All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:10:17
Tolerating Repression
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey guys, welcome to Left, White, and Right.
I am Gregory Hood.
I am here with Chris Roberts, and today we are going to be talking about the thought of Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfurt School more broadly, and war stories with academia, because Marcuse is basically the foundation of everything we're facing today.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, well, and it's the foundation.
Marcuse is the godfather of basically all of the weird political science stuff you hear in college.
I mean, for me, like, it's impossible for me to hear Marcuse's name and not just think back to my freshman year.
Yeah, and what's really kind of disappointing about him is, I remember the first one we ever did was Ayn Rand, and there's, you know, I'm not gonna defend that as political philosophy or whatever else, but there was a passage in a book where one of the characters says, imagine coming across this ruined landscape of devastation, you know, armies slaughtered and everything else, and then at the end you just see it's kind of this pathetic little wretch at the end that caused all this.
And it's sort of the same thing with Marcuse, because I was kind of built up to him in terms of political philosophy and was reading all the stuff in preparation for him.
Obviously, it's mentioned in Death of the West and some of the kind of pop conservatism stuff.
And so you have this and, you know, he's the godfather of the new left.
I mean, this is specifically who the student revolutionaries of the time look to.
Yeah.
And then you read it.
And it's.
It's not just flawed or it's not just, oh, I disagree with this, it's genuinely stupid.
Like, this is a five-year-old could put this together.
This is nonsense.
And it's not just that it's nonsense, it's something that is so crude that anybody can pick it up.
So one of the things I want to get into today is critical theory is just a weapon, and it's a weapon that right now fits our uses far more than the left's, because every single one of its premises are wrong.
They're wrong, even from the standards of his own life.
I mean, this is a guy who, after he fled Germany, immediately takes up at a university, which, you know, I think even at the time, few of his critics would have been able to do, was working for the OSS, which was the precursor to the CIA doing pro-war propaganda during World War II.
Obviously, and again, this is, it sounds conspiratorial, but this is the kind of thing which Objectively is true.
The CIA had a big role in funding the new left as part of sort of anti-soviet socialist and progressive movements Basically, it wasn't the case during the Cold War that America was opposed to leftism It was opposed to the Soviet Union and so you had any ideology or any power bloc that was opposed to that We would support it.
I mean ultimately you could say that culminated in Nixon backing China and So everything he writes, because it's built upon this premise of there is legitimate dissent and there's illegitimate dissent.
And the illegitimate dissent comes from the people who are trying to advance an authoritarian system, as I define it, conveniently enough.
And legitimate dissent comes from people who are trying to create a more liberation movement, which Never has existed in human history the kind of society he wants.
He flatly states doesn't exist, has never existed, but we still have some magical obligation to work toward it.
And everything that liberates humanity, in his view, is good.
But he says that the current system is holding him back.
But he was a part of that system.
And he always was a part of that system.
And now when you look at Yeah, quite.
media cult climate, when you look at the current university climate, when you look at just pop
culture in general, it's impossible to read some of these excerpts without laughing out loud because
everything he's saying is completely true. He's just got it backwards as far as who holds power
and who is conditioning the public to believe certain ideas.
And I'm sure you saw that when you were dealing with school.
Yeah, quite. I mean, so it's actually kind of hard to know where to begin with with Marcuse,
because he did write a number of different things. But one of one of the things he's
probably most credited with is the idea of liberation, you know, liberation from the
affluent society, liberating ourselves from consumerism, from conspicuous capitalism,
you know, all of these things. And you really see a lot of that influence in.
And...
And, like, Naomi Klein and Adbusters magazine, even, the idea of, like, we should just stop buying things entirely, and that all of our identities are wrapped up in what we consume, what we buy, the items we have in our homes, etc.
And that this is an enormous false consciousness.
And this is how Marcuse basically updates Marx.
For Marx, the false consciousness was religion.
For Marcuse, a hundred years later, it was buying stuff.
Right.
Advertising conditions society.
I have kind of two main points on this.
One is leftists who make this criticism against consumerism don't really have an obvious alternative to it because if you take If you don't want people to identify with, you know, being the kind of guy who smokes Marlboro Reds, or being like an Apple product aficionado, or a guy who owns a lot of nice cars or something, the more basic and more historic... Or a Marvel fan.
Yeah.
The more basic identities that humans have held onto before Earth became relatively wealthy
in the last 150 years were race, religion, and region, region as in geography.
Like those are kind of like the normal identities until we really reach modernity and to some extent
like once we hit the Industrial Revolution, that's when we start moving identities
away from these kind of basic things to what you buy.
And that means that it makes a lot more sense for the right to criticize consumerism and the identities
that come from consumerism because we're all for positive identities based around region,
religion, and race.
The three R's, the three fundamental R's to human existence.
But for somebody like Marcuse, identifying around any of those three things is even worse than identifying around a product or a brand.
You shouldn't you shouldn't even be allowed to talk because that's repressive you shouldn't even he says and you know this is coming from his concept of repressive tolerance now this this gets misunderstood quite a bit by repressive tolerance he means what's in his mind happening now where you have this sort of consumerist capitalist militaristic society that.
Claims it's democratic, but is actually conditioning the masses to support these repressive ideas through advertising, through the education system, which it controls.
And this was all, you can all see this influence in Students for a Democratic Society and the Pork Huron Stipend and everything else.
I mean, these were very core ideas to the people at the time, not just people now.
And yet, if you actually break it down, as you say, He has this critique against the affluent society and consumerism, but he also says any alternative form of what we might call traditional identity is illegitimate.
And what he posits instead is this sort of self-created autonomy to be free, but you're also not Going to be allowed to develop that on your own because you need careful supervision by intellectuals to make sure you don't seize on the wrong ideas.
And so at the end, he sort of shrugs his shoulders and basically says, well, basically intellectuals get to govern anyone.
So you have a university professor writing a book about why university professors should govern the state.
And it's like, all right, well, great.
Thanks.
I mean, again, the number one premise is when somebody is telling you something, why you have to ask yourself, What does this person stand to gain if I believe what they're telling me?
And this is just a very crude will to power, basically.
And what's worse about this is that he's speaking on behalf of those who are dispossessed, and yet everything He defines everything that he sets up in the system of power.
