All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:25:00
God Save the Anglosphere
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, this is Gregory Hood.
Welcome to Left, Right, and White.
I am here with Drew Fraser, author of The Wasp Question, which is a very interesting examination of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, not just in America, but how they've developed as a people and what their future could entail.
Thank you for joining us, and I guess the most important thing right off the bat is with the death of Elizabeth II, we saw certain tributes, white people lining the streets. But we
also saw a lot of anger from non-whites in the United Kingdom and around the world who were
basically insulting people who were mourning the Queen and everything else. What's your reaction to the
royal death and what do you hope for from Charles III? Well, I must admit I had been
impatient for the end.
But I was surprised. But like many people, I mean, she's been so much a part of my life and our life
for so long. I I can remember listening to the coronation on the radio in 1952 with my father.
So you can't help but feel a bit of nostalgia for the whole thing.
But On the other hand, it will be good to have a male successor, just to see what it feels like to have a king.
Not that I have great hopes for Charles III, but still.
No, if he's like Charles I or Charles II, he'll dissolve Parliament at some point, which would be amusing for all concerned.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, that's one of the things that I find really annoying about many of the reactions to the Queen's reign.
I mean, many people say, oh, well, she couldn't really do anything.
But actually, here in Australia, we had a very interesting experience in 1975.
Yes, she was.
governor general, the vice regal representative of the queen, sacked the labor government.
And it caused an enormous stir.
But the amazing thing was that Gough Whitlam, the prime labor prime minister at the time,
meekly left office.
Yeah, she was, she did use her power a couple times.
And just about every time she used it, I'm actually hard pressed to think of a single
time where she used her influence for something good.
She bears heavy responsibility for the destruction of Rhodesia and all the human suffering that was created.
And, you know, to be clear, it wasn't just the destruction of Rhodesia, it was the handover to power to Robert Mugabe specifically.
Yeah.
Smith had already given in to the idea of black majority rule at that point.
He just didn't want to hand it over to this psychopath and the Queen and the British insisted on it.
And then, of course, she was a huge admirer of Mandela.
And, of course, look at South Africa today for how well that's gone.
And the reception she got from the Economic Freedom Fighter party there, which basically laughed at her death.
But let's get into... Oh, go ahead.
I just wanted to say, I mean, I suppose you do have to cut her a bit of slack, recognizing the fact that she was a woman in a very feminized culture.
So you couldn't really expect her to cut across the grain realistically, I suppose.
Well, I think future historians will say the British Empire began with Elizabeth I and ended with Elizabeth II.
She certainly wasn't the patriot king that you discuss in the book, and I want to get into that.
It was very interesting to me.
Obviously, James Russell, the Germanization of early medieval Christianity, has been a big influence on me, and broadly speaking, talks about the way conversion is a two-way process.
The faith adapts itself to the spirit of a particular And then, arguably, it enhances the best qualities of it and puts it into the new faith.
And you have a very interesting take on this, how it happened in England, and especially with Alfred the Great and the formation of a Church that was distinct from the Church in Rome well before Henry VIII and the Anglicans.
And in fact, the Anglican Church, as you point out, literally meaning kin of the Angles.
So it was a kinnest faith from the beginning.
So what makes the British, the Anglican faith so unique, given that, as you argue, it precedes and enabled the creation of the English nation-state?
Well, I suppose in a way you can just dial back a few centuries Russell's argument about the Germanization of medieval Christianity.
I mean, the Anglican people, let's put it that way, in the British Isles were a warrior people.
So it was not at all surprising that they, with a king like Alfred, that they would develop a church and a take on Christianity that was anchored in their own sense of peoplehood.
And it really wasn't until the Norman conquest that that was in effect canceled.
It's sort of an interesting fact that at the time of the Norman Conquest, apparently most of the monasteries, the libraries, were filled with Anglo-Saxon manuscripts.
I mean, manuscripts in the old English language.
And within a few decades of the Norman Conquest, all of that disappeared to be replaced by a Latin Right, I mean the uniqueness, I mean you always hear about the Irish Catholicism, the old Irish Catholicism, and how unique it was, the Celtic Church, but you don't really hear about the Anglo-Saxon Church, which was just as distinct until the conquest by William the Bastard, as you call him.
One thing that struck me, of course, what was not surprising, given that you're talking about the development of The Anglo-Saxons as the United People or as a group of different tribes and kindreds, obviously opposed to the American Revolution.
But I couldn't help but think of Thomas Jefferson and his focus on the Saxons and opposition to the Norman yoke, as he put it.
And of course, Jefferson wanted to put The Anglo-Saxon warrior twins coming over on as the United States national seal.
Yeah.
Along with a biblical image from Israel on the other side, which is interesting considering that Jefferson was partly a believing Christian.
Yeah.
But he clearly understood.
Yeah.
Of course, Jefferson was a revolutionary.
He did participate in severing the tie.
And you see that as indicative of the larger error that Anglo-Saxons made, where they essentially transferred their loyalty from the old faith to certain constitutional arrangements, which then got stretched ever more broadly to the point where now they're the invisible people.
Am I summing that up correctly?
In a nutshell, that's it.
In the United States, and because the United States, I suppose, is still the largest single body of people of Anglo-Saxon descent in the world, probably even more than England, that makes a difference.
I mean, what wasps in America think really has had an enormous impact That is true.
Peter Hitchens has written quite a bit about that, blaming the United States for the destruction of the British Empire.
Although, of course, arguably the guy who bears the most responsibility is the guy who practically the only thing he held as a core belief his entire political career, which is Winston Churchill.
I mean, he flipped sides on everything, but he loved the British Empire and he bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.
But FDR was the one who pulled the trigger.
But at the end of the day, looking through this and reading this history, you go through American history in the different stages, three republics, as you call them, as we get further away, America that is, from our Anglo-Saxon roots.
