This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit radixjournal.substack.comThough not originally on the agenda, how remiss would Richard and our guest, Academic Agent, be not to analyze yesterday's bizarre subterranean events, in which New York City’s Hasidim at Chabad’s 770 Headquarters unwittingly took part in an elaborate propaganda production that even Dr. Goebbels might have called “a bit much.”In the latter half, discussion of the Lubavitch movement and what their secret tunnels could have been used for gives way to theories of the mind. What causes autism, sociopathy, and psychopathy? Can someone be all three? And is that someone named Ron DeSantis? These topics, including the bicameral mind theory of Julian Jaynes, are considered at length in a wide-ranging and epic three hour Tuesday call!
But I wonder the degree to which the woke faction really is at serious loggerheads with the Zionist faction and the Jewish faction.
The Woke, they kind of have infiltrated the institutions, and I don't know.
I'll just throw it out there.
Maybe I'm on Team Woke at this point, because at the very least, I want the, like, let them fight, or, you know, like Blofeld and...
from Russia with love for their two Japanese fighting fish.
And he was like, "Uh, yes, you know, the USSR,
I'm in that mode of thinking.
And if anything, I'm on the side of the wokesters I am afraid to announce to the world.
One of the interesting things, Richard, is that the first time that I can remember the Zionist faction within American politics It's having to try to appeal to both sides,
right? And there's a question of, well, who are they appealing to?
And implicitly, it is the white population.
Because I don't, I mean, without being a...
I don't really think the other minority populations care about issues.
By which I mean, how can I put this?
I have never seen...
A black politician talk about, apart from like Thomas Sowell or something, who's not really a politician, but I've never seen a black spokesperson talk about normal politics.
I've only ever seen them talk about what would be described as black issues.
So it is very difficult to, I think, appeal to those people on issues that aren't that.
Because it is a very straightforward calculus.
Give me things in exchange for loyalty.
And so I get the impression that that population in general doesn't really care about this and is not going to, you know, they'll get on board if it's like, give us money for BLM or something.
They're not going to get on board for, you know, support our genocide or whatever.
So then it's like, well, okay, so you're appealing.
I've seen some very, very ham-fisted messaging from Israel trying to appeal to feminists and things like this.
I don't know if you've seen any of this.
They've gone heavy on the angle that Hamas was involved in mass rapes.
So they were trying to leverage Me Too.
I mean, it's really kind of almost comically inept messaging.
But they were clearly trying to get college-educated white women on the side.
Oh, they had Jewish women in yoga pants doing yoga while talking about Hamas.
I mean, yeah, it was a bit on the nose.
And then on the other side, there's a concerted kind of unspoken effort.
Well, it's not even that unspoken.
It's pretty explicit in this case.
Of getting, like, conservative activists like Chris Rufo and others basically on side with the promise of putting the woke away, right?
Mm-hmm.
Whereby, I mean, I even thought that even then, I thought they were a little bit underhanded in the way that, I mean, clearly they ousted the Harvard professor, Claudine Gay, right, from her post.
And then they let Rufo take the rap for it.
And now, if you have a look at the press, it's all about, oh, white supremacy did this.
Chris Rufo's white supremacy was responsible for deleting Claudine Gay.
And it's like, well, what happens if simultaneously both sides just have enough of it?
Because increasingly my feeling is, and I don't know if you noticed on Twitter that I've been attacking this in a somewhat different way from the usual.
You know, I think we've had 80 years now of people making very similar arguments.
You know, the E. Michael Jones arguments or some aspect of the Kevin MacDonald arguments, etc.
Where it's kind of granted.
They kind of grant them all these things, yes.
They're supremely intelligent.
Nobody doubts their talents and all this sort of stuff.
And I'm like, well, actually, I do.
I do doubt all of those things because I just look at the evidence in my own eyes, first of all.
And what I see is essentially a group that uses very low-class mafia tactics, basically.
Extortion, bribery, intimidation.
You know, I have never once seen an instance of any of these people have like a good faith debate or win it on the merits of the argument or, you know, unless it's like Ben Shapiro destroying a 12 year old or something like that.
What I have seen lots of evidence of is, you know, essentially the tactics of the mafia, which, you know, which is exactly what you saw with the.
I mean, we basically watched a Moscow show trial of the various professors.
It is what we saw with the Epstein case, which is blatantly just a kind of, you know, honeypot blackmail ring.