I think this we can refer to Noam Chomsky, too, and a lot of his ideas, everything he says about the masses being conditioned, about public opinion being massaged, about democracy being illegitimate because there are disparities in power and everything else.
I mean, the response is basically no you.
Because who is it who controls the media?
Who is it who controls the university?
Who is it who controls the banks?
Who is it who controls big capital?
Who is it who controls every single pop culture franchise?
Who is it who controls essentially everything along the entire cultural system and the slightest little burp of dissent needs to be brought down with all the fury of the state and the whole of government response.
And so when he says these things The way to wield critical theory is essentially to look at him as a proponent of the ruling class and its governing myth, its governing ideology, the thing that justifies its power, as Burnham would see it, and just say, all right, well, wait a minute, this guy's just a tool.
And one of the big mistakes I think conservatives make, you see this kind of the West, you see this in a lot of conservative rhetoric about it, where you have this kind of child's guide to cultural Marxism.
I know Mr. Taylor doesn't like that word, and it is a bit of a you know, kind of a catchphrase or whatever. I've always
kind of liked it. I think cultural Marxism is a perfectly fine phrase, but I guess for
listeners, I mean, understand that cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and critical theory are all
synonyms for all intents and purposes.
It's just- Right, I mean- Which label you pick is sort of subjective, but people mean the same thing when they refer to any of those three things.
Yeah, critical theory, you could argue, is like the weapon you use to get to X or cultural Marxism.
You could say, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
It's sort of like the Great Replacement.
It's a conspiracy theory, but here are all these people celebrating it and all these news articles and everything else.
They just call it by a different name.
But to break down what a lot of conservatives get wrong about this is they'll say, this guy I guess goes back to Gramsci too, World War One happens, which is the big war between all the capitalist superpowers and imperialist empires.
And this is supposed to lead to communist revolution.
This does not happen.
The masses go happily off to war singing national songs.
When you do get a communist revolution, it happens in backward Russia.
Not the most advanced industrial economies, which is what classical Marxism would have predicted.
So, the focus quickly shifts to culture instead of economics and scientific socialism.
Then, of course, you have the rise of fascism.
Now, again, fascism would not have existed were it not for the abortive communist revolutions in parts of The revolution in Hungary, the Soviet attempt to try to take over Poland, all of these things.
Fascism was basically people resisting, it was basically militant anti-communism in the most ruthless form.
And they sort of, this whole idea of anti-fascism has it backwards because anti-fascism was essentially just a brand for communism.
But fascism wouldn't have existed without communist revolution.
It wouldn't have existed without subversion.
It was reactionary in the purest sense because it was trying to put down something that a lot of people saw was happening and that they thought was bad because, you know, the verdict was in pretty quickly about what was happening in the Soviet Union.
The only people who couldn't see it, of course, were American journalists and academics.
And, you know, again, I think a lot of them did see it, knew what was going on, and deliberately chose to cover it up.
I mean, this is another one of the things we could argue about Warkoza, is did he, was he knowingly putting forth a false ideology?
Then after World War II and everything else, I mean, again, this was sort of the crushing moment for me, because, you know, when you're younger, you have a certain openness to ideas, and I was kind of excited to be reading this and everything else.
And essentially, he says, This is more or less an exact quote.
If we had cracked down on all these movements in Central Europe and everything else, humanity might have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a world war.
Now, of course, this leaves completely unmentioned what the Soviet Union was planning on doing, what Stalin was planning on doing.
That, of course, is of no moral significance.
It's of no moral significance what happened in Cuba, in China, In all these other states that had communist revolutions that killed millions of people.
In fact, he explicitly argues that these were advances for humanity, not just for these countries, but for humanity and that this is something to be cultivated.
But any kind of what he sees as repressive measures, which is putting down these kinds of movements itself must be repressed and liberal democracy with its claims of Fairness and the idea that government that the people can determine their system of government and govern themselves He would argue all this is flawed because of power disparities and here's the thing I would agree with him on
He's just got it backwards.
A lot of conservatives will say, well, here's this guy delegitimizing our institutions.
Here's this guy delegitimizing traditional culture and Christianity and whatever, whatever it is that you define as the highest good as Western civilization at the thing that we should defend at all costs.
I would say that at this point, the culture is what he wants, that the system is what he wants, that.
You could argue, if we want to take his role with the OSS into consideration and American Cold War policy, that cultural Marxism, for lack of a better phrase, what we now call wokeness in a more virulent form, more virulent strain, I guess, I mean, that's the state ideology of the global American empire.
I think it was actually just yesterday there was a piece in Bloomberg saying that wokeness, again, this is their term, and I kind of cringe at it because it sounds cheap, but we'll use it.
It works.
is going to be America's greatest export to the rest of the world, and that so many countries stand to benefit from this.
And it's hard not to see it as a weapon of essentially cultural imperialism, where you go into a culture, you undermine it, you create victim classes, you wager color revolutions against a certain country, you promote oppositional media, you then shut down media that you don't like, I mean, the government has essentially been playing, using Marcuse's playbook and the left has been using Marcuse's playbook.
And this has been going on for a very long time.
And so this idea that he and the Frankfurt School rotted out our institutions and then, you know, left us in this cultural chaos, I think that has it a bit backwards.
The situation is actually much worse.
It's people like him who have been in, who are in charge and who had been in charge for a very, very long time.
And we should look at his ideas because he actually does dissect power accurately in many ways.
He just doesn't want us to pick up the weapon and point out that, hey, actually, you're the guy holding power.
You're the system that needs to be dispossessed.
You're the person who are promoting, who's promoting ideas that lead to people being conditioned and people following a false consciousness and people being turned into essentially bits of data and pointless consumers with no identity beyond what the media tells them.
Like, you are everything you claim to be against.
And furthermore, since he says himself that we can dispense with these people, with political opponents, without taking their arguments in good faith because they stand as barriers to human progress, he's also essentially given us the justification for saying, no, listen, like, we don't even need to talk to you.
Like, we know what you are.
There's nothing to discuss.
It's just a question of power.
And this is, I think, another key problem where you have a lot of people who will talk about repressive tolerance and they'll say, well, it's really about free speech and we need to make sure that we have freedom of speech with these radical woke leftists are undermining and everything else.
