All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2025 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
48:12
STRATEGY SESSION: Global Empire or American Republic w/ Darren Beattie

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Poso Daily Brief.
It is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash Poso.
Sign up today.
It's called the Poso Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
humanevents.com slash Poso.
Totally free.
the Pozo Daily Brief.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
Christ is king!
Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective, a new world order, can emerge.
A new era.
We have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a new world order.
Thank you so much for joining us!
Now, you are the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, alright?
Yes, sir.
You guys toy with countries of the world like, well, like toys, don't you?
You're like the Illuminati, you're the Masons, you control everything, don't you?
That's the wrap on you guys.
What's so interesting now, though, is who's on the chessboard.
The toys, if you will, are a lot more than states.
I am a firm believer, and it's not a popular position to take.
Everybody thinks we've been there 17 years, we need to get out kind of thing.
That's not the way I look at it.
I think we have to be present in that part of the world.
We all talk about a new world order.
I believe the process of globalization is here to stay.
A new world order A new set of challenges is confronting us, both domestically and abroad.
The historic role in trying to make sure that there is, after all, a new world order.
And the phenomenal opportunities before us to create a real new world order.
This criminal government cartel doesn't recognize borders, but believes in global governance and rule by corporations.
We will never surrender America's sovereignty To an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.
America is governed by Americans.
We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.
Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty, not just from global governments, But also from other new forms of coercion and domination.
Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived.
Jack Posobiec back here, Human Events Daily.
Strategy Session, Global Empire or American Republic?
You hear President Trump in that missive, which he delivered all the way back in 2016 in April, that idea about a fight between nation states or globalism.
And in many ways, In an economic sense, in a security sense, in a demographic sense, and a social sense, that is what the America First movement is all about.
We are joined today for this strategy session in the full hour by Darren B. of Revolver News.
The professor.
Darren, how are you?
Doing great.
Great to be with you and a belated happy birthday.
My understanding is you had a birthday recently, so very happy birthday.
Thanks, man.
I appreciate that.
And love the guitar there in the background.
So the next...
I've got my fretless bass acoustic, which is off the side here.
And we'll have to jam out at some point.
We're going to have to do an X. I've encouraged Elon to do, through X, a tiny desk.
I think that could be a huge hit.
Like that's actually, that could be something huge.
I want to do that.
NPR, it's like the one thing that NPR does well, but X could do it even better.
Everything has to be defunded at NPR except for Tiny Desk.
The Tiny Desk concert is the only thing allowed.
We will allow this, but we'll have a strict controls over who's allowed to perform.
Darren, two minutes before the break, or really just one and a half, This is the essential question, isn't it?
And we're going to delve into this.
Empire versus Republic.
And so, how should we think of this?
Well, again, I'm glad we have a full hour because there are so many different aspects to it.
You know, we have to clarify what these terms mean.
I think we can all agree that in practice, in reality, ever since maybe the Spanish-American War, certainly after World War II, America has been...
What I think most people would call an empire.
Empire has gotten bad connotations.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I coined this phrase, globalist American empire, which absolutely was meant to have poor connotations.
But I think maybe the question At least on my mind, is not whether we can sort of retreat from the world to the extent that we're some kind of, you know, republic in the sense of, you know, when people think of republican traditions, they think of like Geneva or, you know, Sparta or these kinds of, you know, city, state models.
Let's hold off there.
We'll go to our network, go to our break, but let's get into all of these things.
Define the terms.
What is America?
When did the shift happen?
And what can we do about it?
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
Today, you know, they talk about influences.
These are influences and they're friends of mine, Jack Posobiec.
Where's Jack?
Jack?
He's done a great job.
All right, Jack Posobiec back live, Human Events Daily, the global strategy session, Empire or Republic?
We're on with the professor, Darren Beattie himself.
So Darren, let's do that.
Let's define some of these terms that we're talking about.
Of course, President Trump refers to it as a nation state.
And I think this is useful for us in a sense as well, because when when typically a lot of people will talk about and you hear this on, you know, kind of the right, the conservative side a lot, they say, well, you know, we're a republic.
We're not a democracy.
We're a republic.
We're a republic.
But, you know, it also kind of rings hollow a little bit in the sense that when you turn on the TV and you listen to the folks in government, some of whom, many of whom are on the Republican side even, It seems like the interests and the things animating them bear little relation to the people of this country.