The Constitutional Republic eventually ends up breaking away from the Constitution itself with the New Deal.
But I couldn't help but think maybe you're being a bit too hard on Americans losing sight of their Anglo-Saxon identity, certainly now, but in the 1920s even, it was still very much a part of political discussion at the elite level.
I mean, even FDR paid tribute to Virginia Dare in a speech as the first English colonist born in the New World.
And one of the people I was looking for, kind of a person I've always been fascinated by, I didn't catch the name, and if you mentioned him, I apologize, Albert J. Beveridge, who was representative of a lot of these American imperialists and who spoke often about the Anglo-Saxon genius for self-government.
And how this justified both the British and American empires and their supposed mission to civilize the world.
Now you could say that obviously this was a mistake, that civilizing the world is kind of what got us in this mess.
The Commonwealth is coming back to the Metropole with a vengeance, but those links were still there probably, and still at the top I would say, probably until FDR and the New Deal, which is when the American elite was basically displaced once and for all.
I mean, do you think it was it was already baked in the cake from the revolution onward?
Or do you think it could have been salvaged?
I think it was baked in the cake because there's a way in which, I mean, treason.
I mean, the American Republic was based upon betrayal.
And so, it was a kind of, the revolution was a kind of a civil war between the patriots
and the loyalists.
And the loyalists, I mean, I come from a part of Canada that was settled by the loyalists.
And it was, I mean, there was always a sort of a sense in that part of Canada, at least, or even down here in Australia, A kind of an ancestral link to Britain.
It used to be until 1965 that was actually visually present in the Red Anson flag in Canada, which of course was eliminated by the Continentalist Liberal Party and replaced with that ridiculous Maple Leaf flag.
But yeah, I mean it and there's a kind of a way in which the OK, you still had wasps in.
In America, but the the wasp identity was really extreme, extremely shallow and really sort of.
What would you say becomes indistinguishable from whiteness, I suppose, and nowadays especially, so I don't know.
I mean, there's a way in which there's a kind of a spiritual dimension to ethnic identity that I don't know.
Is it present in the U.S.?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
Well, certainly not as expressed in the Episcopalian Church, although I'll get into the—there actually is a separate Anglican Church here, which is interesting, but we'll get into that a bit later.
One thing I wanted to ask, though, is that It does seem now that the English-speaking countries of the world, the Anglo-Saxon countries of the world specifically, seem to be reverting to a negative identity.
New Zealand is talking about changing the flag and even the name of the country, much like Rhodesia, Zimbabwe.
Australia, of course, is obsessed with the aboriginals, and I noticed that most of these aboriginal activists, so-called, tend to be mostly white.
The Canadians, of course, are obsessed with the First Nations, and there was the very odd episode where they claimed that there was a genocide of all these people, and there were attacks on churches, and then it turns out that it didn't really happen, but everyone just kind of forgot about it.
And then, of course, here in the States, it hasn't quite gotten that bad.
But that's mostly because African-Americans get most of the attention, and so our national identity is being redefined as guilt over slavery, but the American Indians are in there, too.
So there does seem to be this, insofar as WASP countries or WASP-founded countries have an identity now, it is switching to something inherently negative.
Now, you get into Paul Godfrey and multiculturalism and the politics of guilt, and his
contention that this is essentially an outgrowth of the decay of mainline Protestantism and the
emphasis on guilt and shame. And this is now just being taken on a political level. But you do take
some issue with that, that there's something more going on here, right? Well, yeah, I mean,
what can you say? I mean, I can't really remember what I said about his book on the
multiculturalism and politics of guilt, and I do remember taking issue with it, but how I can't
remember. Well, you say that, you talked about Burnham and Francis and who's our
James Burnham and Sam Francis essentially argue that managerial elites are doing this because it's in their best interest.
Paul Gottfried more or less says that this is because they really believe this stuff, in short.
And I quote, this is page 310, Both Gottfried and Francis missed the mark.
The willingness of WASPs to sacrifice their biocultural interests on the altar of diversity and social justice cannot be attributed to either the superstructural ideology of, quote, liberal Christianity, or to the underlying structure of, quote, managerial class interests.
And you go on to say that neither Francis nor Godfrey fully comprehends the revolutionary dynamic that reshapes the political theology of the Constitutional Republic in the aftermath of depression and another world war.
The official creed of the multiracialist managerial revolution is an explicitly post-Christian civil religion.
A free-floating constitutionalism has displaced the implicitly Anglo-Saxon Protestantism of the first, quote, white man's country.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at earlier.
I mean, there is just a way in which America became—one historian calls it a nation with the soul of a church.
Yeah, so people's spirituality, such as it was, was invested in their collective identity as citizens of the Republic.
Uh, which turned out to be a bit of a disaster once, uh, well, starting, I suppose, with the arrival of the Irish in the 1840s.
And it just goes downhill further every decade thereafter with a brief pause from 1924 until 1965.
But, and now, uh, what does American citizenship mean?
Not much.
Oh, and it's and it's really affected all of us in the Anglosphere.
Apparently, the Labour government here in Australia is proposing that we allow foreigners to vote in Australian elections.
Yeah.
So it's not even it's not even passport nationalism.
It's something less than passport nationalism now.
That's right.
Yeah.
Well, I didn't want to get into this until a bit later, but I suppose we should, just because you've alluded to it.
Obviously, American Renaissance, white identity politics, you're drawing a big distinction between the Anglosphere and Anglo-Saxons as a people and whites.
Now, with Australia specifically, I mean, it was a white Only immigration policy as I understand it for until I believe what the 60s and early 70s Right and Then they basically as Enoch Powell warned about with Britain.
They essentially imported American style racial problems for no apparent reason and Obviously the UK did the same but Even something like that shows that there was a recognition of a white racial identity, uh, that wasn't just Anglo-Saxon.
And speaking of the Irish, I mean, they were part of the empire, uh, as far as the UK is concerned.