And it's what we see in American politics.
That is why, I mean, you know, you've got the absurd situation now of...
You know, South Africa has taken Israel to this international court for genocide.
And, you know, you've got U.S. spokesmen, like, there's not a single U.S. politician willing to say, yeah, maybe we should hear the case.
All of them out of hand say things like, oh, there's absolutely no marriage, there's no evidence to support this, it's disgraceful, all the rest of it.
Even to the point where I would say the American political establishment is more on board than many people within Israel, who basically have, you know, I think last I saw there were 700 people within Israel,
Jews, supporting the South Africa case, essentially.
Now, how is all that achieved?
Is it achieved by brilliant kind of brainwashing, you know, or is it just achieved by the fact that Lindsey Graham is paid off and, you know, is scared that he might get his knackers in a spanner, you know?
So I just wonder about how long you can keep something like that going indefinitely and whether we've reached a point where enough people within the system have basically had enough.
And one of the reasons I say that, Richard, is because I don't know if you're aware of Judge Napolitano.
Yes. Now, I've been watching his show on YouTube pretty obsessively since the Hamas conflict started.
And one of the most incredible things about that show, I mean, there's him himself, who was interviewed by Trump to go on the Supreme Court.
He ended up picking Kavanaugh.
But, you know, we're talking about somebody at that level, okay?
And then basically every single guest he has is somebody who's either worked officially for, you know, a White House administration or at the highest levels in the military or intelligence.
And I'm like, these guys are going out to hundreds of thousands of people every day, all day, every day, counter-signaling the American government, the war on Ukraine.
The stuff going on in Israel all day, every day, and it's not censored, it's just allowed to go out there.
How does this happen?
So I do think that there may be more to the kind of cue stuff that meets the eye.
You know what I mean?
There may be people within the American system who are doing their best to try to turn the ship around.
In whatever way.
And one aspect of it is exposing all this stuff.
Or they're kind of the disgruntled employee who went into it for good reason and they see how either immoral it is or just chaotic and stupid it is.
They just have a let it burn attitude.
I think that's also plausible.
Let me pick up on a couple of things here.
A couple of things I want to say.
First off, and this is something that I've really discovered through Mark's work, and I've integrated it so much into my mind that it...
I almost now, I'm kind of a hammer looking for a nail, I guess, to some degree.
But the scapegoating dynamic is so fundamental to Judaism.
It is explicated in their book.
It is their most important holiday.
Yom Kippur is a holiday about scapegoating.
And it's one for Azazel.
You push the goat out, you exile him to a demon god, or maybe he's the demon.
We don't quite know what it means.
And then you also bleed one out and burn it to a crisp.
One for Yahweh.
And if you have this dynamic going in your mind, I think if it's that embedded, if you've been reading this for years, if you celebrate a holiday about this, If you even engage in actual scapegoating rituals,
like one person who I interacted with briefly on a Twitter space was discovered to be sacrificing chickens and literally placing her sins into the chicken before it's slaughtered.
Just this literal reenactment of something.
If the scapegoating is that deeply embedded, you are going to just...
For Gentiles, I would definitely say for whites, but for Gentiles, whenever you use the word scapegoating, it has a real negative connotation.
It's like, oh, the coach actually did a good job, but he's getting scapegoated for that bad loss against State this year or something.
You know, we don't like it, actually.
It's not a pejorative within Judaism.
It is the very essence of the religion, in my opinion, the scapegoat.
And so, yeah, I agree.
Rufo probably loves the attention, but he's getting scapegoated for what is obviously Israeli action against someone who tolerated disclosures.
Discussion of Israel, including bold discussion of Israel, like from the river to the sea at Harvard.
She tolerated that.
She's being destroyed because of it.
And then they're kind of putting it on either Stefanik, the congresswoman.
Who was, you know, harsh in her interrogation of Claudine Gay, or they're putting on Chris Ruffo, the Catholic, Italian, conservative activist who, you know, bars no holds or whatever.
And it's really about them.
You know, just this weird, even, like, inner scapegoating of, I mean, if we assume that there is a more sinister...
Aspect to these tunnels, like the inner scapegoating of, oh, this extremist faction, the scapegoating of Joe Biden.
And I would say this really sincerely, in fact.
So there was a protest at a church, and this church happened to be the church where Dylann Roof shot a number of innocent people in pews.