And so when I say republic, one of the things that I really mean is a republic in the sense that we should be a nation state beholden to the people of that nation state, and that's all.
Versus the global empire, which, or the global American empire, globalist American empire, which is probably a more apt term for the government under which we currently live.
So let's give that definition of each up front.
Yes.
I mean, etymologically speaking, my understanding is that republic and democracy basically mean the same thing.
They just have very different connotations because democracy is obviously Greek.
Republic is Latin, and through a variety of factors through history, they've acquired different connotations.
I think in the context of American kind of politically charged discourse, I know a lot of people will say like, oh, we're not a democracy, we're a republic, meaning to invoke more of the imagery of The Founding Fathers' notion of a constitutional republic.
Maybe some checks on the tyranny of the majority or mob rule or some of the negative connotations associated with the term democracy.
And similarly with empire.
Empire, I think, for the most part has a negative connotation.
It also has Historical antecedent, most people will think of the Roman Empire as the model for the imperial typology or maybe the British Empire.
And so obviously there are some critical differences, but in the sense of is America always going to be a country with Kind of global commitments of global reach, global power, global entanglements to some degree even.
I think that is simply baked into the cake of what we are, and I think some would argue with some justification, say that this is always part of the destiny of America as a kind of commercial republic, kind of a combination of a commercial republic with this Pioneer spirit or manifest destiny spirit.
Those two things together seem to lead to a more kind of global presence.
I guess my one sort of contrarian position on that is I think that exists in contradistinction.
To other political entities that are often, again, as a pejorative, said, oh, they want to take over the world, they want to reach over the world.
I don't, for instance, think that's particularly the case with China.
I think they're very severe.
Competitive domain with China and the area of the economy and so forth, but there isn't that kind of natural expansionist tendency that you've seen in the Anglo-American tradition, and there's not this kind of Ideology, an ideology of universal appeal that attaches to it.
Chinese, and you know this very well, because you've been there, you speak the language, you understand the culture, are in many ways an ethnocentric people, but by extension, there's an almost insularity that goes with that.
And this sense that, okay, we're the Chinese, this is the kingdom that matters, this is the place that matters, but there's nothing about And by the way, in fact, in the Mandarin, just to throw in, is that Zhongguo, which they refer to China as, literally means the central kingdom.
They don't have a separate word, you know, getting into etymologies, you know, res publica or the res public.
It just means the public thing, the thing of the people, which is The Latin, very similar to the Greek for demos kratos.
So you're right, you know, we make these distinctions, but really etymologically speaking, it's pretty the same.
Whereas in China, the etymology is we are the central kingdom.
And when you look, of course, in Asian history, they certainly were the central kingdom of Asia.
They were the top dog.
And it also speaks to their mentality that they want China to be number one.
They want it to be number one, but I don't think there's an inherently expansionist sense to the Chinese presence in the world in the way that there is to the Anglo-American style.
Think simply of the fact of the English language.
You know, I've put out A major piece a while ago at Revolver.News that was also kind of contrarian with respect to a lot of things people might see on, for instance, Zero Hedge or something like that.
Basically saying that the US dollar is king and the US dollar's status as reserve currency, global reserve currency, is much more secure than I think a lot of people Might think, and there are a variety of reasons for that, but what's still more secure than the reserve currency status is the lingua franca status of the English language.
So there are so many things that are Kind of global that are in many ways attached, some uniquely and some not, to America and just the nature of the American presence in the world that I think there is something that is genuinely imperial about it.
So I think it's important, I guess, to divorce the negative kind of political connotations of words to what might actually be a more objectively accurate reference to these words, because in a politically charged conversation, Empire just means a bad thing.
Republic typically means a good thing.
And democracy can vary depending on who is saying it.
It's almost become a word ravaged by the regime commissars who have used democracy in the most cynical context in order to say it's democracy when we screw over the American people.
And anything that's an attack on their illegitimate authority is in their presentation attack on democracy.
But what I'm getting at here is to what I think the central question is...
And by the way, by the way, can I add to that real quick that the word empire, you can find instances, I believe, where Teddy Roosevelt would use the word empire to expand the American empire.