And I don't know if there was a, obviously the religious element was divisive, but they were still considered part of the empire and considered white and that
distinction had meaning within the imperial framework. They were not considered on the
same level as say blacks in South Africa for example. So do you think that whiteness
is something artificial as opposed to Anglo-Saxon identity or was Anglo-Saxon identity
a real thing then and now it's not but it should be again?
I mean, whiteness has an identity.
I mean, before white people encountered black people, the concept of whiteness could not exist.
I mean, I don't know whether you've ever come across it, but Winter of Jordan wrote a great book called White Over Black, where he explores just what a shock it was For white people, when they first encountered blacks, and then in the States in particular, I guess, with slavery, I mean, the existence of that large alien Negro population could not help but register consciously.
And so you did have a kind of negative identity there.
Whiteness meant you weren't black.
Or perhaps later Chinese or whatever.
And I don't see how I mean, and it's important as Jared Taylor said many times.
I mean, you might not think whiteness is important, but all of those non-whites can think of us as whites.
Fair enough.
But and so there is a kind of a common Identity of sorts in being white.
But and there is a kind of a war on whites now.
Mainly cultural and political, but often very physical as well.
But if you think of it in those terms, OK, let's say there is a war on whiteness and whites have to defend themselves.
It seems to me That we ought to think about just how armies have often been organized.
The Wehrmacht, for example, in Germany, or the British Army.
I mean, did they not organize to have, you know, regimental structures that were based upon regional identities?
And wouldn't it be better If you're trying, whites are trying to win a war to organize into little ethnic regiments, if you like, where people have a kind of a natural affinity with each other and a capacity to work together and a capacity to make alliances with other people.
Well, a couple of things.
I actually do want to get into a lot of what you talk about with the Patriot King.
To be honest, that was the part that I really enjoyed the most.
This idea of a Patriot King and an Anglo-Saxon political slash cultural slash economic consciousness that's operating outside nation states, which I think is very relevant and very much the kind of You know, organized tribes model, which I've been arguing for for some time now.
Yeah.
But to and perhaps this is just me speaking as an American.
For the way I see it in this country now, particularly considering how mixed whites are in terms of ethnic strands, I mean, just about everybody is we'll say they're part Irish.
Italian, German, really you don't see English American as the dominant ethnic strain outside New England itself.
And then you've got Appalachia where you have the Scots-Irish, but the Scots-Irish obviously is its own animal in terms of a different sort of spirit and also religion, because I think historically they've been defined by a very militant Presbyterianism as opposed to Anglicanism.
So, in that sense, if you say Anglo-Saxon, you're, I mean, in New England, maybe, but you're probably going to get blank stares from whites in America as far as what they are.
But if you say white, I mean, that's what's shoved in your face in the media.
That's how you're classified by the government insofar as there's a white culture, white consciousness, things that are implicitly white.
Everybody just kind of gets that.
Whereas Anglo-Saxon almost needs to be explained.
But, you know, to kind of speak in your defense, though, you quite a bit at the beginning talk about how essentially the Anglo-Saxon church created the people.
And so it's really the fall of that church, and particularly the Anglican Church in England, the Church of England itself has fallen pretty far.
And so maybe that's why that loss of identity is there.
In terms of theology, because you studied that quite a bit, do you see any—you talked about kinism and some of the other trends, but do you see anything within the Church of England itself that's moving in kind of the direction that you want it to go, where the Anglo-Saxon peoples— I wish I could say yes.
I wish I could say yes, but no.
Because your contention essentially is that people are essentially saved not purely as individuals, but as nations, and that the Anglo-Saxons have a special relationship to God because of their history and because of the way the church was created.
Is that about right?
I'm not misquoting it there.
Well, I think, to put it a bit more broadly, I mean, Well, let's just go back to basics.
I mean, in terms of Christian experience, I mean, the Bible is supposed to be the basis for, you know, Christian belief and faith.
But the Bible is the story of the rise and fall of one particular nation.
I mean, and it's clearly a story of how God worked through that nation to achieve whatever purpose he
conceived it.
And presumably the ultimate telos of ancient Israel was realized through the advent of
the Christ, you know, the Messiah.
And it seems to me, why don't we just take from that reading of the Bible the lesson
that nations are, if not the medium, at least a very important medium through which the
divine has and can work.
If, if you open your nation to that kind of experience, but if you don't, Then it won't.
I mean, so some nations are more open to that experience than others, I think.
And there is an opportunity.
There is a kind of, what could you say, a geopolitical opportunity for the Anglo-Saxon diaspora, both Overseas and at home in Britain for people to see themselves as a people and indeed and have historically seen themselves as a people chosen by God to achieve certain purposes in the world.
And that seems to me to be the way that the Church of England and the Anglican Church more broadly ought to understand its mission in this world.
Well, you could certainly say that the Chronicles of the Venerable Bede, for example, the fight of Alfred the Great against the pagan Vikings, and essentially the struggle to save Christianity in England after the Great Heathen Army and everything else, You could say that there's almost a source of sacred tradition both outside the Bible and outside what the Roman Catholic Church would say in the history of this particular people, and that would be like a different—well, not a different, it would actually be the traditional way, and I think the way most Christians actually experience their faith until quite recently.
It was only quite recently where it turned into the same story for everybody, And the only, essentially, there's only one nation where we need to pay attention to lineages and who comes from what, and that's Israel.
And everybody else, there is no Jew, no Greek.
But I love when they quote that because, of course, in that same verse, it also says there's no male or female.
So, you know, the conservatives who are opposing transgenderism will have to reconcile themselves to that one.
But there is a kind of Now, it's it's being done just in terms of issues.
It's not really being done in terms of ethnicity, although implicitly, I guess you could say it is.
But as bad, I mean, obviously, Church of England and I mean, we saw it with Prince Harry's wedding, which was pretty horrific in terms of the kinds of things.
