-minded?
	He was exactly right.
	He was completely right.
	Our politics is just Tweedledee and Tweedledum, a bunch of nincompoops.
	And if you're voting in France, you've got a real choice of often conflicting views and, as you say, in that important television debate between Jean-Luc Mélenchon, he's not even a communist or a socialist.
	He is sort of another powerful guy on the left, but very much a guy on the left.
	He has this hour and a half long debate with Eric Zemmour.
	You have real opposed people who get together.
	Four million Frenchmen watch this.
	Because they have an interest in political ideas vastly more sophisticated than ours.
	Right.
	Now, of course, Guillaume Fay, he paid attention to all of this, and he was one of the founding members of GRESS.
	I forget what that stands for.
	Groupement de Recherche Economique or something.
	But the acronym was built to make it sound like Greece.
	Right.
	And it was essentially the European Union.
	Yes, that's how it got started.
	Now, you know more about his adventures within Grefg than I do, but he eventually got sick of it and I think some of the people, Alain de Benoist in particular, got nervous about his explicit racial consciousness.
	Yes, I want to get into some of these.
	Well, let's just start there.
	We'll start with the racial ideas right off the bat.
	One of the main reasons he broke with the European new way One of the ideas that you heard floated from that particular group was this idea of racial pluralism.
	This idea that we don't want integration and it's actually a good thing that immigrants keep to their own because this way each community can have its own authentic sense of self and real culture can be preserved and somehow this is still better than everyone being, I don't know, a capitalist with no identity.
	I understand where he's coming from with that, but I have to agree that Fay had it right when he said this is not the proper spirit for Europeans because it's about having your own identity on your own soil and Europe is our own soil.
	What is needed is the spirit of Reconquista.
	What is not needed is the spirit of allowing people to set up colonies within your own land.
	Furthermore, he was very explicitly anti-Islam in particular.
	Yes, and that's really the subject of his last book that maybe we can get into.
	This inevitable civil war that he saw coming.
	Another, I think, very important critique of Europeans, and it holds against Americans as well, is this terrible individualism that they have.
	We just get caught up with all of our individual problems or aspirations.
	He says something like gay marriage, for heaven's sake.
	This is a concentration on the And it loses sight completely of the societal effect of all this.
	The idea that two utterly unproductive people who will never have children are going to get married and have the benefits and the respect of those whose job is to maintain the nation and keep it going forward.
	This is a concentration on the individual Almost to the exclusion, in the face of the needs of the community.
	And he saw Islam very much as a world community and also non-whites have an instinctive biological racial community which always makes them acting together vastly more powerful than individual whites always reacting as individuals.
	And Islam could be the banner of resentment, the flag that they rally under.
	He spoke about the potential of that very explicitly.
	Yes, he made the point that even if Even if they don't believe?
	Well, that's right, because Islam, for him, is the religion of anti-white, anti-Europe.
	And so, even if you're not a fervent Muslim, you become a Muslim by living in the West.
	Yeah, and this is like one of the things that the anti-Sharia movement in this country, which I think was a lot more influential five, ten years ago, but this is one of the things they really got wrong, where they'd say, oh, we have to pass a law to make sure, like, Oklahoma doesn't impose Sharia law someday.
	It's like, well, that's not really the point.
	I mean, I don't think these guys in the French suburbs there, or the bad neighborhoods, that these guys are living as strict Muslims, morally, not cheating on their wives, not drinking, not doing drugs, or anything like that.
	It's not about belief in the creed.
	It's that they identify as Muslims, and that's their banner.
	That's their pride.
	That's the metapolitical framework that they operate under.
	That's something which a lot of American conservatives just don't get, which he got.
	No, no.
	And he also makes, I think, a very good point.
	He says that European lefties think that all of these Muslims are going to come swarming into Europe and they will vote for the left.
	Well, for a while.
	But once there are enough lefties, I'm sorry, enough Muslims, they're going to create Muslim, Islamic parties.
	And are they going to be grateful?
	Are they going to thank the lefties who let them in in such large numbers?
	Absolutely not.
	They will crush them.
	He has this great line.
	These lefties will continue to shout stupidities until their throats are slit.
	He had so many colorful lines, but that's the kind of thing that he would often write.
	These lefties who think that they can let all these non-whites in and they're going to be praised and the non-whites are going to be grateful.
	No!
	Once the other side has got power, they will crush all whites.
	Left or right.
	Right.
	What is the old saying?
	When I am weak, I talk about tolerance because that is your principle.
	Once I am strong, I talk about strength because that is my principle.
	Yes, yes.
	And I, to a certain extent, I hate talking about, and we see this with the headlines we do every day and everything else, I hate falling into the, oh, look at this lurid anti-white crime that happened just because something about it seems sensationalist and everything else.
	But in France, you're getting these cases, even today, Someone was arrested for strangling a woman and then screaming Allahu Akbar.
	You had that horrible case of a French priest beheaded in front of his altar.
	I mean, these are things that are happening.
	This is during mass.
	Right.
	Yes.
	And we had all those church burnings in France a while back.
	We had Notre Dame burning.
	And while the fire was burning, they said they had already completed the investigation and said it was an accident.
	It was the fastest fire investigation in history.