I mean, you know, obviously, disgusting event.
And people got up and they did a really above-board protest.
And they said, we're not going to stand for genocide to Joe Biden's face.
And then they were asked to leave and they left.
So I thought that was a totally above-board way to protest.
And it was actually, in a way, respectful.
And Joe Biden, he seems almost trapped in this.
As you said, People in Israel and American Christians are more Zionists than the Zionists.
You have this man who controls a nuclear arsenal and billions of dollars that can be just printed by the Federal Reserve is all just at his disposal.
And he's basically saying, I hear you and listen.
I agree with you, in effect, and I'm working quietly to try to...
Calm down the Zionists from their genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.
You see a man, perhaps I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps I'm being charitable because I voted for the bastard, whatever.
But he's almost like this tragic figure who's trapped, and he can't stop them, and he sees it.
Very interesting, Richard, about the scapegoat dynamic.
I watch a show called, I don't know if you've ever come across this woman, her name is Caroline Glick.
I've never heard of her.
She is a hardcore Israeli nationalist, Zionist, right?
I think she's one of the few American settlers.
Does that make any sense?
Like, she's an American-Israeli settler, but she's hardcore, okay?
But she had a guest on called David Goldman recently, who wrote a phenomenal article basically saying that America is suffering a competency crisis and is basically throwing away its empire and etc.
Is this Spengler, that David Goldman?
I'll see if I can pull up the article.
I think it might be.
I mean, it was a really good article.
He's a very smart guy.
He wrote for the Asia Times back in the day.
Believe it or not, he wrote two articles for Takis Magazine that I commissioned.
The article is called...
Yeah, and it kind of really struck me by how smart it was.
Let's see if I can find that article now.
But then I kind of followed him because he did this show.
With Caroline Glick, which I listened to with interest.
And they were basically very disgruntled, the Israeli nationalists with America, right?
And one of the things that really struck me about the whole conversation was how candidly they were talking about the need for Israel to Find greater independence from America.
Basically, the argument in short was, here's the article.
It's called Israel in the Shadow of Decline.
It was for Asia Times, but it was also syndicated elsewhere.
I'll just drop it in the notes.
Just drop it in the notes.
Hold on.
Yeah, this must be Spengler.
Yeah, he's a very...
Intelligent guy.
I've read two of his books, but go on.
Yeah, I mean, and he was in person, too, on this show.
He was pretty strikingly intelligent as well, confounding my recent article on Jewish IQ.
But the basic tenor of this interview between Glick and Goldman was them basically saying, like, America is a shit show.
They're unreliable.
As allies and as friends now, partly due to the absolute decline in incompetence, partly because they're looking at what's happened in Ukraine, where they started a war they couldn't finish.
They built Zelensky up, and then they kind of lost interest over time.
And it was striking, though, because they were saying like, We need to be more friendly with the Russians and the Chinese.
We need to find a way of surviving in this post-American world.
And we need to be able to stand on our own two feet.
And I just thought it was interesting how quickly, what the contrast basically between the way they speak among themselves on an Israeli show.
And the discourse, for example, in Washington or from a Lindsey Graham or any of these kind of boomer ziocons who, I mean, I wonder if they're aware of that sort of material or if you showed it to them,
like, would they just take it on the chin or would they just be kind of laugh it off or would they be offended as kind of American patriots?
I think they're caught between two things.
Remember, I'm 45 years old, and so I graduated high school in 1997, and I graduated college in 2001.
So I've kind of seen it.
I haven't seen it all, but I've seen a lot, actually.
I can remember the Cold War period, and the way I've described it was...
I remember thinking when I was like, let's say eight years old or something, you know, you're just becoming conscious of stuff.
And I would think like, you know, I was in something.
Like I was protected because I was in freedom and I was out of communism and someone in communism was kind of there and they could escape maybe.
And it's how I saw it.
But I saw it as very reassuring, you know, like, thank God I'm an American, basically.
I can also remember the hyper-patriotism that occurred after 9 /11 at that stage of my life when I was an angry young man reading Hermann Hesse novels and Nietzsche and this kind of stuff.
I was just really, really turned off by it.
I just hated Bush.
I hated W. Bush, that is.
I hated the Iraq War.
I hated all this flag waving and flag pens and things like that.
But for boomer whites and most American whites, that was a time of total moralization and feelings of power and togetherness.