I mean, it was just self-abasement.
And certainly the Episcopalian Church in this country is kind of a Pretty ridiculous in terms of the political stances it takes.
But there is actually a separate Anglican church in this country, which I'm not sure it may share identity with churches in Africa or something along those lines, that takes conservative stances on theological issues.
It doesn't quite have this same sense of, this is the national church of the Anglo-Saxon people.
Sure.
Right.
But it's not just kind of meekly following along in the kinds of churches where it's basically indistinguishable from anything you would read in the New York Times or Time Magazine or something like that.
I mean, do you see any movement among the laity, at least, for something like this?
I mean, certainly, implicitly, just the reaction to the Queen's death, there's some sort of sentiment there under the surface, just kind of waiting to be tapped into.
Oh, I certainly agree, yes.
I mean, but again, if you ask the people standing, you know, the thousands upon thousands of people standing along the road while the coffin goes by or lining up to view it at Westminster Hall or whatever, whether they really thought that the Queen should have stood up for the Anglo-Saxon people in, you know, as the core of the British nation.
I'm not so sure that they wouldn't start getting kind of uneasy because like there's that to actually clearly she couldn't think in those terms right I mean right and and most people find it very difficult now since the Church of England is Oh, resolutely.
Yeah, you'd almost have to say anti-white and certainly anti-white British.
It will never, as things stand now, see itself as the church of, by, and for the English people.
And it would be, if the crown itself, if the queen or the king, is not prepared to be a leader and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune by saying, I am the king of the Anglo-Saxon people and this is my church.
I, you know, it isn't going to happen.
I mean, that's why I think things like, The church and the crown are so important.
I mean, because let's face it.
I mean, and this is another point about whiteness.
The concept of whiteness is inherently a populist sort of notion.
But what we really need now is to reinvent the ruling class.
I mean, the ruling class everywhere in the West, but especially in the Anglosphere, is, you know, hostile to the founding stock in particular of every Anglo-Saxon country.
And until we have a concerted effort among, like, and this is why I think it's important Uh, to think about ethnic identity.
If you, if you want to reinvent a ruling class in the Anglosphere, you're going to, you're going to have to get Anglo-Saxon Protestants in particular to organize themselves through the church or through the legal profession or Right, right.
in the corporate sector, however, to bend their efforts to creating a renewed Anglo-Saxon
ruling class.
And if you say, how can they?
And the Jews did it.
You know, they are a diaspora people who actually managed to reconstitute themselves as a kind
of, essentially, the dynamic element of the ruling class in America and in Britain.
And if they can do it, why can't we?
Thank you.
Well, one of the things that I really enjoyed about the book is you get into specifics, because the obvious thing when people talk about something like this, you know, how can Anglo-Saxons reconstitute rule in class, somebody will say, okay, well, how should that be done?
But you actually give very specific, concrete things that can be done.
Before we get into some of them, I do want to get into Some of the theory behind it, specifically Viscount Bolingbroke's writings about a patriot king.
And the reason this struck me is because this, of course, is where he defends the country party.
And this is a phrase that has popped up quite a bit in American conservative rhetoric over the last few years, actually since a little bit before Trump, because the way it's being framed in a kind of populist frame is that the people who represent the nation, who are the real nation in some sense, exist and are waiting to be led.
But every single elite institution which is marching in lockstep is opposed to them and is essentially dominated by finance, and globalism and cosmopolitanism and really has no particular connection to the actual country or to more more specifically because you you go into quite a bit that the the monarchy shouldn't really be the person who rules these various legal entities or spots of territory but the leader of a people who actually leads isn't just a you know as a hood ornament as you called them and
So I thought that this was actually very relevant, but could you describe, get into a little bit of this idea of the Patriot King, what he was, what the Viscount was talking about at that time, and then how we're sort of facing, or how you think it's this, it's the same kind of situation today where such a concept is relevant?
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, I mean, the time we're talking about the, Oh, say 1740s, 1730s, 1740s in England, which has a strange kind of uncanny resemblance to our own period in the sense that it was in the midst of a financial revolution.
It's a few decades after the foundation of the Bank of England.
The government is raising loans all the time to finance its wars and overseas adventures, and this is creating a lot of paper wealth in the country that really made people much like it happens today.
People just get focused on of their own individual self-interest.
And the landed classes, for example.
I mean, the landed aristocracy was often inveigled into mortgaging their landed estates so they could play the stock market or buy government bonds or whatever.
And he As a leader of the so-called country party set in opposition to the court party around the government, Walpole's ministry and so on, he was constantly trying to get the people, the people who voted for the commons to stand up on their hind legs and resist the corruption that was just seeping into the political system.
No luck there.
They just kept re-electing Walpole and so on.
So then he thought, oh well, maybe I can get the aristocracy.
No, nothing there.
And so he finally said that, look, the only thing that's going to possibly rouse the people out of their spiritual degradation is a Patriot camp.
And of course, he's a deist, right?
I mean, he's, you know, kind of formally an Anglican, I suppose, but he would never really acknowledge the obvious sort of parallel between his notion of the Patriot King and the ancient Israelite notion of the Messiah.
But, I mean, there is a kind of a connection there.
I think, and that's why I think it's an interesting idea that could, and as we've seen just in the past few weeks with the upwelling of that spirit of loyalty to the crown, there is a kind of a latent sort of Spirit dimension of spirituality that the as people have said, I mean, if she'd only said, oh, maybe Enoch was actually right.
I mean, it would just get things rolling in in a way, perhaps not with a queen, but with a king.
I mean, there's and and here in Australia, I mean it was, I thought, I arrived in Australia in July 1975 and in November the Governor General sacked the Prime Minister and I was amazed by how it was possible for this apparently just figurehead figure of a Governor General to just totally
And I've been trying to think of how you could put the crown in a position maybe to do that, even if Australia became or Great Britain became a republic.