And he certainly was a huge part of this, where he didn't necessarily view that term, certainly didn't view the term negatively, and also viewed it as something that was absolutely within the remit of America's manifest destiny,
and certainly didn't believe, obviously his adventures in Cuba are quite well known, But he was, and in the Spanish-American War that you just mentioned, but he was someone who believed that Manifest Destiny didn't necessarily end at the borders, at the contiguous borders.
And to wit, at that time of the year, of the turn of the century, the turn of the previous century, we lived in a world of empires.
America was born in a world of empires.
I always tell this to people, and they can never believe me, that On the North American continent, when the Declaration of Independence was written, think of it, you had the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, and yes, even the Russian Empire were all on the North American continent at that point.
We lived in a world of empires.
So no, the founding fathers and even all the way through Teddy Roosevelt didn't necessarily think that an empire was a bad thing.
That was just the thing.
Right.
And so I think, again, in the politically charged context, empire just means something bad.
Democracy can vary.
Republic is something good.
But I think really driving at the substance of what's relevant when we say, well, will America be an empire or a nation state or this or that?
Will America be the kind of empire that will the victories of the empire be the victories of the American people?
I think that was a critical line in Trump's first inaugural, which I still think is by far The best speech that he ever delivered, his first inaugural address.
And there was a line there, something to the effect of their victories.
And by saying there, he's speaking to the entire audience, which consisted of all the people who've run the United States into the ground.
I said their victories are not our victories.
So I think the critical question is, can the victories of the American Empire once again also become the victories of the American people?
The hegemony of the empire become more in alignment with the thriving and flourishing of the American people with a good standard of living and all the things that you would expect to come with that.
That alignment, I think, is the critical question and what we should mean when we say America first.
And I think that's amazing.
And by the way, a true empire would obviously exist for the benefit of the citizens of that empire.
And unfortunately, in the globalist American empire, it does not.
And so I'm glad that we talked about the definitions, because moving forward, we're going to talk about what is going on with the GAE. Stay tuned, we'll be right back.
Human Events Daily, the Global Strategy Session.
When I'm working long hours, I'm always listening to Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back at Human Events Daily, the global strategy session, globalist American empire or American republic.
So when we look at the world and we look at America's role in the world and we ask ourselves sometimes, you know, why do we have troops in Syria?
Why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine?
Why is it?
That the United States Navy is so aggressively patrolling in waters that are tens of thousands of miles away from our coastline in places like the South China Sea and the Japanese Senkakus and the Diaoyu Islands and all of the different island chains around the Pacific.
And we ask ourselves, of what direct benefit is this to the people of the nation?
And certainly trade is something that is of benefit to the nation, but some of these other issues seem to be quite a bit far.
And so, Darren, I suppose the question that I have here is, in the globalist American empire, these It's simply because the interests of the empire are disconnected from the interests of the people.
And as President Trump said right there, and we need to understand, and I think that I've learned and we've all learned, that the government under which we live, for the most part, you know, I'm talking about the government prior to President Trump's return to office,
his triumphant return, that the interests represented in Washington, D.C. are the interests of that Right, right.
I'd like to further elaborate on what I meant before the break when I emphasized this critical point of their victories are not our victories, because this really is, I think, the central metric By which we can judge the normative success of the empire from sort of America first standpoint.
Now, again, this is something that is connected to my piece on the US dollar as reserve currency.
And I thought, you know, it's far more stable than people imagine.
And I think there's this intuitive tendency where people would You go online, they would scroll X, they would go to YouTube or wherever, TikTok now, and they would see these infamous clips of people just drugged out on the street in Philadelphia or people crapping on the street in San Francisco and all of these things and just see the state of degradation of our once great cities
in the United States and they'd say, My God, you know, America is really going down the tube.
Any day now, you know, Chinese are going to take over everything, or, you know, you name it.
Maybe you're Russians, but not so much anymore.
People don't use that.
But they're saying, America is just going down the toilet completely.
We're not going to be a superpower anymore.
And I sympathize with that sentiment and intuition.
But I think it's important to point out that the...
Criteria and the factors relevant to securing basically American hegemony globally, geopolitically and economically.
They're far more divorced from the most observable and relevant metrics of standard of living that we see right in front of us in our cities.