	And in France, I think more than any other European country, you really have the sense that they're just barely keeping the lid on.
	And every once in a while you'll get a general or a policeman who will say something that, look, we can barely keep this together.
	Well, to his credit, Eric Zemmour, this non-white politician, he is the only one who will come right out and say, the problem is not militant Islam.
	Islam itself is incompatible with France.
	None of the white politicians is prepared to say that.
	And this is what this little thing that Guillaume Fay recognized long, long ago.
	He talks about the soft right Allows our colonization to take place through its own laziness, its weariness, and out of fear of being accused of inhumanity, while the insane left encourage settlement through political miscalculation and ideological passion.
	And then he goes on to say that except for a few dissidents, and unfortunately he was right, I think the number of dissidents is greater and greater all the time, he says they've drunk the Kool-Aid, and he says just like in the Coca-Cola formula, It's difficult to determine the proportion of imbecility, hallucinated altruism, anti-racist snobbery, ethno-masochism, and political miscalculation that is in this cocktail.
	I mean, this could have been written, I mean, this is back in the colonization of Europe, this is 21 years ago.
	Pathological altruism, a term nobody was even using back then.
	He used it in 1998 in Archaeofuturism.
	But this diagnosis of the mentality, the utterly defeatist, denatured mentality of the French ruling class, that applies to every single ruling class in the West today.
	Whether it's Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, all the Western European countries, he's spot on.
	He had it figured out.
	And I just love the way he writes these and just lays them on the line in such powerful terms.
	I mean, this is something that you don't need to crawl through all that.
	And this is one of his criticisms of the European Union, right?
	You don't need to crawl through all these obscure intellectualisms and trying to create this metaphysical framework that allows you to get away with saying something he just says.
	Yes.
	This is what's happening.
	And one of the key things that he faults the European New Right for is that the meta-political struggle, and this is something people in our circles talk about all the time too, meta-politics is fine, but it has to be connected to the real problems that people are facing.
	It can't just be up in the air.
	It can't just be abstract.
	You actually have to say something about issues like housing, education, foreign policy.
	These things exist.
	These things happen in the real world.
	And one of the reasons that he thought the European New Right lost influence is because the National Front started gaining in strength and people who actually wanted to see something happen and wanted to see their interests defended went over to that.
	He also thought that a lot of the stances the European New Right took Particularly when the explicit anti-Christian stances that some took alienated it from its natural constituency.
	And I think this is something important because it definitely colors his later writings where we have to have a certain idea of who are the people that we can conceivably connect with.
	We don't just come up with ideas and throw them out there and then hope people come to them.
	We have to be thinking of who is our constituency.
	Who are the people who are receptive to this message and need to be led?
	When I was first getting into dissonant politics, I read a lot of Alain de Benoist.
	I did too.
	The Being a Pagan and all that.
	He had a couple of periodicals.
	Nouvelle École, and he had one that, uh, its name is slipping my mind now.
	But I did my best to read, and they were interesting, but they were so theoretical, so up in the air.
	Now personally, Alain de Benoist is prepared to concede the importance of race.
	He realizes that it's important.
	And I don't wish to accuse him of hypocrisy because he would say, yes, I know that race is important, but I don't think it's as important as you do, meaning me.
	Right.
	And so, OK, we can agree to disagree on the importance of race.
	But it was all so theoretical and so anti-Christian.
	As you say, people need answers to real problems, real problems.
	The actual concrete effects of immigration and racial preferences are all the things you just talked about.
	Whether it's housing or crime or university studies, whatever it is.
	But as far as Christianity goes, I think also it is a mistake for racially conscious whites to almost pretend that Christianity is the big problem.
	And Guillaume Fein understood that.
	He himself was an atheist.
	But he would say Christianity is not the source of our collapse.
	We shouldn't forget that the egalitarian virus ...is also found in non-Christian conceptions of the world, and that medieval Christianity knew how to protect itself from it.
	No question about it.
	He says, as for this liberal, mush-minded Christianity, there is no salvation in that, and the sooner that disappears, the better.
	But I'm always finding myself defending Christianity, too.
	The people who colonized Africa, whether they're French or British, the Confederates, they were all devout Christians, for heaven's sake.
	In my view, like these mush minded Christians that he criticizes, the church has been taken over by forces that are even more powerful than it is.
	Right.
	And the church has been denatured.
	Of course, it doesn't help to have a holy text, the Bible, that's got so much contradictory stuff in it that you can take whatever you like out of it and defend a lot of different things.
	Well, that's one of the things that he talked about is traditional Catholicism, which of course is especially
	prominent in France, particularly in royalist circles and more hard right circles.
	I don't mean to offend with this, but this is what he said.
	They aren't that Christian in the sense that a lot of European folklore and a lot of European beliefs that predated Christianity were incorporated into the actual practice of traditionalist Catholicism.
	Well, that's the same in all Christianity.
	Right.
	Well, this is the Germanization of early medieval Christianity.
	And so, if you're trying to oppose what's happening Driving out traditionalist Catholicism, it's like attacking your own fortress.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Unquestionably not.
	And the bigger thing is like forgetting the ideas and forgetting the abstractions and everything else.