If the crown became instead of the head of state, but the head of the church, the Anglican Church, with all retaining her or his estates and so on, once again, there's a kind of a way in which miracles might happen.
You know?
Peter Brimelow reminds me of that all the time.
He says miracles happen, the unthinkable happen quite often in politics.
And one thing that I really thought, you know, there was a lot to unpack after I read this and as I was thinking about it.
With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, obviously you're going to see some of these Commonwealth realms try to become republics.
Frankly, for some of these third world countries, so much the better.
Yeah.
But when you look at the countries that are actually founded and ultimately derived from the Anglo-Saxons, there is a sense where you could have a figure who is the spiritual head, not just of the church, but also of the people, of the tribe, so to speak.
Even if he doesn't have a formal role in government at all, Even if he doesn't even have the ceremonial role.
I mean, for example, in South Africa, the Zulus have a king.
The king is extremely influential among his people, and his people constitute a very large voting bloc.
But of course, he has no authority under the state, but he still has power in the sense that if you, I mean, you could say in the same way, maybe pre-Vatican too, but you could say the way the Pope would have power.
If he had said, we're going to do this, and then faithful Catholics would do something, it's not in the law, but there's still power there.
And that kind of thing in an era of, in a weird way, these archaic forms of authority and these more fundamental aspects of kingship actually make more sense in an era of mass communication, where you can communicate with your tribe, so to speak, around the entire world.
And of course, people are still going to care about what I mean, whether it's a republic or not.
I mean, people still care about what the heir to the throne of France says.
I mean, he was he came out during the yellow vest movement, I remember, and was saying stuff.
And then during the protests in in America in 2020, they attacked the statue of St.
Louis and he actually called on the city to defend the statue.
And they did.
I mean, the monarchy is an incredible stock of cultural, geopolitical, whatever, capital that should not be allowed to go to waste.
And Anglo-Saxons have allowed it to just molder, in effect.
Without seeing the potential that it offers to turn things around, not just for us as, you know, WASPs and so on, but for, you know, white people generally.
If you actually, and I've been wondering, you know, would it be better if things, if Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain became republics, I kind of, it would give more, what would you say, more of an identity, an outsider identity to the Anglo-Saxon diaspora, which might be just what it needs to compete with the Jewish diaspora.
In terms of reconstituting a ruling class, or as I would prefer to think of it, as reconstituting a kind of aristocracy within the constitutional orders of these countries, within the civil constitution of these countries.
Well, it certainly seems that the function, although you see tremendous loyalty, tremendous affection and emotion, and tremendous from whites, and tremendous hostility from non-whites, which is remarkable considering that Elizabeth II is arguably, as I said in a previous episode, is arguably the greatest decolonizer who ever lived in terms of dismantling an empire.
But, not that it did her any good, but you could Right now it does essentially function as a sort of ceremonial hood ornament that sort of gets conservatives to go along with their own dispossession.
Because of course leftists don't care either way.
I mean, they're not going to care what the monarch has to say, but if the government does something stupid or destructive to Anglo-Saxons in England, and you've got the king, well I guess the queens, and now the king's signature on it, and All the ceremonial pomp that accompanies it, a lot of conservatives will sort of shrug and say, well, this is what we got to do.
I mean, this is sort of the classic conservative problem, which is how does one, if you define yourself as saving a particular institution or saving a particular political order, how do you save that thing when it's already corrupted beyond repair?
Yeah, exactly.
Bowling broke was repeating over and over again that really you cannot save a people that will not save itself.
And so there's a kind of a kind of an interplay between the idea of a Patriot King and hoping for a Patriot King and actually getting ready Uh, to draw a Patriot King out of, uh, this slumbering mass, you know, I mean, in a certain sense, I mean, I, I've often wondered, I mean, is that actually what the Bible story is actually about?
You know, did, did the Messiah finally come just because, oh, well, God looked at his calendar and it's, oh, this is the day I'm supposed to send the Messiah.
I don't think that's it.
I mean, if you read the Bible, you can see the Old Testament, you can see for centuries, people, you know, the prophets, the, you know, the people, you know, well, there was a sizable chunk of the ancient Hebrew population that was longing for The arrival of the Messiah and they tried to do everything
they could to bring.
Bring him forth and it right now that it succeeded. I mean, there's Heidegger kind of talks about something similar
when he there's that famous interview where he says only a God can save us and he essentially says that.
You know, we can't just make 1 up, for example, as some would advocate. You can't just, you know, invent a religion
that would be useful and then follow it. But essentially, you can sort of prepare the way so that if something
happens, the people are ready. And of course, you know, if 1 is.
A biblically believing Christian, you know, Jesus Christ was of the line of David.
He was of a kingly line.
So, I mean, he did combine both functions in that sense.
And, of course, you had John the Baptist immediately before him.
One thing, I mean, obviously, some might say, okay, you're getting into the realm of fantasy Let's just get this out of the way.
Although Charles III has some, I have to say, I support his ideas on architecture, I think both of us are agreed that he's not going to unexpectedly draw his sword on the coronation and bring back the Empire.
I think we're agreed on that, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Maybe William, who knows?
There are some very interesting practical ideas in here that I want to get into.
One of them was the alternative to what—I was very pumped up to see that you quoted the critics of the Enlightenment readings in the French counter-revolutionary tradition from Isai books, one of the books back in my conservative ink days.
The alternative to the proletarian family.
Now what this means is essentially, as you say, in the 19th century this was not what was the case for Americans and English families, but it is the case now.
And it's essentially, even if you have a two-parent family, and already that's saying something considering the way America is now, you basically raise your kids, they leave, you maybe give them some stuff, You use up some of the rest, they go off and do their own thing, you die, and then that's the end of it.
And they kind of go and do their own little family and then that's the end of it.
But nothing, the family name might get passed on, the bloodline might get passed on, but you're not building a house in the way that the ancients would recognize.