Marcuse, to his credit, says that there is such a thing as truth and that freedom of speech is a means to discover truth.
And once certain truths are identified, They need to be defended, and that certain challenges to them can essentially be dispensed without even considering them.
Right, because he believed that, you know, his concept of repressive tolerance is that if you tolerate freedom of speech for things we have determined to be wrong, that tolerating those voices is, in a way, repressive, because we can reach conclusions as to what is true and what is not true.
So for Marcuse, you know, we should only tolerate Freedom of speech for for things that we know to be good and and true like communism and feminism and stuff and that's to to tolerate Right-wingers is is repressive Right.
I mean this was broadly speaking.
There's his version of liberating tolerance Could be summarized as toleration of movements from the left intolerance of movements from the right, but it's important to Understand why he's saying this what what he's saying is the end goal is Is essentially a society in which people are free to govern themselves to fully be themselves in some way.
But.
He just kind of assumes this and.
He, as you point out earlier, he dismisses all of those things which most people throughout history, basically, I would say well beyond the Industrial Revolution, basically until very recently.
Would define their identity and he even says that people are not a blank slate but if we're not allowed to Identify with a race with our people with our nation nation I guess itself is a false consciousness with a region with the traditional culture with the religion and Furthermore the media as he sees it and the power system is giving people a false consciousness What exactly is to is there to express?
What is the self?
And this is something he never really grapples with. Yeah, he's yeah, he is guilty of this in a way basically all
leftist intellectuals except those who focus entirely on material conditions are guilty of where
He makes it so clear what he's against and he even has prescriptions for how to fight against all
of these bad things, but What exactly is the light at the end of the tunnel for marcus's?
Like, what is Marcuse's utopia?
It's somewhere between unclear and impossible.
It's like, okay, so nobody identifies with any of these kind of traditional things, and now nobody's going, and we're not going to have a capitalistic consumerist society, so all of those identities are gone.
It's like, well, so what are people going to identify around?
I mean, what's going to give meaning to people's lives exactly?
And it's just, It's just unclear.
I mean, human beings, there's no way out of identity.
All human beings are innately identitarians.
It's just sort of a question of what they end up identifying themselves with and whether or not that's the correct thing to identify as.
But there's sort of an identity trap.
And interestingly enough, I recently read a book by an influential Christian by the name of Dick Kyes.
He wrote a book called Beyond Identity.
Which was somewhat similar to this Marcusean thing of like you shouldn't identify, you know, with race or with your job or with even just like a role of don't put all of your identity eggs in one basket of being a good father or a good husband.
You know, what you really need to do is set identity aside and just sort of be a servant to God and to be a godly person and a good Christian and it's like, Well, but that's an identity.
I mean, that's something that you're going to identify as.
It's the identity trap.
There's no way around it.
But with so much of the Frankfurt School, and Marcuse in particular, it's all just so ethereal, right?
He wants this future world which is communistic in some way, so there isn't consumerism, and we've left behind all of these old identities, and so What?
We are all just interchangeable universalist humans who we don't perceive differences between race or sex and somehow class distinctions have been abolished.
So what are we all going to do exactly?
I mean, what does that society even look like?
I mean, what happens day to day?
I mean, this is sort of like the Patreon socialist Tendency that we have now where you have guys posting on Twitter and then on social media things all the things were banned on incidentally about how they're socialists now Marx of course said that The big problem with capitalism was that it forces you to do things that not just that you don't want to do but that actively undermine your potential as a human being and so in a communist society where
We've managed the economy such that it serves human needs.
You could go hunting in the morning, and go fishing, and then you could critique literature after dinner, and you would essentially have unlimited human potential.
And by the time that you get to Marcuse, that's essentially been broken down and turned into this never-ending war of, a war against oppressors, which at any given, which is everything that exists now, everything.
And there's no real end in sight.
Now, again, I quote from him here.
He says, the only authentic alternative indication of democracy, with respect to this question, he's talking about a false democracy, you know, that's conditioned.
He's basically talking about the America that sheltered him and gave him money and everything else, which he then gleefully stabbed in the back.
I mean, you know, his life is an important lesson on why immigration is very bad.
Would be a society in which, quote-unquote, the people, in scare quotes, notice how he doesn't trust them to do their own thing, have become autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle for existence in the interest of domination, and as such human beings choosing their government and determining their life.
Such a society does not yet exist anywhere.
Now, I'm gonna get into How we can wield critical theory in a bit, but this is one of the things where we have to put a break and say this is a very big difference between us and him and the people like him.
That sentence right there, such a society does not yet exist anywhere when taken in the context of everything else he is saying, is straight away a temptation to violence.
Because what you're saying is that we have this utopian vision that We can't even put it into words.
And if you if you pin them down and say, well, what is it that you want?
You'll eventually get explanations like we don't even know what a liberated society would look like because we're also contaminated by oppression and internal racism and everything else.
But essentially, we just have to repress and press and press and kill and kill and kill and condition and condition and condition until we become autonomous individuals.
Well, what's an autonomous individual?
I think one of the big differences between us and him at a fundamental level, certainly between me and him, as you know, speaking of myself as a radical traditionalist, is that there's no such thing as an autonomous individual, that you are part of a chain of being.
That every single thing from the beginning of the universe had to happen exactly as it did for you to be who you are, and that there's no autonomous version of you that's floating in the ether somewhere, which can suddenly manifest when you're freed from all these things.
I wish some of these leftist intellectuals would for once tell me what this world, what this utopia is going I have such a hard time envisioning this world without any kind of consumerism, where we're not part of any hierarchy.
Is everybody just at home?
Chaz, we saw it.
We had an autonomous zone.
You show up, you shoot a bunch of people, which of course nobody cares about, and then eventually you destroy everything and leave.
The end.
Set your cynicism aside for a second.
That's impossible.
Another issue with Marcuse here is he's doing what, again, so many leftist intellectuals do.
He's attributing so much of human nature to capitalism.
He's critiquing this desire to dominate, and, well, the desire to dominate certainly existed in you know, hunter-gatherer tribes, you know, the Soviet
Union still had competitive sports and human beings are competitive and human beings, you know, to
at least some degree all seek, you know, power and dominance. I mean, not that everybody
is this evil Machiavellian, but the idea that impulses to be, you know, in charge of
projects or to be the best at something, and that being the best at something, you know, is part of
your fundamental identity, The idea that somehow all of these things can be abolished
is strange.