	If you're a French person looking at what's happening to your country and you're opposed to it, there are probably good chances that you're a traditionalist Catholic or at least have some sympathies in that direction.
	When you see a church being torn down, And Amos coming up, you don't want to hear some clever explanation about how this is actually about demographic pluralism and protecting each community.
	You want to say, no, these people are taking over our country and I want it stopped.
	Yes, I think these days, certainly in Europe.
	I remember when I first went to France and went to one of the festivals of the National Front.
	They called it the Red, White and Blue Festival.
	And I walked around all these different booths And it was remarkable to me to see all the different representation of you had outright pagans, clearly pagans, you had outright traditional Catholics,
	You had people who were representing labor unions.
	You had people representing the regions of France.
	It was one big happy family and genuinely happy.
	All of these different aspects of France united in the idea of preserving France.
	And I think that's of course the way we should be too.
	When people start talking about litmus tests for who's a real, who's a proper white man, if you've got to be a Christian in order to defend the West, no!
	Or that you've got to be a pagan to defend the rest, no!
	You know, if we do have nations that are white, we're going to have left, we're going to have right, we're going to have heterosexuals, we're going to have homosexuals, we're going to have all kind of people, big government people, libertarian people, and the idea that somehow... Yeah, we're still going to have issues to talk about.
	Of course, of course, but we'll be able to solve them in the family.
	It'll be so much more, and that is to, and in other words, we cannot be excluding potential allies before we've even gotten a start.
	Right.
	And there are two, there are two key things that I want to bring up here.
	First, as you say, even if we win, there are still going to be debates, but the difference is that there are certain debates.
	If you're debating healthcare, say, in theory, there's a correct answer to that problem.
	If you're trying to deliver the best care for the best, lowest amount of money, whatever But there are other questions which are just us and them.
	There are questions that are zero-sum.
	And this is what Identitarianism is about, and this is what he was writing about.
	Those questions, there has to be a hard line.
	Where it's no, there's no compromise possible.
	It's just victory or defeat.
	The second thing is when you talk about the different, and this is just to illustrate the point, the different cultural symbols and things that even seem contradictory, but somehow still feed into a larger national narrative.
	When I was in Russia, I mean, you see the czarist flags and the communist flags flying side-by-side everywhere by all these different groups and Donbass and everything else.
	It's because it's all part of being part of a national family.
	Exactly.
	And it doesn't need to be explained rationally.
	It just is.
	And this is one of the things he said.
	He was talking about paganism.
	He said, one does not say, I am a pagan.
	One just is a pagan.
	But I think that can also be said about being part of a national family.
	You don't say, I am A part of this because I made a choice.
	This is why the Proposition Nation idea is so ridiculous.
	You just are.
	We're born that way.
	Right.
	That's how it is.
	And also the idea that, say, for the medical system for a country, a right way, a wrong way, an ideal way, that's going to be different.
	You're going to have a more effective or less effective system just depending on the population mix.
	Right.
	What is going to work for a racially homogeneous Scandinavia?
	is not going to work in a multi-culti, devil-may-care, multi-place like the United States.
	And that's why when people start talking these hairy ideas, what's the ethno-state going to be like?
	And people say, oh it's going to be like this, it's going to be like that.
	I don't really take much of a position.
	It may be that if you get nothing but white people, it's going to be a sort of Scandinavian welfare state.
	It may be.
	Or it may be more like a 19th century rugged individualism in the United States.
	I don't know.
	I don't care.
	I just want an opportunity for our people to decide.
	That's the main thing.
	What is it that white people will come up with?
	And I think he had very much that idea.
	Now, he made these funny predictions about what the post-archaeo-future or the archaeo-future post-collapse Europe was going to be.
	And I think it makes very, very interesting reading.
	But he wasn't making prescriptions.
	He was saying, this is what's likely to happen.
	What he cared about is the same thing you and I care about.
	Europeans, wherever they are, take their own destiny in their own hands.
	I do want to get into Archaeo-Futurism and what that entails.
	I particularly liked his phrase of reconciling Evola with Marinetti.
	I mean, that was just made for me.
	But before we can even do that, I kind of want to get into one of the more controversial aspects of him here, which is this idea of Euro-Siberia.
	And he talks about an imperial federation.
	And he even goes so far as to say that identifying as a European is more important to him than identifying as a Frenchman.
	Now, this should be put in context, that the France that he's talking about is the Republic, the country that anybody can be a part of if you have the right passport, the country that's defined by universal ideals, the same way some people talk about America being defined by universal ideals.
	But still, this does remain a big dividing point in the movement.
	Where you say, is it more important to be a patriot of a particular country, or do you say, when you say your people, what does that mean?
	Our people are Europeans.
	Now, the other problem is that this has real concrete implications, and we saw this in the most recent election, the French election and the last presidential election, because if you're talking about something about should we stay in the EU, a lot of the quote-unquote nationalist parties are going to take the stance of, no, we need to leave the European Union.
	He was quite clear that actually the European Union was a good thing.
	You even went so far as to say that it may be useful idiots who have built this thing, but it can somehow be turned to our ends.
	And that now this is something that you're going to get.
	If you get a bunch of nationalists in a room talking about this, you're going to have chairs flying all over the place within about 20 seconds.
	No, it'll take a little longer than that.