As an alternative, there's the trustee family, or the stem family, and I quote, and this is page 391.
Such families fuse kinship and private property in such a way as to promote the dignity of labor and the restoration of authority within households.
The distinguishing features of the stem family are liberty of testament balanced by a strong custom of handing on the inheritance whole and entire.
So, I mean, essentially, if I'm not misinterpreting this, I mean, bringing back primogeniture, essentially, right?
I mean, the idea that you're passing on the entire legacy.
And I thought that was an interesting concept.
are always ready to renounce a brilliant future and to return to the family home
to fill the void that is opened.
So, I mean, essentially, if I'm not misinterpreting this, I mean, bringing back primogeniture, essentially, right?
I mean, the idea that you're passing on the entire legacy.
And I thought that was an interesting concept.
You also quote somebody who my old friend Chris Roberts and I talked about early on in this podcast,
Hans Hermann Hoppe, and anarcho-libertarianism and the idea of essentially private defense contractors,
something which has become highly relevant.
You're seeing it quite a bit used by Russia with the Wagner Corporation, but also the United States uses them quite a bit.
In some neighborhoods in America, even, you're actually seeing, and certainly in South Africa, I don't think I need to tell people, you see them actually guarding neighborhoods because the state has largely failed to uphold civil order.
And then there's another section where you talk about how groups of families could essentially create almost a sort of a self-governing structure where Wealth that is held in common and used to build more wealth, a corporate structure, could actually be governed by families.
So you essentially have a tribal model that could actually build wealth, build power, operate within the system, but not of the system.
So these are things that people could do right now, listening to this.
All this, I think, is really important and really good.
I guess the big question, though, and one that I think is a little left unanswered—and I don't mean to step on religious toes here, but I guess I kind of have to—if the whole basis of this is that it's rooted in the Anglican Church or the Church of England, and if we both agree that the current institution essentially isn't fit for purpose, shouldn't Somebody just say this is the new reconstituted Church of England and go from there?
I mean, there's nothing stopping... I mean, in America, people start new churches all the time.
I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing that.
I mean, I guess it would lack the legitimacy, but I mean, I would say that the existing churches have kind of forfeited that legitimacy.
Yeah.
No, I agree entirely.
That's why I've taken to reusing, instead of Anglican, the old English word, Anglican, you know, Anglican, C-Y-N-N.
It does seem to me that, yeah, you're going to need to have people, Anglo-Saxon people, trying to Reformation of the Reformation.
Yeah, yeah.
transnational network of people who want or could possibly act
as a seedbed for a kind of a. What could you call it? An Anglican Reformation or something? Because that's
clearly what is required.
Reformation of the Reformation. Yeah, yeah, and obviously you
know that this is where the idea of royalty and kingship becomes
important too, because if you could get a kind of a kind of interaction between, you know, a king and that sort of Anglican
network, a whole lot of things might become possible, which is
why I do wonder whether if It wouldn't be a good thing if the Anglosphere, you know, went crazy and went Republican, because then you might be able to get a royal head of the church that could spark a kind of
A reformation in the Anglo-Saxon identity or something, because there's got to be a way in which the Anglo-Saxon tribes, if you like, could play, recapture a leadership role throughout the Anglosphere.
That could at least match, if not overcome, Jewish hegemony.
Well, you also you also talk about the African American lobbies and in America, the number of other ethnic lobbies.
I mean, it is a question of different.
I mean, as you point out, quoting, I think, Hannah Arendt, right, that Essentially, the model of America at this point is you have different ethnic lobbies, each asserting their own interests.
It's not simply Jews running the show.
It's a question of all these other groups have their own lobbies, except for the Anglo-Saxons.
Yes.
Yeah.
Now, there's a couple of things that I want to get into just because I think this I find particularly interesting.
And just a little background on me.
For a long time, when I was working in the conservative movement, I worked for an evangelical Christian news company, and one of the books that was put out, and I guess really all the books that this company put out, they were really hard against the idea of supersessionalism.
For those of you out there who aren't familiar with kind of the evangelical subculture, supersessionalism is the idea that the biblical promises made to Israel as a people by God in the Old Testament essentially were negated or passed to the church, or that the church became essentially the new chosen people.
You would see a lot of pushback against this because, no, actually the promises made to these people as a people, as a nation, are still going to be fulfilled as part of the divine plan.
And you get into some of the theological concepts here where, not to be presumptuous, but it kind of seems like It's almost like the Anglo-Saxons, but really all people, depending on how they interact with faith, it's almost like they have a sort of sacred tradition.
Not a Bible, that would be pretty blasphemous, but a certain tradition, a certain literature, a certain history for their own people going forward.
So if the Bible is, as you contend, the story of one nation, there's no reason That the history of the Anglo-Saxons, including the history of all the great warrior kings, and I mean, even some of the basic histories that British schoolchildren were reading not too long ago, even things like the legends of King Arthur or whatever else, would be part of a sacred tradition, and that this is something that could be reawakened now, today.
Because it seems like what's really missing most, especially among Anglo-Saxons, I mean, you're the one who's studied theology quite a bit and has gone to school for it and everything else.
kind of exist, but the individualism has sort of, the individualism that allowed them to create
high-trust societies have now become counterproductive because it's destroyed them as a group. I mean,
you're the one who's studied theology quite a bit and has gone to school for it and everything else,
I'm very much an amateur in that regard, but am I misstating the position there, or is that about
No, that's exactly how I see it, too.
I mean, and the problem is that, what can you say?
Most churches have a vested interest in not rocking the boat.
And for that reason, I mean, it's just a dogma, right, in Protestant, I suppose, as well as Catholic Christianity, that we are waiting for the parousia, the second coming of Christ, and so on.
But, I mean, Well, that's another thing.
There's the argument that all the short-term prophecies were basically, that Christ himself made, were basically fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.