And it's also bizarre that they're all attributed to capitalism.
I don't see how anybody can reach This conclusion, I mean, at all, right?
I mean, nothing is further from capitalism than the anarcho-primitivist societies of hunter-gatherer tribes, you know, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years before, you know, the Greeks.
And that was all about domination and competition.
I mean, the societies are really brutal and really violent.
And boy, there was no capitalism, but everybody worked all day, you know, hunting or gathering.
It's not like there was no toil until the 19th century when we invented big factories with smokestacks.
Right.
I mean, there's no way for me to wrap my head around this.
And they just kind of hand away the empirical evidence.
I mean, they've, the myth of the noble savage, I mean, they've done study after study after study where they say the homicide rate in these societies is just unbelievably high.
Unbelievable, yeah.
I mean, and this idea of, I mean, so right off the bat, this idea of primitive communism as sort of this thing that we once had and then we somehow lost, I mean, that's just never existed.
It's gone.
And furthermore, they, They blame capitalism for all the reasons why people have a false consciousness, whereas I think many people like me, maybe not people like you because I'm more like mystically inclined and all this stuff, would say that capitalism has been just as, has been far more destructive of traditional identities than even these leftist movements.
In fact, One of the things that, and maybe even Marcuse, some of his later disciples would agree with me here, is that rebellion itself becomes commodified.
But he doesn't really preach an alternative to this, and how can he?
Because this is the central contradiction.
He's sitting in a university telling us what to think.
Furthermore, he's saying that at the end of the day, he's the only one who can be trusted To tell us what ideas should be allowed and what ideas should not be allowed.
Now, this is the takeaway quote, which you've heard a million times.
You'll get this in the conservative movement.
This is nothing too new here, but it's something worth restating.
This is him.
Liberating tolerance then would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left.
As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of action as well of discussion and propaganda of deed as well as word.
The tradition criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries fire.
It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks or by a rash speech of one of the leaders.
Now, this is also important, and you'll see that initial quote about toleration of movements from the left, intolerance of movements from the right.
Interesting how he presupposes the credibility and coherence of concepts such as left and right.
But going a bit further, this is also the foundation for the atmosphere of permanent moral panic.
I mean, think about the implications of this.
One rash speech, one speech, and everything falls apart.
Not only are we in a situation that is worse than the situation before World War II, in his argument.
It's getting worse all the time.
And at any moment, if the slightest person distributes the tiniest bit of propaganda, speaks for the wrong thing, votes for the wrong party, instantly, Auschwitz.
And I think that this is how a lot of... It's so crude, but yet I've dug into this and I've really tried, you know?
Like, I've really tried to grapple with this and it is that dumb.
The conflict between that quote and the desire to create a society of autonomous humans is so self-evident.
It's like, oh, well, you're all autonomous.
To do anything that you don't, you know, get beat up for doing, because it might lead to bad things.
I mean, you know, I'm generally sympathetic to the idea, like, on paper, in a void, you know, autonomous human beings, hey, that sounds great, but, you know, that means people should be allowed to, you know, start their own businesses, or launch political parties, and all these things.
To me, autonomous human beings, that smacks of libertarianism, that's like the last thing on the planet that Marcuse Whatever, indoors, which again brings us back to this fundamental question of, okay, so Marcuse wants us to abolish all of these traditional identities, plus capitalism, and all of its consumerism, and then we are all autonomous to do what?
Become college professors like him?
Smoke pot and watch TV?
Oh, well, no, and don't even try to retreat to libertarianism.
All you libertarians out there, all you open-bordered libertarians, you're locked in here with us, because here's him.
Such discrimination, the good discrimination as he would put it, this is him, would be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled as to the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for quote the other side.
I maintain that there are issues where either there is no quote other side in any more than a formulistic sense or where quote the other side is demonstrably quote regressive and Impedes possible improvement of the human condition to tolerate proper propaganda for inhumanity Invalidates the goals not only of liberalism, but of every progressive political philosophy So it's not just that oh the far right we're gonna ban those two if you're some libertarian who says hey guess what?
I think these I don't know Technical regulations are holding back GDP growth and therefore human acceptance.
You're in the gulags, too.
I Like, you don't get it out from this.
And you could say, all right, well, what is he basing this on?
Because he does have a vision of human progress.
And again, there's sort of the impossibility of his final state, right?
You know, these autonomous human individuals.
And we'll come back to that.
But he does give some examples of what he thinks are positive human developments towards this endgame.
I quote, The English Civil Wars, the French Revolution, the Chinese and Cuban Revolutions, yeah, that worked out well, may illustrate the hypothesis.
In contrast, the one historical change from one social system to another, marking the beginning of a new period in civilization which was not sparked and driven by an effective movement, quote, from below, namely the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, Brought about a long period of regression for long centuries until a new higher period of civilization was painfully born in the violence of the heretic revolts of the 13th century and in the peasant and laborer revolts of the 14th century.
With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes, no such relation to progress seems to obtain.
The long series of dynastic and imperialist wars, the liquidation of Spartacus and Germany in 1919, he means the Spartacus League, Fascism and Nazism did not break, but rather tightened and streamlined the continuum of suppression.
So.
Right off the bat, so he is giving us something to grapple with.
It's not just totally ethereal.
He's saying, well, here are some specific examples of things that I feel advance the human condition.
And in some ways, this is sort of the wig.
Yeah, it's the Marxist revamping of the Whig theory of history.
Right.
But let's look at every single one of these examples.
First of all, the English Civil War.
At the end of the day, what happened?
Marxist revamping of the Whig theory of history, right?
But let's look at every single one of these examples. First of all the English Civil War
At the end of the day what happened it?
culminated in a religious theocracy that basically
After Cromwell himself died became a military dictatorship Which the people then became so disgusted with they overthrew
and invited the king back terrain among them and
And the monarchy still remains today.
Now, if you wanted to say the glorious revolution, you know, the arrival of William and Mary.
Was a step forward in this, I don't know, movement toward free government or something that could be, I think, more plausibly defended, but he doesn't say that he says the English Civil Wars, which, when you actually break it down, it's not very impressive what it led to.