And I've also experienced this past seven to ten years of conservatives thinking in terms of declinism and like, this isn't our country anymore.
The people on top are evil.
And it's this weird flow and they go back and forth.
You know, Trump is...
Like, our revenge against these evil people who are in charge.
But then also, he made America great.
We are the greatest country.
It's just weird, I guess you could say, kind of schizo feelings about what America is.
And I think it's all occurring at the same time.
It's occurring within their same mind.
On one level, like...
You know, Israel is great and we've got to protect them and they're one with America.
We can do this because we've got the best patriots in charge.
And on the other hand, it's like we're led by pedophiles.
I mean, it's just it's both occurring at the same time.
And yeah, that's how I would think of it.
You know, it's interesting, Richard, that one thing I think you and I have in common is a kind of contrarian character, right?
I remember I was at university in 2000, you know, during the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair was the prime minister, and basically everybody in my college, I went to one of the colleges in the University of London,
Was off to the anti-war march in Iraq.
And they came, not in Iraq, in London.
I think it's still the biggest protest in London's history.
Over a million people went.
And they were giving out sandwiches to come and support the anti-war cause.
But me being such a contrarian, I...
We kind of rebelled against that.
You know, if everybody else is going to be against the wall, I'm going to be like, well, you know, I mean, I voted for Tony Blair.
That was my original sin.
And I kind of, I really got into, do you remember like Robert Kagan and Paradise of Power?
Oh, yeah.
I kind of convinced myself of like the neocon arguments and realpolitik and Machiavelli and all of that.
And I was pretty much like the only person who was kind of convinced myself that I would, you know, okay, I'm for the invasion.
Okay, it's not about democracy, but who cares about that?
You know, it's about like some other reason.
And I, over time, have had to kind of unlearn many of those things and almost end up where everybody else was 20 years ago.
So it's interesting that...
It just made me wonder, if you had been there, Richard, rather than in America, where everybody was rah-rah, would you have ended up being pro-war just due to natural contrarians?
That's true.
If my soul were plucked out of my body and placed in someone in Finland or something, just because I was surrounded by anti-war people, would I have just become a Bush fan?
Yeah, probably.
Sorry, I did a little bit off the beaten track, but things like that I wonder about.
And then it's kind of like, once you become aware of yourself, how can you then combat against yourself, you know?
Yeah. I've often joked that if the revolution actually happened and, you know, there was a base takeover, I would immediately be against the regime and find reasons to, I'd be like, immediately on the other side of it.
I mean, can you imagine how awful it would be if the Gripers took over or something?
Well, yes.
But if you, negativity, like, there's negativity for negativity's sake, and then there's negativity that is idealistic.
Because it's via criticism that you can actually move forward with something.
So I think negativity is extremely important and good.
And conservatives have this tendency to want to return to some period that's trapped in amber or in a glacier.
They want to go into this big iceberg that is the 1950s, or maybe even the pre-Reformation Catholic Europe.
1450s or so.
I don't know.
They want to go...
They wouldn't like the Renaissance either.
The 1050s?
They want to just go into this glacier where it remains the same forever.
And I don't know.
I just don't have that mentality.
I think you can only...
By saying something is wrong and by rejecting something, you're implying that there's something else that's better.
If you're simply engaged in negative whining, I agree that that is lame and it's just pure resentment.
But if you're engaged in idealistic negation, then you are actually moving things forward.
You know, we're Hegelians, basically.
You know, long story short.
Yeah, I'd go along with that.
Although I have been, a while back, about two years ago, I got caught up in a whole positive versus negative vision argument, where after being burnt, I made this video where I imagined a little town called Trumpton,
which is like a British kids show that was shown in the 60s, but like everybody lives in the village.
Green, essentially.
And, you know, there's a little, there's a baker and a candlestick maker and a butcher and everybody has a place in the village and there's a mayor that everybody looks up to.
And it's kind of like a, you know, a vision of the great chain of being is how I wanted to present it.
And I was like, well, okay, let's pretend this is something like what everybody wants, right?
Most people on the right.
Look at something like that and think it's wholesome and something to aspire towards.
There's a community.
People like each other.
There's hierarchy.
There's order.
There's high trust between all those people.
And then I was like, right, okay, so here are the things that we need to do to get to that place.
Step one, I need to take away your mobile phones.