People think that those are more directly connected than they are, such that when they see the filth and degradation in San Francisco or Philadelphia or name your city, They conclude things, you know, America can't hold on as the number one superpower anymore,
when in fact The things that are responsible for America being the superpower in terms of energy dominance, Wall Street dominance, military-industrial complex, U.S. dollar supremacy, these factors are much farther removed from those standard of living factors that people imagine.
And so I think what's critical, again, is bringing those two things into better alignment.
And by extension, A lot of our conversations about geopolitics now I think are informed by this sense of You know, exposing the cynicism behind various geopolitical maneuvers,
for instance, saying, oh, look, the issue in Syria, Obama wanted regime change in Syria, it was about a pipeline, or Russia's doing this, it was about a pipeline, it was about Gazprom, and that accounts for, you know, the energy politics is behind a big part of the color revolution, a big part of that Atlanticist faction of the national security state that we've reported and talked about.
And yes, of course, there's truth to that, but I would reframe it into say, if only you could break down all of our foreign policy decisions in such cynical terms.
So it's like two layers here.
For one, people saying, oh, this foreign policy decision is just to benefit some sector of the American economy.
Again, if only.
Kind of related to what Trump was saying about Iraq.
It's like, we did the whole thing in Iraq and we didn't even get the oil.
It's like, the cynical interpretation would actually be superior to what actually is driving and motivating force to a lot of our geopolitical decisions.
It would be better To go into Iraq with the purpose of at least getting the oil and enhancing our energy dominance than going into Iraq based on some idealistic fantasy of spreading democracy, for instance.
So the cynical kind of material explanation would be preferable to the more sort of ideologically motivated.
But then the second step is we need to make sure that If something's benefiting the energy sector, for instance, that translates into an actual benefit for the American people.
So it's a double layer there.
And where we are now is in a stage where, yes, there's the cynical, oh, we're doing it for our own material benefit for these companies and whatnot, but there's a lot of the delusion mixed in with this that we need to totally eradicate.
A lot of the delusion, for instance, in Our dealings with Africa of having, you know, these human rights kind of, you know, but by that we mean sort of left-wing ideological agenda attached to our dealings in a way that's not the case for China.
So it's like this double layered thing.
We need to get rid of the ideology that has been responsible for our worst geopolitical blunders, including Iraq.
But then, once we make sure that our foreign policy decisions are actually made to the benefit of the American economy, American dominance, American power, we need to make sure that those things are actually correlated with the well-being and economic well-being of the American people and that it's not just the stock of the energy companies going up and they get to buy Another mansion somewhere,
but actually does redound to the benefit of what we more observably see as standard of living conditions for Americans.
So, I know that was a big mouthful, but I think that's really kind of the bird's eye conceptual framework with which we need to evaluate foreign policy and geopolitics.
Yeah, look, I mean, people will sit there and say to me all the time, and, you know, certainly as I came up sort of through the China circles, you know, you get the China hawks who say, oh, well, we have to go to war with them to teach those chi-coms a lesson.
And it's like, well, guess what?
You'd blow up the entire planet, and you'd just slaughter millions of Americans in the process of that destruction.
And then you get kind of the doves and, you know, and, oh, China's this, China's that.
But, you know, and we should work with them on climate change or some such thing.
But, you know, when it really when it really does come down to it and I'm just going to say it.
One thing I learned while living in China for two years was that Xi Jinping and the government of the Chinese people really does work in a sense, in a sense.
I'm not talking about the Uyghurs, I'm not talking about a variety of issues within China, but they have actually built up The basic standard of living for their people.
And there's no crime.
Hugely.
Hugely.
Crime that goes on when you look at a city.
And by the way, they did so with foreign direct investment from the West.
And I've obviously spent years talking about this.
And that's the reason Shanghai looks the way that it does since the 1990s when it was rice paddies on the other side of the Pudong River.
And is now, you know, one of the financial capitals of the world in Luchace.
And the, you know, you know, the idea that, you know, they're doing that and they're advancing as fast as possible.
And yeah, it's, you know, in many ways, they step over human rights and they'll, you know, tear up ancient villages and ancient towns.
And if you're in the way of the progress, you know, they just move you out.
There's no there's no eminent domain in their system.
They just they just remove you and Remove entire towns and entire cities, by the way, were completely flooded when they built the Three Gorges Dam and made this giant, the largest reservoir on Earth behind it.