Then, of course, there's the French Revolution and.
Quoting the Baron, of course, my principles are only that which every sane and well-bred man would have considered normal before the French Revolution.
I mean, what did the French Revolution culminate in?
Now again, I have certain sympathies for a lot of the French Revolution, particularly as it led to Bonaparte, in this idea of a system where human greatness is open to everyone, but that was the opposite of how the Jacobins began.
And it was Napoleon himself who said that the French don't want equality, they want honor.
Very quickly, it went from everybody is going to be equal to we're going to proclaim a new emperor and we're going to create a whole new aristocracy and we're going to justify it on the grounds that we're essentially superior to the aristocracy that came before.
And in the end, how did that work out?
Ultimately, the king came back and the Bourbons were put back on the throne and they weren't taken off until much later.
Now, of course, the next two, I mean, do I even need to get into it?
Yeah.
The one thing I will say specifically about about the Cuban revolution is that, you know,
not only did Castro throw a lot of people in camps and kill a lot of dissidents and
all of these things, but even, you know, and that revolution happened in the late 1950s.
I mean, even by the late 1960s, the American new left was talking about gay rights and,
you know, rights for sex workers and sexual liberation, all of these things.
And Castro killed homosexuals just for being gay.
And he legalized it completely.
So it only took 10 years for Castro to become, you know, way to the right of the American
new left.
Yet the American new left.
Still, to this day, fetishizes this guy.
I mean, and Marcuse did as well, obviously.
And they just don't feel the need to talk about this?
I mean, Marcuse loves talking about dialectics, as all Marxians do, and it's like, well, what's the dialectic with this?
Why do you all lionize this communist revolutionary who's really hated gays and prostitutes and gambling and all kinds of vice in the traditional sense?
It just never gets addressed.
It's just the strangest thing to me.
Well, the biggest opposition, Cuba is now, can be criticized by like the New York Times and things like that, but of course, what are they saying?
There's not enough rappers, there's not enough homosexual activist groups, I think it's been decriminalized, but it's still not exactly smiled upon by the authorities.
A lot of the, and you see this too with critiques, this is something if we ever discuss with Peter Grimlow, the Cold War and everything else, if you look at the Eastern Bloc in the 1980s, I mean, in some ways, I would say even from a Reagan perspective, at least socially, it was more conservative than what we are now.
Union banned rock music as well.
Right.
I mean, well, I mean, I might disagree with him then.
I would make metal like the basis of a new civic religion, but that's a separate point.
It's a different podcast.
That's a different podcast.
Yeah, that's a book in itself.
I'm not, I'm not writing nationals for a nation anymore.
I'm writing like I mean, what it ultimately culminates in, again, this endless search for autonomous human individuals, where has it led to today?
I mean, we've seen the end results of this process where we just get this This endless quest for authenticity and the creation of quote-unquote identities that you can't help but see as products.
I bring up, of course, I think the very unnecessary New Matrix movie.
The people who created that, of course, are trans and.
A lot of people have said, you know, red-pilling is a phrase that obviously the alt-right and the dissonant right and whatever right loves to use.
A lot of leftists say, no, no, no, it's actually, we need to reclaim it.
It's actually about unplugging from a false universe and discovering your true self and everything else.
But it's very hard when you look at the statistics of what people believe, how many people, the really fundamental things like deepest held moral beliefs, their sexual identity, their gender identity, their How they think of themselves as being repressed or what country or what system they want to live under.
It's very hard when you see the Great Awakening and the radical changes in public consciousness and think to yourself, yes, this is people groping toward a more authentic way of being.
Instead, it's very hard not to see this as, oh look, the masses are lumps of potatoes and you can just kind of throw them around based on media stuff.
And furthermore, You could say, well that's an awful cynical way to look at things, but this is inherent to what Marcuse is arguing.
If that's not true, why do we have to restrict what people talk about?
Not just action, but as he says it, even of word.
Why do we have to worry about some guy writing a book which would bring your whole stupid autonomous individual system crashing down?
Now again, too, when we talk about public opinion, Chomsky obviously, I think, I mean the contemporaries, but this This is going to remind a lot of people of Chomsky and I quote.
In the United States, this tendency, this idea of.
This idea that we have a democracy and people are free to make up their own minds, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or all.
Oligarchic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e.
of the majority.
The chance of influencing in any effective way this majority is at a price in dollars totally out of reach of the radical opposition.
Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce.
I agree with every word of that.
Every word.
There's 100%.
Agreed.
Here comes the next sentence.
The left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities.
Not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power.
No, no, no.
Yeah, I agree.
The left has no equal voice.
It has the only voice.
And this is not something, again, he does not say, and he explicitly attacks, and I give him credit for this, He does not adopt this kind of pluralistic view where he says we can never really determine truth because in the democratic system everybody has their own truth, so to speak.
And essentially we just kind of have an endless debate about what is truth.
We don't expect to get an answer, but by allowing this debate, by protecting people's rights to have this debate, you know, juridical defense, as Burnham would call it, limits on the state, limits on systems from restricting from what you think, we get to live a more humane life.
And I think a lot of us, at the beginning of our journey anyway, would have agreed with that, because a lot of us started down the dark path by like reading a book that we're not supposed to read, and didn't understand why People say you're not allowed to read this book.
Right.
And he also, again, he's saying that there are certain things which are objectively true and that challenges to some of these truths just simply should not be allowed.
I have now come to the point where I agree with that, but probably not in the way progressives would like.
The issue is not, and this is a trap that so many of us on the quote unquote far right, although I would just consider us like normal, fall into is people say, well, we need to have free speech
and we need to have free speech for every idea and We're as deserving of free speech and there's no such thing
as hate speech and even hate speech should be allowed and everything else
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, this isn't hate speech. This isn't far-right speech. This is the truth
If you were believing in racial egalitarianism, you're either stupid or lying. There's the debate is over. There's
no there's nothing more to discuss Like I don't and we deserve the right to free speech it not
because everybody does but because the truth does right the truth is the truth and I
Don't know how many decades we have to keep doing this where?
we give the left essentially total control over these policies and
things keep playing out exactly as we would say they would and
They keep coming up with more and more ridiculous explanations about why this is true and moving the goal
poles farther and farther and back Again, I'll re-quote what I said at Ameren, reparations, you know, 19 trillion or whatever it is they want, fine, here, here you go.