Yes, yes.
And that's why, one of the reasons why, it's possible to imagine a church, an Anglican That actually has its own Bible that recounts the spiritual history and failures of the quote-unquote Anglican people.
I mean, why can't there be an Anglo-Saxon Bible?
Don't we have doesn't the doesn't the Anglo-Saxon people have a history of its own and a spiritual identity of its
own and you know its own devils and mystique?
You know, there's a story there that is equally spiritual, and it should be equal.
I mean, why can there not be an Anglo-Saxon sacred history?
And until Well, to some extent, there already was one.
I mean, to some extent, they had one.
It's almost been relinquished in the Book of Common Prayer and the writings of the saints and everything else.
I mean, it's not a question of some guy sitting down and having to write this.
I mean, it's a question of rediscovering things that everybody knew about till fairly recently.
Although then, you know, the problem is... You might have to reframe it a different way, as like a cohesive story, but I mean, you're not...
You're not like literally making something up.
I mean, you're going to a well of tradition that was held to be very important until very recently.
Sure.
But it was, you know, like a either a Catholic tradition, you know, the Anglo Catholics.
I mean, you see the Norman conquest as a complete disaster, right?
Well, I mean, not much we can do about it now.
But the Anglo-Saxons recovered from it, let's put it that way.
But one of the things is, I mean, one of the leftovers is that the kind of seabed of an independent, what could you say, Anglo-Saxon Christianity was destroyed by of the Norman Conquest, that's for sure, and the Reformation
didn't really overcome that. It just made, you know it replace, you know, it became a creedal religion, you know.
I see what you're saying, as opposed to as opposed to something that's rooted in the life of a people in
tradition, it's essentially a dogma, right?
Yeah.
And in the 19th century, people like John Seely, a famous historian at that time, was a part of the broad church movement, making just the argument I'm making now that the English people and their, you know, What could you say?
Co-ethnics in the Dominions needed to have their own Bible, their own sacred text.
And that's why it's important to not relinquish the monarchy and the idea of kingship.
Because there is something, I mean, even as we saw Uh, with the funeral of the Queen, you know, like it's important that they, that took place in Westminster Abbey for all the faults and flaws of the modern Church of England.
It does anchor the monarchy in the spiritual world.
Yeah.
Um, and unless we can recover that, uh, for, Oh, at the sake of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, uh, we're, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, we're lost.
Well, let me, uh, a couple of things.
I mean, I'm, I'm trying to give you the, uh, the argument here and, and, and push the ideas.
Uh, now I'm going to push back a little bit because I, for one, I'm not a, uh, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
Um, I guess my my question would be a lot of the ideas you talk about about things that people could do now I think are very interesting and attractive and there's more that could be said about them.
A lot of them are not.
are fairly straightforward and don't need to be fantastic.
I mean, there are things people should be doing.
And there's also smaller things people could be doing that aren't mentioned in the book, you know, homeschooling, setting up groups in their own communities, that kind of thing.
But, you know, we've already been kind of talking about that.
But the idea of the Anglo-Saxons as a people, if At least in America, and maybe it's just as a function because we did break away from the monarchy.
And although there's certainly the cultural tie there, and I think a lot of people, like nobody in America cares about any royal family other than the British royal family, for example, at least unless you're direct descendant of another European nation.
But this idea of The Anglo-Saxons as separate from whites, I would argue that historically, whites have been at their best and at their highest at times of unity.
I mean, obviously one of the great examples, if we're going to talk about it in a Christian context, would be the Crusades, where it was not a question of, I mean, certainly King Richard, Lionheart, and certainly there were a lot of Great English warriors who went forward, but I mean, it was Europe as a whole.
And even if you want to go beyond christen them, I would say that although racial identity people, you certainly recognize biological differences.
You could argue that whiteness as such was not really recognized, but the idea of the West as a unity, I would argue.
Could at least be traced to the Roman Empire, and probably before, depending on how far back you want to get and which mythos you want to get into.
Why couldn't the idea of a sacred—I don't want to say Bible, because if we're talking about beliefs and what is literally inspired by God or the exact words of God, depending on your beliefs—but why couldn't there be a sacred tradition for whites as a whole?
The arguments that you're making, I think, are very true.
They could be true if the Church of England decided to operate in this way.
But I think white identity is more relevant to people in America, at least, than trying to carve out a separate Anglo-Saxon identity.
Am I just wrong about that?
I mean, again, I can see...
I don't think the two positions are necessarily incompatible.
No, they're not.
Because like, to use my analogy from earlier, I mean, an army can be based on a regimental structure which is based upon different regions or different ethnicities.
I mean, you have Scottish regiments in the British Army.
Does that weaken it?
Or strengthen it.
Certainly strengthened it if you look at their battlefield records.
Well, we're in a kind of a war here, right?
And it's just like a family, right?
Do you want to have primitive communism where children are brought up by people other than their parents so we can all be just white people together?
Or do we, is it, is it somehow, uh, does it weaken the white race to have a family structure where you've got the Smiths and the Jones and the Dubois or whatever?
You know, like I, I, I, it seems to me if you can, if you can get the, like, let, let's put it this way.
If you can't get Oh, let's say your typical wasp.
What is he more likely to identify as?
A white person matching up with all the non-whites or an Anglo-Saxon?
It seems to me what it would mean like personally, I mean, I don't have anything against the recognizing that there are white people and we all have something in common.
That we need to defend, but I do think it's important to maintain and strengthen the identity of my family and my extended family of Anglo-Saxons here in Australia and get them to see that they have something in common with Anglo-Saxons in New Zealand and Canada, and especially In the United States.
I mean, it seems to me us Anglo-Saxons outside the USA really need American wasps to have a sense of identity, a sense of Anglo-Saxon identity.
I mean, the Irish do.
The Italians do.
Even the Germans do!