	But no, that's the question.
	But I mean, that's an important, controversial thing that I think would split even our readership, but it's something that needs to be talked about.
	But again, I think that if you can have a national identity, if you wish, a regional identity, if you wish, a European identity, if you wish, and a global, more basic biological white identity, I don't think he cared Which one was more important to you so long as you were working towards the same goal and you can work for the autonomy of your region.
	He did have a very decentralized federation thing although but it was within an imperial context.
	Eventually he certainly saw that happening and uh I don't know.
	He predicted it for the whole world that it would be civilizational blocks.
	Different blocks.
	Right.
	Yes.
	That would have a certain economic autarky and again I was put on the spot by Chris Roberts once.
	I don't even remember what the episode was, but he just kind of caught me flat-footed and he said, well, what is it that you want?
	What is your ultimate goal?
	Which is a pretty out-of-nowhere question to get, but I had an answer and my answer was basically I want a Western civilization state.
	The civilization state is a concept that's being kicked on around a lot in international relations circles right now, with China being the leading example, but it's also being I don't think we need to take positions on this.
	Look at the Visigoth group in Europe.
	These are Eastern European countries that have some sense of nationality and they work together.
	was ahead of his time.
	I mean, he was talking about these issues before people were talking about this.
	I don't think we need to take positions on this.
	Look at the Visigoth group in Europe.
	These are Eastern European countries that have some sense of nationality
	and they work together.
	They're not an empire, but they are a loose coalition of groups
	that understand that their national survival requires that they maintain national...
	Empire's a loaded word.
	Just say federation.
	Federation.
	Well, is the Visigoth group a federation or is it... Confederation, right.
	It doesn't, to me, the words and even the concepts don't make that much difference because I don't think at this point Racially homogeneous national consciousness of white nations are going to go to war with each other.
	That was the original idea of all these supranational organizations.
	Right.
	To keep the French and the Germans from going to war again.
	We're trying to eliminate Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars.
	Okay, that's all fine and good.
	I'm not worried about that.
	I'm just not worried about that.
	The people who are on our side, I think, in our terms, even if they enter the military, many of them make the promise themselves, I'm not going to shoot white people, no matter what.
	No more Brothers Wars.
	I think that's a very, very strong view, to the point where even Hungarians, Who, after a few drinks, you can catch them arguing as to whether they hate the Slovaks or the Romanians more.
	Because back to the Treaty of Trianon, Greater Hungary was dismantled.
	You have to explain that.
	No, no, no.
	We got bigger fish to fry.
	The Slovaks and the Romanians.
	Well, look, I was a conquered, my ancestors were conquered people, and I'm talking about the Confederates, of course.
	We know what it's like to have your nation mutilated and conquered, but they got to get over it, and I think they will.
	I think that is really, only in Eastern Europe, they have the luxury of thinking in terms of other whites as being a potential enemy.
	So, I'm not worried that we're going to need a centralized state to keep things together.
	I think there will be.
	Or even a loose federation?
	Yeah, or a loose federation will form automatically, I think, just the way these Eastern European countries are working together.
	They will defend each other's interests in that way.
	I'm just not worried.
	I would just have to disagree with you, sir, and align a bit more with what I think Fed would say, which is that it does need to be a bit more concrete.
	And the reason why is if you look at what's happening to Hungary today, where you essentially Orban has essentially staked his claim on Hungary's self-determination, but he's got the rest of the EU against him.
	Poland is facing the same problem.
	And at some point, unless you have a larger group to push back against this... But Poland and Hungary tend to stick together.
	I mean, I think they do that because they realize how important it is.
	They don't necessarily have to have a Yes, a formal treaty based organization, they realize that they have to do it.
	And the Czechs and the Slovaks will back them and the Eastern Europeans will back them.
	They're not alone.
	And that's what's so important.
	So this is like, to take your speech that you gave in Hungary, for example, the World Brotherhood of Europeans.
	I mean, this is more of an idea as opposed to a political order.
	Yes.
	And Guillaume Fein very much had this by the end of his life.
	I mean, he was suspicious of America at one point.
	I don't think he realized that there were people like us living in the United States.
	He thought we were all one-worlders and capitalists.
	Just the guys who rule us.
	Yes, yes.
	And so, you know, they don't speak for us.
	They really don't speak for us.
	We have the same, it's all the same fight.
	And I think most people who see the world we do, in the importance of racial, biocultural, and historical terms, all agree on that.
	Well, this is the larger question then, but if you say, what is our people?
	I mean, at this point, I'm at the point where I would just say European.
	I mean, at the end of the day, I have more in common with a nationalist in France, a nationalist in Germany, a nationalist in Poland, than I do with A fellow American who may have the same passport, but doesn't even speak my language.
	The fact is, you have more in common with a European... Well, those guys don't speak their language either, but I still share the common East culture with them.
	You have more in common with a European lefty than you do with the right.
	Oh yeah, unquestionably.
	We have a biological commonality with them.
	We have all of these historical and cultural... We have a cultural frame of reference that we don't even need to explain.
	Yes, yes, that's right.
	And also, as we are learning, And this is a good segue as we get into Archaea Futurism.
	As we're learning, even things like personality, or the way people interpret reality, even the way people solve problems is genetically determined, and it differs along groups.