But let's check back in a decade.
What do you think it's going to look like?
Yeah.
What's actually going to change here?
And this is especially ridiculous.
Again, this is a claim to truth.
We're not just saying, oh, we're debating ideas in the abstract.
Good old capitalist fashion.
It does not have the required purchasing power.
Bring forward the donations that were made to Black Lives Matter, a self-identified Marxist movement by the banks, by the payment processors.
By entertainment companies, by everything that you would regard as the system.
And what makes me sick about this, and what makes me, dare I say, intolerant of this argument from the beginning, is he was always a part of this system.
Like, you don't get to lecture me from your university perch about how you're oppressed, because in any revolution, you're gonna be ripped down from that perch.
Like, you are the system.
I mean, when you're working for the OSS to condition public opinion, Don't tell me about, oh, this system I live under, it's so oppressive, it's conditioning people.
Well, yeah, it is.
But who's holding the levers?
It's not us.
It's you.
Yeah, I mean, you know, I agree.
It's perhaps my greatest, the greatest intellectual frustration of my life is being unable to convince leftists of the Because I've met many leftists, and the most recent election is actually a great example of this, who are just absolutely convinced that Joe Biden might as well be an Amran reader because of his support of the 1994 crime bill.
That in and of itself betrays a sort of mean-spirited kind of race realism on the part of Biden, that Biden is just really getting off on imprisoning black people, and if that were not true, that he would not have played any role in the 1994 crime bill.
And it's just a myopia that's really hard to break anybody of.
Well, in the case of somebody like Marcuse, it's a myopia that's so comfortable because, again, he did fine as a public intellectual and always had a job in the university system.
Maybe that's why he spent so little time writing about this ideal future world that he wanted us all to live in.
It's because, at least for him, the current order of things really weren't so bad.
I mean, that's not to say that he didn't have some genuine level of empathy for the poor and the downtrodden and everything like that, but he was doing great.
I mean, what interest did he ever really have in launching some kind of revolution or organizing some, I don't know, radical political group to, you know, to change things?
He was comfortable to just critique, and that's what he did for his entire life.
He just critiqued and critiqued and critiqued everything about American society and its popular culture and its politics, everything, and he made bank doing it.
Yeah, from a position of outrageous privilege.
I mean, again, let's return to what he said about the Chinese Revolution as an advance for society of a whole new civilization.
Well, What actually happened is when you had the Cultural Revolution, when you had this radical deconstruction unleashed, it led to people starving, and China only advanced and became essentially the superpower that's going to supplant the declining United States, which I think most people would just kind of take for granted now.
It basically happened when you took the people like Marcuse and said, you're an idiot, now get in the fields and start farming rice and do something productive.
And it was only after that, when the Red Guards were basically forced to stop tearing everything down and actually have to start doing stuff and work for once in their lives, that China started moving forward.
And if you look at China today, no longer does it war against its past.
Instead, it portrays itself as part of a civilization state that goes back thousands of years.
It basically justifies the Communist Party as this thing that was needed To prevent China from foreign exploitation, to throw out the barbarians, to unite China, to make it strong, to take care of the peasants and incorporate them in this greater national civilizational whole.
But there's no thought of overcoming hierarchy or getting rid of the idea of greatness or any of this stuff.
I mean, in fact, what you've got is essentially Marcuse's worst nightmare.
Where you actually have, I think, what even people like us would call an authoritarian system, except it promotes values like productivity and excellence and strength.
Which, of course, he just wants a system which is basically what we have now, which promotes weakness and degeneracy and the search for victimhood.
Is that what he means when he says autonomous human beings, right?
It's like weak, weak-willed, lazy people with no obligation or duty.
Like, is that what it means to be autonomous?
Well, let's think about This is a quote where he's talking about essentially the problem as it is.
And keep in mind, again, like Chomsky, where if you actually put him on the spot and say, well, what do you mean about free choice and everything else?
He kind of moves the goalposts and says, well, we don't even know what freedom is because like advertising exists.
And it's like, okay, well, I mean, if I have a discussion to try to dissuade you of something, I mean, is that advertising?
Is that banned too?
I mean, Marcuse of course would say yes, but.
When he's talking about the potential for individual liberation, quote, from the permissiveness of all sorts of license to a child to the constant psychological concern with the personal problems of the student, a large scale movement is underway against the evils of oppression and the need for being oneself.
Talking about the 60s, obviously.
Frequently brushed aside is the question as to what to be, as what has to be repressed before one can be a self, oneself.
The individual potential is first a negative one.
a portion of the potential of his society of aggression, guilt-feeling, ignorance, resentment,
cruelty, which violate his life instincts. If the identity of the self is to be more than the
immediate realization of this potential, parenthesis, undesirable for the individual as a human being,
then it requires repression and sublimation, conscious transformation. So again, we don't have
an endgame laid out, but we do have a call for conscious transformation.
The first step of this conscious transformation is ripping away all of these so-called repressions in terms of how you raise children.
I think we can assume he means conventional religion, schooling as done at the time, any sense of patriotism, any sense of duty, and everything else.
Well, again, he's not.
He's making a claim to truth here.
We've been doing this for decades.
Let's take a step back.
How are people doing?
How's antidepressant race doing?
How's substance abuse doing?
How's the divorce rate?
How are families?
How are?
I mean, this is sort of the big problem that I've never quite understood with leftists, where you have these people with unbelievable power and resources and an incredible ability to basically screw up the lives of Random schmoes out there.
I mean, ironically, people like us are, like, more protected from that than, like, some guy who just goes to work and makes an OK sign but isn't extremely online and doesn't realize he just brought the wrath of hell down on himself.
Yeah.
And yet, even though they have all this, they're never happy.
It's always resentful.
Everyone's going nuts.
There's fascists behind every corner.
They turn on each other.
They they're constantly ripping each other apart.
No one has any friends.
No one has any comrades.
Everyone's constantly because it's it has to be that way.
It's inherent in the ideology, because if you if you're saying that the only way you can exist is to live under this condition that has never existed in all human history, which you can't even define.
And before you can even start thinking about it, we have to destroy everything that exists.
How can that not lead?
The just continual degradation.