And I had a full-scale revolt of everybody.
Everybody's like, you're basically Stalin.
You're basically creating North Korea here.
And I was like, right, okay, that's it.
Positive visions inherently cause problems.
So the only thing in the end everybody agrees on is that the elites now need to go.
So this is the argument I got into with people, which is that as soon as you get...
Because I agree with you.
I agree ultimately.
You need some sort of vision that you're working towards.
But as soon as you try to start articulating it, you get 101 splinters.
You're just asking for the Monty Python People's Front of Judea splinter effect.
So I was trying to think of a way of what could be a thing that everybody could get behind so everybody's on the same page.
That was two years ago.
After living through the past two years, I now think it just doesn't matter.
Just do what you want.
Who cares at the end of the day?
Because, you know, nobody is in a position to be...
How can I put this?
We understand the need for a vanguard and a counter-elite.
But the facts on the ground are that there's already, in my view, a counter-elite ready and set to go.
And they are not of a flavour that any of you would like.
They are essentially the Chris Rufos and Vivek Ramashwamis of this world.
And my view currently is that we need to let all of that play out and resolve one way or the other.
And just kind of bide our time, develop our ideas, remain on reasonably good terms until that time comes.
But not endorse the Chris Ruffos.
I think this is also this temptation that's always bothered me.
With the right wing where they're like, well, you know, a half lope is better than nothing, you know, kind of thing.
And I'm like, no, it's actually kind of worse.
Because they will steal your thunder as well.
I've been telling people, Richard, you're going to basically get the HR lady replaced with James Lindsay.
You know, like...
Basically forcing you to not engage with critical race theory and be colorblind and meritocratic while also learning about the Holocaust.
That's basically what it's going to be like.
Yeah. And that's not a solution.
I also don't think that that's sustainable.
You've been kind of joking about this, how fresh Frenchism is.
I would...
I would agree with you that that did work for a while.
And yeah, the lethal weapon buddy, you know, like Mel Gibson and Danny Glover working together and putting aside differences to solve the crime.
Like, I'm not going to deny that that isn't plausible on some level, and it's in a way been done.
But I don't...
Think that that is possible.
I think that's also kind of going backward to some glacially frozen period of like 1980 through 2001 where that did work.
And I don't think that that's possible.
But let me change the subject just a little bit because I know we're you're generous of your time, but we're running low.
But what I think you and I also agree that the midwits are in effect in charge.
I watched this movie on Netflix a couple of weeks ago that was produced by the Obamas.
It's called Leave the World Behind.
It's very interesting.
I thought there was a lot of symbolism and messaging going on in that film.
From an Obama perspective, which is pretty interesting.
But this character, who I think was a stand-in for Obama, who was the wealthy, educated, and in fact very thoughtful black man named G.H. George H.,
I think even the name was Hussain, George, first president, first black president, George Hussain.
Anyway, he was saying there's no one in charge at the end of the day.
You even meet these billionaires, and even they are running off to New Zealand to save their ass when the crisis comes.
And even they are kind of powerless vis-a-vis these bigger forces and the destruction of America.
So the horrible thing is not that Alex Jones is right.
It's that Alex Jones is wrong.
Say what you will about demon-worshipping pedophiles.
At least they have an ethos.
Sorry. To quote the Big Lombowski, say what you will about these evil Jews and cabal in charge of the government.
At least they would have a purpose and kind of maintain it.
The more horrifying vision is that we're actually led by midwits, or midwits have a great deal of power.
They're not evil.
And they're not really anything.
If anything, they kind of lean good.
They're like the Parks and Rec people.
They're kind of flawed and silly, but kind of good at the end.
If anything, they're that.
But they're not in charge.
No one's in charge.
And that's actually horrifying.
That you have all these people who dotted their I's and crossed their T's on their resumes while they were in college.
And they don't have a vision.
They're very good at going with the flow.
So if they were applying to college in 1995, they would have been like, well, we need to forget about race.
We need to be colorblind.
That's the real thing.
And if they applied for college in 2005, they would be like, we need to awaken to the reality of race and identity.
They just go with the flow.
There's no there there.
Benign on some level.
But they can't save us.
And the fact that we have a meritocratic system where you are rewarded for being a test taker, you're rewarded for, in a way, not being interesting.
Which is one aspect of meritocracy, I would suggest.
I don't know what they mean when they say meritocracy.