	And I'm not just talking about IQ, I'm talking about something much more fundamental.
	Well, for years I've been talking about not just average IQ, there's something called, I would call, an average personality.
	And you already find this in the personality tests like the Big Five, the OCEAN, I guess it's openness, conscientiousness, psychopathy, and the various personality characteristics.
	You go to the Big Five personality characteristics, you get distinctly different racial profiles.
	And that's entirely to be expected.
	So it just makes no sense to try to build a country out of pretending that these differences don't exist, and Fry was absolutely certain about that.
	This is important where the futurism really comes in, is that he held that it is extremely important that we embrace technology and that we embrace science, that there is not going to be a return to a tradition that ignores the facts about the modern world, or the idea that we can just halt everything in place.
	Simply because then other powers wouldn't and they would just take us over.
	But he said that ultimately egalitarianism would collapse as we find out more about genetics and everything else.
	Now here, of course, we've had quite a few years since he passed and I'm reminded of Charles Murray's new book where he basically laid it on the line and said, look this is how it is.
	These are the facts about race and IQ and the biological reality of race and everything else.
	And the reaction was not so much to denounce him, as it was with the bell curve, but just to ignore it.
	And I think most people are quite comfortable just pretending these things don't exist.
	Now, there's a lot of double-think that people are willing to tolerate, where they'll say, oh, good schools and safe neighborhoods and all the code words that people use, but even if you sat them down or like trapped them in a room and explained it to them, I still don't think most people would make the connection.
	The mental wards are that strong.
	And so he ultimately said that people will not act until their back is up against the wall.
	And so one of the fundamental premises of this, and maybe a weakness in the argument, is it presupposes that there will be an existential catastrophe that will force people to act.
	The more terrifying possibility is just a long, slow death.
	Yes, he was convinced that it was going to come to a head one way or another, but when it comes to a head, will Europeans or whites have the will to fight?
	He says that in his last book that he wrote really on his deathbed It was called Racial Civil War in the original French title.
	And I think in the English language title, for fear of certain repercussions, the title was changed to Ethnic Apocalypse.
	Right.
	And in fairness, this actually sounds quite inflammatory in America, but in France it's actually not so much.
	This is something I just see a lot more often in terms of the newspapers and everything else.
	Well, they see what is happening.
	Of course, after Americans have lived through 2020, we should be able to see it ourselves also.
	But Americans are just so rigorously and resolutely blind to what's in front of their eyes.
	But, as he points out, it is going to get to the point where either we will submit or we will fight.
	And of course, he loves to play on the words of the meaning of Islam, which is submission.
	Demands submission.
	And will they get it from us or won't they?
	He says that's going to be, that's what's going to be the real decision.
	And, oh, he writes, I think, with this convergence of catastrophes, he writes about how when something like this happens, history will speed up.
	I think that's a very interesting idea.
	There are decades where nothing happens.
	Then history... Here's an interesting quotation from him.
	As we talked about this conversions of catastrophes, this running out of resources, possible diseases, this wild immigration, the impacts of technology people don't understand.
	He says, Whenever a serious crisis erupts, bringing with it a risk of death and systemic collapse, as would inevitably be the case with an inter-ethnic civil war entailing a high level of violence, mentalities topple, and opinions undergo radical change, even among the authorities themselves.
	One then witnesses an astonishing metamorphosis or perhaps even a complete reversal in people's behavior and value judgments.
	It's definitely true when you look at French history.
	Yes, yes.
	Now, does that apply to the United States?
	We've never had a catastrophe like that.
	You would have thought that months and months and months of BLM rioting would have changed people's minds, but it seemed to almost intensify the insanity among white people, among white lefties.
	Among lefties, yes, although we did just see a poll that for the first time most people disapprove of BLM.
	I'm not sure if that was all Americans or just whites.
	I'd have to get into the unpack the data, but there are there does when you see these parents challenging critical race theory in schools when you see people Defending things that they wouldn't have defended a year ago.
	There definitely does seem to be increasing polarization.
	But he's talking about what a real catastrophe takes place.
	And I think that's right.
	But I mean, I wouldn't say 2020 was a real catastrophe.
	You're right.
	It was not a real catastrophe.
	But that would be a pointer towards the kind of catastrophe that we're talking about.
	When the Magnificent Mile gets looted and trashed, when Rodeo Drive We should have a sense of perspective about this, though.
	would think people's eyes would be as big as saucers. And yet I see almost no generalized
	change the way certainly liberal whites saw what was going on.
	But we should have a sense of perspective about this though.
	I mean, if you look at the amount of the rioting in the late 60s, which of course
	I just wrote about, you know, with Newark and everything else, the amount of people who
	died, the terrorist bombings that were going taking place in the late 60s and early 70s.
	I mean, the country was on the brink.
	That looked much more like a country on the brink of civil war than anything that America does today.
	But those were sort of eruptions.
	Newark went up.
	Okay, but sort of contained in Newark.
	I mean, then maybe a couple of months later, something would happen in Detroit.
	This stuff of, you know, during 2020, they had to call out the National Guard in 30 states,
	and they had, they declared curfews in over 200 cities.