How can that not lead to just continual destruction?
And again, you know, I go back to Chas like we've people talk about these things like they've never been tried.
Like we've seen how this plays out.
I mean, it just becomes a disaster within 10 minutes.
And the only thing that keeps it lumbering forward in any way usually is some sort of the new authoritarianism, which manifests very quickly.
And We've even seen this was large scale protest movements like Occupy Wall Street and everything else.
People, a lot of people point to wokeism as one of the things that were the consequences of the failed Occupy Wall Street movement.
And having spoken to some people who were there, some of whom became conservatives later, some people who just kind of turned away in disgust from politics altogether.
I mean, what happened with Occupy Wall Street?
You had all those people show up.
The big thing was, what is our one demand?
Nobody had an answer to that question, of course.
Everybody just kind of camped out and said, oh, we've created a new model for human society, but eventually it became filled with just criminals and rape and, you know, filth and everything else.
And people started competing, saying this group or that group has the right to speak first.
This is where you get the beginning of the so-called progressive stack, right?
Where, depending on where you are in the victim hierarchy, you get to speak first.
And eventually, public opinion turned against it, and a few bored policemen disgustedly broke it up, the same way they did with the autonomous zones that we saw a couple years ago.
None of this is new, and none of it can lead to anything other than the dead end, where it always leads to.
But we who are looking at this can wield this weapon in a different way.
One of the things that I just want to touch on real quick before we move on to that is he also talks about the need to constantly be morally indignant when you're speaking as a sociologist, as a philosopher, and I would say as a journalist.
You know, to treat the great crusades against humanity with the same impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting the record.
Well, yeah, but I think we would have very different ideas about what counted as the great crusades for humanity.
You know, one of which I would call the actual crusades, but that's a separate question.
Being a leftist means never having to say you're sorry, right?
You get as many tries at creating utopia as you want, and you never have to apologize for past attempts failing, so long as you're still trying to get to the next one.
It's just like an unspoken tenant of leftism.
You never have to apologize for things going wrong.
We should think about this, though, in terms of what we can take from this, which is he is right when he says that you have this.
When we talk about free speech or when we talk about the marketplace of ideas, we're really talking about something that doesn't exist because you have disparities in power.
You have certain people who have control over, I guess what we would call today, platforms.
He didn't have the internet, obviously, but we would obviously have that, not just newspapers and television and everything else.
And the universities, of course, which are probably the greatest culture-producing institutions.
You have great fortunes on one hand, and you have very little on the other.
And so when you have this public opinion, you know, what they call public opinion or what they call the will of the majority, he's right to say that essentially it's just a creation.
The difference is, of course, he's the one holding all the power.
His disciples are anyway.
And for the brief time when we had something resembling a marketplace of ideas, which is what the internet was initially promoted.
I mean, you'll find all of these progressives talking about how great it is that, I don't know, cryptocurrency is going to break the rule of the banks and corporations.
The Internet is going to make it possible to have new dialogues about freedom of speech free from corporate control.
We're going to democratize politics.
We're going to democratize intellectual debate.
We're going to give every single person on Earth can be a content creator.
Every single person on Earth can be a journalist.
Every single person on Earth can have their own TV show.
I mean, that's, you know, 2012, 2013, you'd have people talking that way.
Fast forward to now.
Everything coming from the left is just hysterical screaming about how every little thing that pops up has to be restricted.
And again, you see that same neurotic hysteria in Marcuse that if they don't do this, like fascism is going to overthrow everything tomorrow.
And which is even more ridiculous because in some sense they still think they're living under.
Fascism because they have to pay their student loan bills for their useless degrees or something and What we need to do is we need to We need to take the the idea of the systemic critique and say yes, this is all true But who is it that holds the power?
Who is it that?
Is Conditioning the masses and what are they conditioning to the them to believe?
So much of this failed quest for identity What you're seeing in more and more ridiculous manifestations now is itself a condition.
It's itself a product of capitalism.
You know, a lot of these people who are calling themselves whatever pronoun, and it's just going to get weirder and crazier, so I'm not even going to speculate on it, because I know I could say something now which will sound ridiculous out of context, but five years from now will just be the reality.
I think that it's People are making themselves into commodities, and they're doing it in the name of liberation.
And it's an outgrowth of what Marcuse himself preached, but he is either incapable or more likely unwilling to recognize that.
When you break down all the institutions from churches to families to Broader senses of identity that encompass more than yourself, be it a tribe, be it a nation, be it a region, be it an ethnic group, be it a race.
All that happens is that there's nothing in between you and the state, or more broadly, the system.
So when you create these fully autonomous individuals, or you can approach these so-called fully autonomous individuals, you're not actually getting creative individuals, you're just getting People who can more easily be conditioned and moved around, which is exactly what we're dealing with now.
I mean, when you see someone coming out of the university system, coming out of certain disciplines, when you see journalists, when you see a lot of these protesters and everything else, you have this sense of fatigue because you already know every opinion they've ever had, will ever have.
And so when they start talking, it's like, I understand you better than you understand yourself.
And we get this because we're surrounded in this non-stop day after day after day.
But they will never get us because if they actually read what we had to say or take it seriously or think about these things, they feel contaminated and have to light themselves on fire.
And, you know, what does it ultimately lead to?
It ultimately leads to this internal rage where you're saying, I don't know what my true self is.
And there's somebody else to blame, some vague system of oppression.
Therefore, I need to constantly rage against everything which I think is imposing on my sense of self.
But we've been doing this for 50 years, and it's just getting worse and worse for everybody involved, especially the people at the vanguard of this thing, at least when it comes to looking at their own mental health.
I mean, in fact, now, flaming mental health has been Yeah, well and people, yeah.
sort of mental disorder is like an identity in and of itself.
I mean, people list it on their Twitter bios alongside their new pronouns.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and people, yeah.
Like it's not a good thing.
And this is the bigger thing is that I agree with my cruiser that there is.
There is not just truth, but we actually are doing something in terms of politics
and society where we're trying to advance towards something.
But what I'm trying to advance for is a world of greater power, of greater accomplishment, of greater beauty.
Whereas what he wants to advance for is this vague sense of equality, which just manifests again and again and again as a murderous hobo camp, and they keep Doing these things failing and then turning around and saying well that wasn't the true intent you know we'll get it next time and it's like now we've been doing this for too long now it has to stop and and to take what Marcuse himself says.