And it's like, so what?
You know, we're progressing the country.
Of course, if anyone knows, one of the things probably I think that most people know about China is their penchant for these mega projects going all the way back to the Great Wall.
And so the idea being, though, is that most Chinese people, the average Chinese person, not talking about the, you know, the dissidents, but the average Chinese person that you meet when they say, yeah, I support the CCP and I support the government, it's because that person has seen their standard of living go up in their lifetime.
And they're not communist in the economic sense anymore.
It's because they want to show their people and have given their people this pathway to say, if you get to one of these cities, and it's hyper-competitive and hyper-capitalistic, if you get to one of these cities, and if you can make it up through the system, you can make untold amounts of money.
And obviously it flies in the face of everything Chairman Mao taught.
And they sort of use the communist pageantry and symbology as a sort of skin suit in a way that we see many things being used in the United States in similar fashion, but for different purposes.
But the point being is the life of the average person has gotten better.
And so I noticed that a lot of people in the China watcher world will refuse to just admit that basic fact and will refuse to admit that this is the number one reason why you don't see any massive rebellion against the central government, even with the restrictions of COVID, even with going through that situation.
And this is why, and you know, their culture tends towards collectivization and is certainly different from Western culture in a variety of reasons.
But this is why that you never see these widespread rebellions or, oh, they're about to fall and come apart, like some people have been saying for 20 years.
We'll be right back.
Human Events Daily, the global strategy session.
And Jack, where is Jack?
Yeah.
Where is Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys who should be getting Okay, Jack Subic back live.
The Global Strategy Session, Globalist American Empire or American Republic.
And we're on with the professor himself, Darren Beattie of Revolver News.
Darren, I just want to close off what I was saying there.
And so one of the things that I really learned in spending time in China was to say that You know, the Chinese government, they, sure, you can point to them, and we do quite frequently, talk about how they mistreatment of various parts of their society, but they really do do things that are in the interest of China.
They actually do think quite seriously and take very seriously how they want to progress their country.
They have these plans, they lay them out, and then they do them.
And when they look at global trade, that's exactly what they look at.
And you could say, well, they're exploiting American workers.
Of course they are!
And they're exploiting their own workers to achieve a comparative advantage.
Of course they are!
Because that is the most effective thing for them to do.
And oh, by the way, when you look at the way world affairs have gone since 2022, clearly China in many ways is simply benefiting by not getting involved in any of this nonsense that you see going on.
And but also not cutting themselves off with Russia.
So Russia has to come to them as sort of a lender of last resort type of situation.
And boom, there you go.
You have you have this BRICS block, which isn't necessarily, as Darren, you said, isn't about to overtake the United States in the Anglo-American sphere.
But it's certainly emergent as a as a as a real entity.
And so the biggest thing that I learned coming out of China is why is it that when I look at Washington, D.C. and I go throughout Washington, D.C., we spend so much time and everyone spends time obsessed with the well-being of people who don't live in our country And nothing about the people who do live here.
And none of these actions are done for the benefit of America.
They're done based on these various delusions that you outlined.
And so the biggest thing I guess I learned was, why can't we have a brand of healthy regard for our own country and our own actual interests?
Yeah, that's a great question.
And it's just an interesting mix of greed, corruption, and delusional, fanatical ideology in many cases that applies to the Middle East to some degree, it applies to Russia, and increasingly applies to China.
You know, the thing about China that you put so well is The Chinese government delivered a massive increase in standard of living.
In fact, they created thriving cities where 20, 30 years ago there was literally nothing.
And so it's an authoritarian system.
It's the worst surveillance state in the world outside, perhaps, of the UK, which might be on an even footing at this point.
But the thing is, the people get something out of that.
They have their liberties restricted, and they never really had liberties to begin with in their historical memory, so it's less of an injury even there.
But they get a lot of value for it.
They get material well-being.
They get increased standard of living.
Whereas the circumstance in the United States, as I've described, is really the worst of both worlds.
We have unprecedented encroachments on our liberty, but we still have filthy and dangerous streets.
At least it were our living is plummeting.
So it's this perverse combination of at least if you're going to restrict our liberties, have an incombinant increase in standard of living.
But no, we have the worst of both worlds.