	More damage in, by any stretch of the There were fewer deaths, which is kind of interesting.
	And I think it's because the police were absolutely terrified to act.
	Given space to destroy.
	Exactly.
	They're under orders.
	They're under orders.
	They cannot take the measures necessary to stop the looting.
	But be that as it may, I think FI is probably right when really it gets to the point where there are people beating down your doors and trying to steal your gun supply or your hoarded food or whatever it is.
	Then people will change overnight.
	We did see some of that in 2020 and I think that's why they ultimately did start doing things.
	And also, you know, it's going to be interesting to see what happens with the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
	there were some notable scenes in 2020 where you would see these protests
	where they would go to the suburbs and they were just met by guys on the sides of the roads
	with rifles pointed at the ground.
	And you were thinking to yourself, well, who are these guys and where did they come from?
	Yes, there are going to be more and more of those guys.
	Right, and the media likes to pretend that there's this central conspiracy
	or, oh, they're organizing on Facebook.
	And it's like, these are just guys.
	There's no organization there.
	Well, what really amused me was in the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
	The Roof Koreans?
	Well, no.
	Hollywood Hills.
	All of these Hollywood liberals suddenly showed up with guns.
	Yeah, there are more first-time gun owners now.
	Yes, yes.
	And a whole lot more non-white first-time gun owners.
	Yeah, black females were on the streets.
	And of course, they had their property destroyed most often.
	Maybe not black females, but black store owners.
	Well, except that there's BLM riots.
	This is the first time, in a systematic way, instead of burning down their own neighborhoods, they went into the most high-end retail and sacked it and looted and burned it.
	Later, at the beginning, we did see the scenes of guys being shot in the street, the former police chief trying to protect his store and everything else.
	I mean, I'm not trying to play Dems with the real racists here, but, you know, they did pay a price, too.
	I do think that this premise, though, and this is one of the things that I guess I I worry about from both a theoretical point of view and then also just from a tactical point of view, that everyone's waiting for a certain line to be crossed and that if this line is crossed, then we're going to do something.
	And this is almost why I think gun rights, which of course is something much more important to Americans than I think Europeans would understand.
	To some extent, it's sort of a crutch.
	I mean, as I see the French nationalist movement, I think it's a lot more active and intelligent in the way it operates than a lot of the American conservative movement, because the American conservative movement ultimately falls back on, well, we have these guns.
	And so, well, you're not going to use them for anything, and you can't even describe a scenario in which you possibly would, unless it was people coming to take your guns.
	So, it just becomes a tautology.
	Well, on the other hand, on the other hand, that is a little bit in contradiction of what you just described.
	The Kyle Rittenhouse movement.
	The people who actually went out with guns and said, you ain't gonna burn down this town.
	It was one kid, and you see what they're doing.
	But these other guys, these other guys that you talked about, who showed up, they got their ARs and their slings, and they said, no, no, it ain't gonna happen in our town.
	Now were those guys really ready to pull the trigger?
	Who knows?
	I think there was a lot of guys.
	I think a lot of guys would.
	I think the government made it very clear that if you did do that you would be Yes.
	Well, of course, I think Kyle Rittenhouse, even some of the mainstream analysts are saying he's got a pretty good case.
	He does.
	And I sure hope to heck he wins.
	But to me, this is one of the really astonishing things about current society today.
	When he tried to get a GoFundMe fund going, In the U.S.
	system, even a white guy with a rifle still has a presumption of innocence.
	But when he started a GoFundMe to fund his defense, it was taken down.
	And the next place he went to, I can't remember what it was, He went to another crowd source and they shut it down too.
	Now, I looked into this.
	I believe it was you actually once told me that, well, no, these guys don't have, they don't let you raise money for criminal defense.
	That's not true.
	Someone was making that argument.
	Perhaps it wasn't you.
	That's not true.
	That's not true.
	You can raise money for criminal defense on practically all of these platforms.
	They don't have any rules against that.
	And so for him, and only him as far as I can tell, to be denied money for criminal defense when he's facing murder charges, this just goes to show you the utter corruption of any idea that we have an equal system in which the law applies in an equal way.
	In some ways the catastrophe that he talks about, because this is something he explicitly argues, and this is why it's important.
	We'll see if Europeans, European Americans in this case, will see the state is no longer capable or willing to protect them.
	And the crisis of legitimacy, essentially.
	And this is sort of what's happening now, especially you're seeing it with, I remember seeing an article connected with the January 6th riots, where the article, and again, these articles always have an objective, the article was, your tax dollars are paying for the January 6th defendants.
	And of course, what they meant was public defenders.
	And it's like, well, yeah.
	I mean, like, you know, murderers get public defenders, too.
	That's right.
	That's how it works.
	Are we now moving to the point where certain guys don't get public defenders anymore?
	I think we could very well be moving in that direction.
	Well, you know that there's this concerted campaign to punish lawyers who are representing Donald Trump in his attempts to contest the results of the election.
	Now, everybody is supposed to have a right to legal counsel in the United States, but the fact that you defended Donald Trump, that makes you a pariah, they want to drum you out of the profession.
	It's just a breathtaking, breathtaking set of double standards.
	Come a long way from John Adams and the Boston Massacre.