We know the truth at this point what we don't need to entertain some of these ideas.
And when somebody comes up to you and starts saying, well, actually, you know, race doesn't exist or actually all these groups are equal.
And the only reason these disparities exist is because, you know, 400 years ago, some capitalists invented the idea of race.
It's like, no, you're just wrong.
And you've been given unlimited power to test your hypotheses and they've all failed.
And we don't need to hear this anymore because frankly, you're going to hear it from the time you're in school.
To the time you're an adult, and then you're going to get submerged in it through the mass media constantly.
That idea of a systemic critique, that idea of pinning the system on men, and saying that no, you're not a dissident, you are in fact the paragon of what this system was intended to produce, and was always intended to produce.
That's something critical that we need to go after a month.
I mean, the only thing I would say he really broke with the system on, and a lot of his student followers, was, of course, the Vietnam War.
I mean, we'll give him that, but again, I return to what Chomsky said when he was talking about working at MIT.
And MIT, of course, develops all these weapons for the Pentagon and everything else, and Chomsky very breezily said, well, you know, the military doesn't particularly care if someone like me works at MIT.
They just care about, like, their defense stuff being done.
Well, you know, I think they would care.
If Jared Taylor was working at MIT, had a professorship there, or even came to give a talk, or, you know, for that matter, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testifying before Congress about why we all need to understand white rage and white fragility and critical race theory.
I mean.
We're at a point now where we just have to hold up the example and say, this is the system in every possible way.
One of my favorites is to look at the guest speakers for Google Talks, the people who are flown into the Google HQ to lecture on various topics, because it's all far left people, such as Slazov Zizek, for example, the biggest company in the world, the most powerful company in human history, basically, is having It would be the end of the company!
And you know that it's it's not a controversial thing. They obviously don't feel threatened by it
But the whole I mean if they invited Jared Taylor Peter Brimelow to speak at Google
I that would be front page news for me and the company's in the New York Times
Yeah, it would be the complete end. I am convinced. There is not a single person. I don't care how powerful you are
Bezos, whatever if
They expressed any openness or any donation or any any kind of real support for an identitarian movement
They and everything they built would be instantly destroyed I mean, I think what happened with James Watson was sort of a perfect encapsulation of it, where you have, you know, 22-year-old failed sociology majors lecturing the guy who discovered DNA that he doesn't understand science.
Right.
And everybody just kind of accepts this is true.
And it's sort of the perfect encapsulation of what he's talking about, the ability of the system to formulate opinion.
Now, I think there is one thing that we haven't kind of gotten into, which is, well, what does it mean if we're going after his core idea, this idea of an autonomous self?
You know, we're, we're getting into some pretty existential waters here.
You know, what is the self and being in the world as a, you know, being with a lowercase B and a capital B and, We can talk about German idealism and Heidegger and whatever else.
But I think the... But we don't have to.
No, we don't have to.
There's a very simple answer to this, which is that you are part of something larger than yourself, and you always have been.
You are not... I mean, even the American founding fathers got some of this wrong insofar as they thought that there was a blank slate.
And I don't even think the founders really believed that.
You're not a blank slate.
You are the product of your genetics.
You are the product of your line, your personality, your values, your a lot of what makes you you is unchosen.
And at some point you have to accept that and then say, OK, well, what is it that's like the fullest expression of myself?
And that's something that's rooted in the past.
That's something that's rooted in your true identity.
That's rooted not just in your genetics, but in how you're a product of history and your family and everything else.
Because if you don't do that, if you artificially kind of cut all that away, cut parts of yourself away literally in some unfortunate cases, you basically end up as this sort of crippled thing that is at the mercy of whatever the media or the educational system or whatever else tells you.
And that's why I think you get these really sad and frantic and hysterical and erotic jumps from one identity to another, from one cause to another, from one definition of what is justice to another.
Because, you know, we've seen how this movie ends.
We've seen how this movie is going now.
Everything that is the vanguard of the left right now will be seen as inherently Racist and oppressive and worthy of expulsion from polite society ten years from now.
And of course, you know, then the conservatives will endorse it ten years from now too, but that's a separate matter.
I think that when we get into these questions of what is real liberation?
I mean, real liberation is essentially just cutting out all this stuff that they're trying to impose on you.
The real repressive tolerance, quote unquote, is the system that exists now.
The real liberating tolerance is we don't need to protect people from reading the wrong, you know, from not having reading the wrong books or seeing the wrong movies or whatever else.
It's simply a question of being allowed to exist.
And when we have that, when we have free speech, we've seen in the last few years, we've shown it every single time we have anything even close to an equal Marketplace of ideas we went which is why we don't actually need to adopt so-called authoritarian means I mean, I think every time we see any kind of How can I put this a retreat I guess from This horrible machine that we're all kind of stuck in.
I mean a lot of these 1960s student metaphors work really well.
It's just They created the monster that they thought they were fighting but anything outside of that system essentially belongs to us.
And I find that the people outside are more well-adjusted, happier, have a better sense of who they are and what they're trying to achieve than people who are inside of it and who essentially are just being moved around like pawns by people who not just don't care about them, but despise them so thoroughly that they don't even think they should be allowed to read the wrong books or listen to the wrong speech.
That's a good place to end for today's rant, huh?
Yeah, I think that's, I would consider it a penetrating intellectual critique instead of a rant, but either way, you know, semantics.
It can be both, right?
It can be both!
It can be both.
That is the synthesis that I am trying to achieve.
But I do actually encourage people to read Marcuse and go beyond just the simple, oh, look, he's saying double standards.
Like, yeah, we get it.
The left loves double standards.
Great.
But think hard about what is the system?
Where is the power in this society?
Everything he's saying about capitalism and power and who's funding who, like, yeah, take that.
As a quote of mine, I think there's been floating around out there, although I don't think I came up with it, which is, you know, if I tell you that there are powerful forces holding you down, you'll call me a progressive and a reformer and idealist.
But if I tell you who those people are, you'll call me a Nazi.
So that's unfortunately the situation we're in.
So, we'll end it there, and thanks for listening, guys.
I'm Gregory Hood.
▲
Export Selection