That's really kind of the problem.
But then on the flip side of that, I would say the Chinese pragmatism, which has served them so well, as you put it, using the communist ideology as a skin suit.
China is no more communist than America is a liberal democracy at this point.
That's correct.
Do you know Deng Xiaoping's famous phrase on this?
When they asked him if China is still socialist, he responded, it doesn't matter if a cat is white or black.
It only matters if it catches mice.
Correct.
And that pragmatism has served China very well.
But it's also the ceiling.
And this gets back to what I was saying earlier.
China is utterly lacking in any kind of global appeal or global charisma.
And part of that is that nobody is really entranced or enchanted by Simple pragmatism.
And so in a way, the fact that America and the Anglo-American world is very much almost by necessity, by nature, driven by Ideologies of universal appeal driven by sort of cultural expression of universal appeal.
All of these things which happen to be poisoned very deeply.
But it is also the reason that America can exert influence on the world in the way that China never could.
I mean, Darren, when I... When I go, and I'm one of the last people, I guess, who actually looks at newsstands, and I look at the New York Times cover every morning, I look at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and then I'll look at those novels that they're put there, those dime store paperback novels, and it all seems to be, it's all about, it's either Russia or the Middle East, Russia or the Middle East, all day long.
If you're just some guy who's working a job out in Ohio or in southern Maine or any part of the United States, of what interest is that to you?
Of what direct interest is it to that story?
And you'll see these stories as well in local newspapers.
It's something where, you know, I don't know, maybe I have to take it up with the estate of Tom Clancy or I guess maybe like Jack Carr these days and some of these other novelists where it's like, you're right though.
It is these fanciful notions of universal appeal that really lead a lot of people down these paths.
So we are the heroes.
It's our job to save the world from itself.
It's our job to defend the world against these nefarious I don't know, cartoonish notions of the czar or the chairman is about to suddenly take over whatever.
And it's while we wallow in these fanciful notions, our own cities and our own infrastructure is Crumbling.
Literally, a bridge just collapsed in Baltimore Harbor, one of the biggest ports of the United States.
The federal government is bailing it out, and they might not even call it the Francis Scott Key Bridge anymore, on the site where the Star Spangled Banner itself was written.
And yet, nobody seems to put all of this together.
Yeah, I mean, infrastructure is obviously a big one, and that should frankly also be just a basic metric of success in governance.
It's another thing that China has done pretty well.
We have crumbling infrastructure.
Obviously, there are reasons for that.
Our infrastructure was built before China, so it's easier to build everything anew.
But still, the amount of money that we've dedicated to it and what we've gotten out of it is simply scandalous.
And so these are just the basic.
The basic things, but sometimes the basic things matter the most.
So we've had all of these curtailments of our liberties, and we don't even have, you know, working bridges.
We don't have working infrastructure in the way that we should.
But just going back to this point about, you know, peoples cannot ultimately change their natures.
We are what we are.
We are a certain way.
The Chinese are a certain way.
I think the Anglo-American spirit will always be animated by some degree of universal Universalism and universal appeal, which is why it's been so dominant and successful in many ways.
The problem is that universal ideology and message is so corrupted and poisonous.
And so the best case would be is if we can go and kind of Extract the poison from it and maintain the global charisma and appeal.
That puts us in a better position than even China, whose pragmatism, again, has served them well up to a point, but it prevents them from achieving that kind of level of global influence that the West has been able to attain.
And I think that's right.
And I think there is a and that would probably have to be the subject for another episode about the differences in the cultures, the differences in the civilizations that produces that.
But as we go out, and I want to get to our final segment here, let's close all this out and talk about how America can build itself and rebuild itself and rediscover itself next year.
Jack is a great guy.
He's written a fantastic book.
Everybody's talking about it.
Go get it.
And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event.
And we're going to turn it around and make our country great to get to you.
Amen.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we are back.
Final segment, Darren Beattie, the global strategy session.
So Darren, we've gone kind of all the way around the world.
We've gone from Philadelphia in 1776 to the Beijing Olympics, as it were, of 2008, which is really China's sort of...
Coming out party on the international stage.
And I would agree with you that while China has, and man, we're going to have to do a whole episode on why China has hit a ceiling and why other countries don't have that ceiling in other civilizations, or civilization states, as it were.