	Yeah, but one of Guillaume Fay's very important points, and it's obvious when you think about it, but he brought it up in a very compelling and clear way.
	When things begin to fall apart, Which way will the military move?
	Yes.
	That is hugely important.
	That's hugely important.
	And it's impossible to know.
	It's really impossible to know.
	I think it's interesting to think about what the moves the Biden administration has been making to purge the military.
	Oh, very much so.
	Very much so.
	I think they must have this idea.
	And the long term objective, I think that a lot of people see coming of taking away, I mean, we see with consent decrees on police departments, Make sure that you have essentially a federal police force and taking away local and state police forces.
	And the idea of insisting that we get more black, more hispanic, more hispanic female officers in the combat arms, all of that was going to make it much more difficult to predict which way the military would go.
	And when things get really serious, that will make all the difference.
	Because people were joking about when Joe Biden said, oh, these guys are the F-15s, you know, in order to oppose us, you gotta have F-15s.
	Well, It was like the day after they lost Afghanistan, right?
	Yes, yes.
	He's bragging about just what a great military combine we have.
	The fact is It won't require F-15s.
	It'll require, you know, all they will need is a few Reaper drones.
	Right.
	Those things are very effective if they can get the right target, which they probably would in the United States.
	But, no, which way will those guys move, that's going to be a very, very, that'll be the crucial thing, if it comes to that.
	Now, I want to emphasize one other point.
	Especially in his last book.
	I mean, he knew he was dying, and he just put it on the line.
	Politics is not going to solve our problem.
	There is no way it can.
	Yeah, he had certainly a colorful way of language.
	I think the century called it like a century of blood and steel, a century of iron.
	Well, racial civil war.
	What is it he was saying?
	I mean, I guess this would be my question to you, sir.
	Do you think using these kinds of phrases, I mean, look, there's obviously a lot to be said for laying it on the line, particularly when we're talking about race and just saying, look, this is how it is.
	But when you're talking about hypotheticals and when you're talking about things in I think it does make it a little difficult to interpret what's happening now because what I see happening now it's sort of like a look it's like something on a constant simmer I mean the conflict has begun to some extent but it's not with big armies marching around and states collapsing and everything else it's just
	You know you don't go to these neighborhoods anymore, they're taking down this statue, oh wait, this gang is making a death threat against you, but it's never quite there.
	And I think when people start talking about it in terms of civil war and everything else, it leads to this sort of all or nothing mindset.
	Yes, but... And I also just don't think the, you know, the militia fantasies and all that is productive.
	No, no, no, no.
	We are never going to get something like the Confederacy versus the Union.
	Right.
	No, no, that's completely out of the question.
	If somebody goes up to you and is like, hey guys, we're starting a militia, like, guess what?
	You just met an FBI agent and you go in the other direction.
	Yes.
	What he's talking about is a kind of Large-scale criminality, basically.
	Yeah, right.
	And that is the kind of... and that is why he says the key role will be played by the military.
	Because no one... And they dropped arms in the French situation, the military police.
	Yes, yes.
	So, it's not as though, you know, there's going to be the equivalent of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall... No, that's just not going to happen.
	Not going to happen.
	But he sees it as something bad.
	And of course, he does not think that civil war is inevitable.
	He says that depending on how much of a spinal column white men have, it could be submission.
	That at some point it will be submission or it will require some kind of uprising that's not going to be free.
	That's all he's saying.
	And when he says there's no political solution, that's what he means.
	He's not saying that bloodshed on a large scale is inevitable.
	But he says if that doesn't happen, then we will be dhimmis.
	We will be second-class citizens, at least in Europe, in these Muslim-run countries.
	I can imagine in the United States, white being second-class citizens, We're second-class citizens now.
	Yes, we already are.
	We'll just be formalized.
	I remember, you know, somebody was saying, one of these conservatives was saying, oh, we have to get ready to fight China or something like that or else we'll be second-class citizens.
	I'm thinking to myself, I'd rather be a second-class citizen than whatever class I am now.
	Legal immigrants are getting 450,000 grand.
	450,000 grand. What are we getting?
	This is just incredible.
	But here's, I mean, and there's also the French novel Submission.
	That will definitely be something we'll talk about in a future episode.
	To return real quick to the whole larger concept of, okay, we go through this crisis.
	It's either something violent, something non-violent.
	It could be just sort of the change of consciousness.
	But there is a crisis, and a decision is made.
	And let's say we make the right one and come out on the other end.
	Archaeo-futurism is essentially his model of how these things would work.
	And I was really struck by his idea, which again, and this is something I just totally endorse and 100% on board with, this idea that the archaic values, particularly of hierarchy, inequality, greatness, the Faustian spirit, which really characterizes us, and marrying that with futurism.
	But this does not necessarily mean that we have to live as mere We are not just part of a global economy that we're not just
	No, no, that's very much part of his vision is that the atomized European is going to become a tribal European or an extended family European.
	That marriages will become unions of family.
	Right, which is what they should be.
	Yes, yes, he has this much more rooted idea.
	In terms of economics, in terms of the possessions that we have, a much less well-endowed life, but one in which the human relations are tied in ways that make life much more meaningful.
	That's very much a part of it.
	Now, it's important he talks about solving a lot of the big problems that are talked about right now.