Speaking for the Italians, yeah, we do.
The Germans, interestingly enough, there was actually a very strong German-American subculture, but it was essentially broken up by force by the government during World War I, and it essentially never recovered.
They essentially destroyed that subculture, except in the kind of, you know, kind of Pointless touristy sense of, oh, look, here's a German restaurant, but you didn't have like the German language newspapers and all that kind of thing.
One thing, one note though, and this was something that I think was extremely important, is you point out that for Churchill, of course, again, being one of the people who really screwed this up, there was a sense of shared kinship because after all, The Angles were fundamentally a Germanic people and the ties between Britain and Germany and the idea of an alliance between these powers was held to be very important by quite a number of people in the UK.
And also the United States, although I think they were, we were more looking to the UK to set the lead there, but The idea that the United States would side with the UK in World War I was not necessarily set in stone.
There were a couple near-conflicts in the late 19th century.
But there were still, among American leaders, there was definitely a very strong—I mean, it sounds almost bizarre, frankly, talking now about the Anglo-Saxon identity.
of American leaders, but it was very straightforward.
Even people who were not totally Anglo-Saxon, Theodore Roosevelt, for example, talked about it quite a bit.
And it was definitely one of the leading forces behind not just Manifest Destiny, but also between early American imperialism, where it was defended explicitly on the grounds that this is an Anglo-Saxon country, and the immigration cutoff was also Defend it on those grounds All that said I mean I do think while not relinquishing the ideas of a specific identity or certainly specific institutions What could have been in terms of a German?
British partnership and the two great what I would call the two great Western Civil Wars that were fought and may Certainly has set us back quite a bit as far as what we could be accomplishing today does suggest the danger of not having a white identity that is held at least somewhat above a specific identity because we can point to times when having specific identities did weaken us because if we look at
The imperialist rivalries of, say, World War I, when you look at what Europe was after that war, after the Great War, which arguably the more destructive war, I mean, it all seems kind of pointless.
Whereas if there had been more of a civilizational racial consciousness, we may have been better off.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, I mean, my answer to that would be, I mean, World War I and so on.
It would be that you're talking about the British imperial ruling class that chose to stick its nose into a continental quarrel and the result was a disaster.
They had no business I mean, and it certainly wasn't, didn't do anything for the British people even when they were overseas.
No, it certainly didn't.
No.
I mean, if you look at one of the, one of the things that always gets me is when they say, oh, the rich never fight the wars, the poor always bear the biggest burden.
If you look at World War I, that's completely not true.
I mean, the aristocracy was gutted by World War I and they bore the biggest burden and arguably never recovered.
But I think that what I really enjoyed most about this was a model of advancing identity, purpose, a spiritual basis, and all of this being done in a way where you're not dependent on electoral politics, and you're not dependent on, as I think you very powerfully described it, I mean, these kind of colorless, identity-less republics and states that They don't even exist as legal entities anymore.
To be a citizen of America, as you say, what does that even mean now?
And unfortunately, that's true of most of the other Anglo-Saxon countries, but if it's rooted in something deeper, it'll mean something again.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I mean, just on that point, I mean, that's one of the problems of the American Republic, isn't it?
Federal Republic, you know, it was state citizenship that counted.
You were a citizen of South Carolina, or you were a citizen of Massachusetts, and that meant something.
And that was all destroyed.
And it seems to me that that model, if you like, is infinitely preferable to the model that emerged after The Civil War, when I, you know, that those state identities were merged into this single identity.
And yes, and then I suppose the concept of whiteness became more important at the same time as Negroes were given citizenship and the right to vote.
How did that turn out?
Well, certainly after the 1965 Immigration Act, you could argue that whatever the old republic was and whatever the country is now are two totally different things.
Yeah, that's right.
And as you've pointed out many times, I mean, well, I mean, from your point of view, white people are essentially stateless now and certainly Anglo-Saxons are.
And so in that situation where neither whites generally or wasps in particular can find, can attach their identity to the American or the Canadian or the Australian state, isn't it better In terms of our collective, what could you say, racial power and authority to have, as far as possible, different European ethnicities trying to reconstitute themselves in every country throughout the Anglosphere.
And then, I mean, I don't have anything against the Irish.
Or the Italians or the Germans or the Croatians trying to have their own clubs and collective life and valuing their own histories and homelands.
I mean, why should Anglo-Saxon Protestants be expected to just melt into this undifferentiated white mass?
Which isn't actually undifferentiated, because if you're an Anglo-Saxon, you learn very early in life, growing up in Canada, for example, that the French don't think of themselves as fellow whites.
They think of themselves as a separate nation with its own interests, and Les Maudit Anglais can get stopped.
You know, I mean, they're simply there to be, you know, to mooch.
Oh, I mean, sorry to be, you know, a bit heated about it, but like, it's one of the reasons I left Canada, you know, that endless struggle between, pointless struggle between the French and the English and the French.
Never getting it together, actually, to declare independence.
That would be the best thing that could ever happen to Canada.
They almost did.
I mean, in the famous referendum where they only lost by a little bit, and the one independence leader, I forget the name, but the famous quote was, we lost because of money and the ethnic vote.
Yeah.
Right, right.
Well, I think that the thing that I really enjoyed about this, and what I want our readers to take away from, is the idea that in an age of deracination and rootlessness, and an age where nothing seems permanent, we do need to appeal to archaic and eternal symbols and institutions, reclaim them as best we can.
If we can't reclaim them, reconstitute them.
and stake our own claims to legitimacy, but this does not conflict with some of the postmodern methods of organizing that you lay out here, including things that people can do as groups, as families, as churches, as communities, and ultimately as a reconstituted people.
So, I want to thank you, Drew, and thank you for being on Left, Right, and White, and God Save the King!
Thank you.
It was fun.
All right.
Thanks for inviting me.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us.
And thank you to all our listeners.
▲
Export Selection