We are not China.
We are America.
Our culture is different.
Our demographics are different.
Our people are different.
Our history is different.
I don't believe that we have that same kind of ceiling.
And if we can get pragmatically the way forward, I'm just going to say the easiest way to put it is Take a look at what Elon Musk is doing.
Look at what he is promoting.
You don't have to agree with every single thing he says.
But the way he thinks of advancement and true progress, I feel, offers a true way ahead for so many of us on these issues.
Absolutely.
Both Elon and Donald Trump are sort of quintessential American success stories.
I think Trump is the most American expression of being you can ever think of that was instantiated in one person.
Musk, obviously, in some respects is a foreigner.
People, you know, kind of jokingly but accurately say African-American.
And I think in some ways these, you know, Africans like Elon and, you know, a lot of the PayPal crowd has some sort of provenance in Africa.
I think that makes sense because, again, these African outposts embody some of that Frontier spirit that has dulled a bit in the United States.
So I don't think it's simply accidental that a lot of these extremely successful entrepreneurs, like Elon Musk, have some kind of African connection as sort of the last frontier, as it were.
But in any case, these are two figures who would not Have been able to achieve their natural expression in any other context but that of the United States of America certainly could not have happened in China, but it couldn't have happened in Europe either.
Europe is almost equally antithetical to the full expression of this human type, and I think this is the most encouraging development we've seen in this country in a long time.
If any Configuration, if any kind of constellation or alignment could produce the conditions for American, not only just American supremacy, but for American flourishing of the American people, it's this combination of Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
So we'll have to see what happens.
There's a lot of work to be done, but I'm cautiously optimistic about the outcome.
No, I would be cautiously optimistic as well.
And I love the idea of thinking forward.
Our destiny should be the stars.
Our destiny should be this idea that America and our civilization can...
We hit the moon once, all right?
We just did.
Sorry, Alex Stein, we did.
And then we kind of stopped and we decided that rather than continue past the moon or to do anything else on the moon, we would get involved in Eurasia and then we would invade the Middle East and We would forget about Mars and we would forget about space exploration and we would just sort of give up.
And I think that's wrong and I think it's nearsighted.
And I think that the people who are against these things don't have that ultimate sense of vision and that ultimate sense of understanding the possibilities of what Could be.
And there are times when you don't know what could be.
You don't realize what could happen, but you do things anyway because you believe in a greater potentiality than simply the run-of-the-mill day-to-day.
I think that's always been the American spirit.
I think that if you look at the history of the 1960s, I think that that had a lot to do with taking that spirit away.
I think that the Cold War paid a huge legacy on America and both materially and psychologically that we're still dealing with.
And there's a lot of baggage of the Cold War Not necessarily trauma, but I'll call it baggage, because that's what it is, that we are still working through in our government.
You get these 40-year-old and 30-year-old Cold Warriors that didn't even go through the thing, and yet they're still fighting the Cold War.
It's like, guys, it is not the 1990s anymore.
It is certainly not the 1980s.
I want to bring the 80s back, but not all of it.
You know, just our final couple minutes, Darren Beattie, to you.
How would you sum it up?
Well, I agree, and I think one of the laudable aspects of Elon's approach to things is that he's thinking in the long term, not even necessarily the substance of his goals, but the fact that he's thinking of goals in the broader stretch in civilizational terms of saying, okay, My goal is to be a spacefaring people.
How do we set that up?
Is this consistent with the delusion or what he calls the woke mind virus and all of these things?
And he works from there.
He backwards engineers from the goal and he's thinking in long terms.
And that alone is somewhat Radical for people in the American economy, business people.
Most of the American economy and people in managerial positions at least, they're just thinking Until the next earnings report.
Or entrepreneurs are just thinking, oh, how do I build this up just to the degree that, you know, some bigger entity can acquire us?
You know, nobody's thinking really in those longer-term, you know, ambitious contexts.
And that's, again, that's something that's critical.
It's It's an advantage that the deep state has.
That's one of its defining features is that it can make long-term plans.
And so I think it's very encouraging to see Elon having this kind of long-term vision because I think that is critical for long-term success.
Long-term vision for America and for American success.
This is a global strategy session with Jack Posobiec and the professor Darren Beattie.
▲
Export Selection