	So, for example, clean energy, where he essentially says, I mean, he spends a lot of time on that, which is why I'm bringing it up now.
	He essentially says we already have the solution, which is nuclear power.
	And it's interesting to note, I just don't want his views mischaracterized here.
	I know he says that he can imagine a world where a lot of people have less but are happier.
	But if you look at, say, the climate change proposals being put now, it's about reducing consumption.
	But he's saying we actually already have solutions to these problems.
	He spends quite a lot of time talking about how nuclear energy would provide the way to solve a lot of these problems and reduce environmental damage while still keeping our standard of living.
	Well, but he says repeatedly, and as you quoted this, so he says the idea of the entire world of 7 billion, 8 billion people living like Americans.
	Out of the question.
	Out of the question.
	And this is just a complete dreamland.
	Now, I'm always accused by my more cynical comrades of a certain naivete, but I don't think that it absolutely Must come to either submission or large-scale warfare, civil war, or criminality.
	I think it is possible that in the United States you could get possibly some sort of secession at the county and maybe the state level.
	I don't rule that out.
	This greater Idaho idea, which is not... Of course, that's within the Union.
	Yes, it's within, but it could be the first step towards leaving the Union.
	I don't know.
	I like to think that we do not have to end up in this absolutely apocalyptic future.
	But I think that if it were realistic, we have to think in terms of that as a possibility.
	Now, he said it's an inevitability.
	Either that, or the white man just goes to the wall, we march off the cliff, we face oblivion.
	I hope those are not our choices.
	A novel submission actually posited a third future, which is a sort of Europeanized Islam, where it would be submission, but it would also be a kind of spiritual rebirth in a way.
	But that's something I think for another episode.
	It is something to consider in that If you have a situation where you face a crisis and we have nothing, no existing institution, certainly no existing church of any large denomination has our back.
	So we have nothing to fall back on except ourselves.
	So at the moment of crisis, what do we rely on?
	And I think, hopefully not mischaracterizing him, but this is what I would say and what I think is important is that The next stage of Western Civilization, if there is to be a next stage of Western Civilization, will be defined by this struggle itself.
	It will be defined by Identitarianism itself.
	It will be defined by saying that we are Europeans and this is back before Christianity, even before Rome. And it is
	because of that and because of the greatness that that represents, that is why we have a
	future. And I think he presents a very compelling way for like, this is what that future could
	look like. I'm just not sure I'm keen on this archeo future that he describes. And that's why I
	would prefer to think of a future that does not go through this catastrophic stage of collapse.
	It could be that the converging catastrophes he described result in a kind of subsistence life that no one lives above.
	If we get to the point where we have forgotten how to generate large-scale electricity, it's not as though the Chinese are going to come over and save us.
	I do like to think that there are alternatives, but in his last book, it was the racial civil war, but then he ended up calling it ethnic apocalypse.
	He presents a stark bifurcation.
	We're going to come to a fork in the road and they're only two ways down.
	For Europe, that might be true.
	It could be.
	You're talking about a lot more constant right next to each other.
	That's true.
	We've got more land.
	We can maybe divvy things up.
	I mean the fact is, if you, depending on where you live, 2020, nothing happens in a lot of neighborhoods.
	Yes.
	You can't really say that if something of this magnitude struck Europe.
	Yeah.
	So that about wraps it up, unless you want to...
	I have a final point, but I want to turn it over to you, sir.
	I do want to talk a little bit more about Yung-Fai as a man.
	He sacrificed tremendously to do what he did.
	I was never in his apartment.
	Every time I would go to Paris and make a point of seeing him, he never invited me to his apartment.
	I understand it was really cramped, stuffed with books of course.
	But he lived a very meager existence and at the end of his life it was a little bit like the way Sam Francis was living on a kind of generosity of the people who supported him.
	He was a brilliant guy who could have made tons of money if he'd been prepared to sell out.
	That guy, the fertility of his imagination, the power of his prose, he could have been a journalist.
	How prolific he was!
	Gosh, yes!
	For a while he's writing a book a year and there are several books of his, maybe half of it we haven't even mentioned.
	He wrote a book about Islam.
	He wrote a book about how sexists jumped the tracks.
	He had all of these different views and he had these very exciting creative ideas about so many things.
	The language he used was so compelling.
	He would talk about Nietzsche was going to write philosophy with a hammer.
	Sure, that's the way he wrote his books.
	He wrote his books with a hammer.
	Very compelling stuff.
	But he paid a tremendous price and he was always cheerful about it.
	That's something he never had any bitterness that I could detect.
	And I think that's one of the reasons why so many people admired him because he clearly paid a huge price for what he believed in.
	What he believed in was you and me and what we represent and what our people represent.
	And he basically gave his life for it.
	And I think that's one of the most important things to take away, is that even when you pay a price, or even when you make a sacrifice in economic terms, you get something back, which is that you leave a legacy that you remember, and that the people who matter continue to act on what you've said.
	I just read a phrase the other day, I forget what the context was, but it was, And that's true.
	He was great and those that he cared about recognized it and will remember him for that.
	Absolutely.
	And I think that's a great note to end it on.
	So, thank you, sir.
	And we'll see you next time.
	My pleasure.

▲