It almost seems like mediocrity is what they want.
And if you get into a sex scandal, you're canceled and thrown out.
If you dip into the till of the business or your government, you're arrested or humiliated or whatever.
And so you never...
It's all these means and not ends.
And all of that stuff, you got a little handsy with your secretary, you embezzled money, you did this, none of that matters at the end of the day.
And if you look back at world leaders, particularly great men and impactful people, they were horrible people, individuals.
And I don't even think that they...
It's a coincidence that they were horrible.
I think they very well might have been great because they were malignant narcissists.
And so we've reached this...
I guess my point is we've reached this point where the midwits are in charge and they're in a way doing their best and they might even kind of like...
Not go along with hyper-Zionism.
And they might even be our last defense against hyper-Zionism.
But even they can't really stop what's coming.
And they can't save us.
And they might even be scapegoated for what's coming.
But anyway, this is kind of my view of power and the managerial class in a nutshell.
What do you think?
One of the things that, when I was writing my last book, Prophets of Doom, this was a topic that kept on reoccurring because all of the cyclical theorists in their own way, and I also covered Carlisle in that book as well, who's famous for the great man of theory of history,
okay? But all of them in their own way wanted to recover a sense of the heroic, okay?
And one of the little discoveries I made writing that, I mean, it's not a new discovery in the world, just something that was unbeknownst to me and a lot of people, I imagine, before I wrote it.
There's an American writer called Brooks Adams, who was actually a grandson of John Quincy Adams, and he was related to the second president, John Adams, right?
And he wrote this book called The Law of Civilization and Decay.
Where, again, it was kind of Spengler before Spengler, kind of proto-Spengler book.
And one of the things that really surprised me is that Theodore Roosevelt was a massive fan of this book.
And when he was in office in New York before he became the president, he gave this really detailed review of Brooks Adams' Law of Civilization and Decay, which basically convinced him that he needs to grab the mantle of history.
He's not going to allow this to happen to America and is essentially going to become the great man.
And it kind of drove his...
He took Brooks Adams into his inner circle and he kind of became self-aware of himself in history.
And it's really interesting because Hitler also became aware of himself in history.
Famously went to bed with a copy of Carlisle's Frederick II next to his bed.
And met Spengler.
A lot of these people who became aware of cyclical history then kind of started to think of themselves in those terms.
What's really interesting to me is that liberalism, and I guess what you call managerial liberalism especially, really hates the great man, hates the idea of the hero, hates the notion of The kind of Odinic figure,
right? Part of the hatred of Trump is this.
Whether he is this person or not is up for debate, but they see him as that.
And the real antidote to the great man vision of history is actually Forrest Gump.
I mean, Forrest Gump, who basically floats like a feather and kind of wanders through.
And it's kind of everywhere, everyone but no one.
And this is the vision.
You have no agency, really.
And it's funny that, you know, I mentioned Tony Blair earlier on.
I remember all his speeches, all Tony Blair speeches.
His vision of history was basically that the future as he sees it is inevitable, okay?
But Blair, in the way that he speaks, always posits history like this massive steam train, right?
It's heading towards this destination at a million miles an hour.
And the only choice that we have to make as a country, Great Britain, do you get on the steam train or not?
And if you don't get on the steam train, you'll be left behind.
So in a strange way, Blair's vision of history takes all agency out of it.
By positing this inevitable future.
The future's already decided.
You just have to ensure that you're in the right place so that you're not in the left-behind category.
But then, ironically, he then spends all his time building a power structure to absolutely ensure it happens.
Ultimately, though, Richard, before I go...
I don't actually agree with the idea that nobody's in charge.
If we take Schmidt and Co.
seriously, or any of the theorists in the elite canon, there are always people in charge, right?
The belief that nobody's in charge, I think, comes from managerial pass-the-buck culture, right?
You keep on passing the buck, so ultimately you never take the rap for any decision.
But in reality, there is all Everything is run by human decisions.
There is a decision maker somewhere.
And if there was somebody with enough will and self-belief, they could make massive changes.
And in a strange way, we're seeing other quasi-Odynic figures, whether it's Elon Musk or...
I mean, in his own sick way, even Netanyahu has started to be a...
or Putin.
Like, these are...
These are people who are not buying into this idea that they're little particles floating along.
They're actually trying to grab history by the scruff of the neck and by force of will changing it.
